Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 21-01203748, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling
Defendant Coto de Caza Community Association's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment ROA 191
Defendant Coto de Caza Community Association’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
This motion is based on a total of 12 assertedly undisputed facts, six identified in the Association’s opening separate statement and six additional ones identified in Plaintiffs’ responsive separate statement. Despite its narrow scope, this motion has somehow generated 57 pages of evidentiary objections, 38 pages from Plaintiffs and 19 pages from the Association. Many, if not most, of these objections contain arguments that properly should be part of the parties’ motion papers. In the future, please limit objections to true evidentiary issues. All objections are OVERRULED.
The Court separately notes that the Association’s objections repeatedly make the same comment about the testimony of F. Scott Jackson: “Mr. Jackson’s interpretation . . . is simply laughable in its obvious ridiculousness.” This is improper. The preface to the Orange County Superior Court’s local rules directs parties and counsel to follow the OCBA’s civility guidelines. Those guidelines, in turn, direct counsel to “[a]void personal attacks [and] demeaning comments . . . in court.” The Association’s counsel is cautioned not to engage in such behavior in the future.
I. Factual Background
The Association conducted an election (administered by another defendant, Ballot Box) that resulted in the adoption of two amendments to the Association’s CC&Rs. Plaintiffs contend both amendments are facially invalid. They further contend the election was conducted in a manner that violated the Davis-Stirling Act’s procedural requirements. The Association seeks summary judgment on the sole ground that Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the amendments or the election. Accordingly, the particulars of the amendments and the election process are outside the scope of this motion.
As relevant here, the following facts are undisputed. Both Plaintiffs and the Association purport to dispute the other side’s facts, but none of these disputes actually disputes the facts asserted. Instead, they go to collateral issues like materiality or admissibility of evidence.
A. The Association’s Undisputed Facts
Plaintiffs own two parcels at Coto de Caza, designated as Lot 403 and Lot 415. (UMF 1.)
Article 1.08 of the Association’s CC&Rs define “Owner” as “the record owner, whether one (1) or more persons or entities, of the fee simple title to any Lot, excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation.” (UMF 2.) Article 1.04, in turn, defines “Lot” as “Lots 1 through 400, both inclusive, of the Property,” with the Property” defined at Article 1.03 as a specified tract in the Orange County property records. (UMFs 3-4.) Article 1.10 of the CC&Rs defines “Member” as “all those owners who are members of the Association.” (UMF 5.)
Article II of the CC&Rs explains who is entitled to membership in the Association. It provides, “Ownership of such Lot shall be the sole qualification for membership and such qualification shall be automatic upon becoming an owner of said Lot.” (UMF 5.)
Finally, Article 7.04 of the CC&Rs provides: “This Declaration, or any provisions hereof, except Article VI hereon, or any covenant, condition or restriction contained herein, may be terminated, extended, modified, or amended, as to the whole of the Property or any portion thereof, by action of the Owners of a majority of Lots located within the Property.” (UMF 6.)
B. Plaintiffs’ Additional Facts
The Association is a planned development subject to the Davis-Stirling Act. (AMF 1.) Plaintiffs own lots within the “Property,” i.e., the specified tract in the Orange County property records. (AMF 2.) On March 24, 2021, the Association certified that the amendments at issue had been adopted by members of the Association. (AMF 3.) Plaintiffs were allowed to vote in every election since taking ownership of their lots, without objection by the Association. (AMF 6.)
Plaintiffs allege that by virtue of their ownership of the lots at issue, they are members of the Association. (AMF 4.) Plaintiffs further allege that for the reasons set forth in their operative 2AC, the amendments at issue are substantively invalid and were adopted after an irregular election procedure. (AMF 5.)
II. Discussion
The Association’s argument is straightforward:
1. Under the Davis-Stirling Act, only owners may enforce the governing documents, and only members may challenge election results.
2. “Owners,” as defined in the CC&Rs, are owners of Lots 1-400, and membership in the Association is limited to “Owners.”
3. Plaintiffs own Lots 403 and 415.
4. Because Plaintiffs’ lots are not in the 1-400 range, they are not “Owners,” they cannot be members, and they lack standing to sue.
The Association fails to carry its “initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) Included in the Association’s exhibits is its Notice of Special Meeting for the election at issue. (Def.’s Appx. of Evidence, Ex. D, at Ex. 3 thereto.) The meeting notice provides: “Approval: In accordance with CC&Rs Article VII, Section 7.04, the affirmative vote of a majority of owners is required to approve each of the proposed amendments (215 YES votes of 429 total lots).”
The Association’s meeting notice represented there were 429 total lots, such that 215 yes votes were necessary to approve the amendments. The Association’s own evidence establishes a fact question about whether membership is limited to the owners of Lots 1-400. As a result, the motion is denied.