Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/06/2021 at 02:44:08 (UTC).

MERLE'S MANOR II, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS JOSE RAMIREZ, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 11/12/2020 MERLE'S MANOR II, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY filed an Other lawsuit against JOSE RAMIREZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3752

  • Filing Date:

    11/12/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Petitioner

MERLE'S MANOR II LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Respondents

RAMIREZ GUADALUPE

RAMIREZ JOSE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Respondent Attorney

KOVALSKY MARTIN STUART

Other Attorneys

BEAM GREGORY BRUCE

 

Court Documents

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

4/9/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Objection (name extension) - Objection to 1/29/2021 Supplemental Declaration of Trish Simpson

4/9/2021: Objection (name extension) - Objection to 1/29/2021 Supplemental Declaration of Trish Simpson

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/9/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Objection (name extension) - Objection to 1/29/2021 Declaration of Mario Flores

4/9/2021: Objection (name extension) - Objection to 1/29/2021 Declaration of Mario Flores

Supplemental Declaration (name extension) - Supplemental Declaration of Gregory B. Beam in Support of Petition for Permanent Injunction

4/20/2021: Supplemental Declaration (name extension) - Supplemental Declaration of Gregory B. Beam in Support of Petition for Permanent Injunction

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Sharon McDaniel in Support of Petition for Permanent Injunction

4/20/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Sharon McDaniel in Support of Petition for Permanent Injunction

Supplemental Declaration (name extension) - Supplemental Declaration Second Supplemental Declaration of Trish Simpson in Support of Petition for Permanent Injunction

4/20/2021: Supplemental Declaration (name extension) - Supplemental Declaration Second Supplemental Declaration of Trish Simpson in Support of Petition for Permanent Injunction

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition for Permanent Injunction)

5/3/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition for Permanent Injunction)

Order (name extension) - Order to waive court costs

3/23/2021: Order (name extension) - Order to waive court costs

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

2/16/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Notice: Waiver of Court Fees (Superior Court) - Notice: Waiver of Court Fees (Superior Court)

3/3/2021: Notice: Waiver of Court Fees (Superior Court) - Notice: Waiver of Court Fees (Superior Court)

Notice: Waiver of Court Fees (Superior Court) - Notice: Waiver of Court Fees (Superior Court)

3/3/2021: Notice: Waiver of Court Fees (Superior Court) - Notice: Waiver of Court Fees (Superior Court)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Further Continued Hearing on Petition for Permanent Injunction

3/4/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Further Continued Hearing on Petition for Permanent Injunction

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continued Hearing on Petition for Permanent Injunction

1/26/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continued Hearing on Petition for Permanent Injunction

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

12/8/2020: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

12/8/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Petition (name extension) - Petition for Permanent Injunction

11/12/2020: Petition (name extension) - Petition for Permanent Injunction

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Trish Simpson in Support of Petition for Permanent Injunction

11/12/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Trish Simpson in Support of Petition for Permanent Injunction

33 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/21/2021
  • DocketObjection To New Evidence RE Not in Petition Evidence Time Frame and Response to Contempt; Filed by: Jose Ramirez (Respondent); Guadalupe Ramirez (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2021
  • DocketObjection To 04202021 Supplemental of Gregory B Beam and Exhibit A; Filed by: Jose Ramirez (Respondent); Guadalupe Ramirez (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2021
  • DocketBrief Supplemental Brief in Support of Petition for Permanent Injunction and in Reply to Opposition to Petition; Filed by: Merle's Manor II, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2021
  • DocketSupplemental Declaration Second Supplemental Declaration of Trish Simpson in Support of Petition for Permanent Injunction; Filed by: Merle's Manor II, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2021
  • DocketSupplemental Declaration Second Supplemental Declaration of Mario Flores in Support of Petition for Permanent Injunction; Filed by: Merle's Manor II, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2021
  • DocketObjection to Declarations of Martin S. Kovalsky and Jose Ramirez; Filed by: Merle's Manor II, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2021
  • DocketSupplemental Declaration of Gregory B. Beam in Support of Petition for Permanent Injunction; Filed by: Merle's Manor II, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2021
  • DocketDeclaration of Sharon McDaniel in Support of Petition for Permanent Injunction; Filed by: Merle's Manor II, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by: Jose Ramirez (Respondent); Guadalupe Ramirez (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: Jose Ramirez (Respondent); Guadalupe Ramirez (Respondent); As to: Merle's Manor II, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
39 More Docket Entries
  • 11/13/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2020
  • DocketHearing on Petition for Permanent Injunction scheduled for 03/18/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketPetition for Permanent Injunction; Filed by: Merle's Manor II, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner); As to: Jose Ramirez (Respondent); Guadalupe Ramirez (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketDeclaration of Trish Simpson in Support of Petition for Permanent Injunction; Filed by: Merle's Manor II, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner); As to: Jose Ramirez (Respondent); Guadalupe Ramirez (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Merle's Manor II, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner); As to: Jose Ramirez (Respondent); Guadalupe Ramirez (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketDeclaration of Mario Flores in Support of Petition for Permanent Injunction; Filed by: Merle's Manor II, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner); As to: Jose Ramirez (Respondent); Guadalupe Ramirez (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketDeclaration of Gregory B. Beam in Support of Petition for Permanent Injunction; Filed by: Merle's Manor II, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner); As to: Jose Ramirez (Respondent); Guadalupe Ramirez (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP03752     Hearing Date: May 3, 2021    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE SECTION 798.88

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Merle’s Manor II, LLC

RESP. PARTY: Respondents Jose Ramirez and Guadalupe Ramirez

PERMANENT INJUNCTION

(Civil Code § 798.88)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Merle’s Manor II, LLC’s Petition for Permanent Injunction Pursuant to Civil Code section 798.88 is GRANTED FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS (1) requiring Respondents to maintain the area around their Mobilehome and shed clear of any items except for those permitted by their lease agreement and the Park Rules; (2) requiring Respondents to maintain the landscaping around their Mobilehome; (3) requiring Respondents to repair the damaged skirting and to maintain their Mobilehome and shed in good condition, including the Mobilehome and shed paint job; and (4) requiring Respondents to obtain permission from Petitioner for any new pet.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of January 12, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of January 12, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

First Set

PET. SUPP. PAPERS: Filed on February 9, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

RESP. SUPP. PAPERS: Filed on March 1, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

Second Set

PET. SUPP. PAPERS: Filed on April 9, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

RESP. SUPP. PAPERS: Filed on April 20, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On November 12, 2020, Petitioner Merle’s Manor II, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition for Permanent Injunction Pursuant to Civil Code section 798.88 (the “Petition”) against Respondents Jose Ramirez (“Jose”) and Guadalupe Ramirez (“Guadalupe”) (collectively, “Respondents”). Petitioner moves pursuant to Civil Code section 798.88 for an order enjoining Respondents from violations of the rules of Petitioner’s mobilehome park located at 1000 N. Figueroa St., Wilmington, CA 90744 (the “Mobilehome Park”). (Pet., pp. 7-8, ¶¶ 2, 14-17.) Respondents’ mobilehome occupies Space No. 2 in Defendant’s Mobilehome Park (the “Mobilehome”). (Id. at ¶ 2.) Petitioner requests that Respondents be ordered to (1) remove all items outside their Mobilehome and storage shed except outdoor patio furniture and barbecues and be prohibited from storing any items except outdoor patio furniture and barbecues outside the Mobilehome; (2) remove two unapproved, unregistered dogs; (3) trim the overgrown trees and bushes; (4) repair and/or replace the damaged skirting on the Mobilehome; and (5) paint the storage shed in a color that matches Respondents’ Mobilehome. (Pet., Prayer, ¶ 1.) Respondents did not file an opposition before the first hearing.

Both Petitioner and self-represented Respondents appeared at the initial January 14, 2021 hearing. (1/14/21 Minute Order.) Respondents requested a Spanish interpreter. (Id.) After fully considering the parties’ oral arguments, the Court did not adopt its tentative ruling, continued the hearing, and ordered the parties to meet and confer on a possible good faith settlement of the case no later than January 28, 2021. (Id.)

Petitioner filed supplemental papers on February 9. Attorney Martin Kovalsky substituted in as Respondents’ attorney on March 1. That same day, Respondents filed supplemental papers.

After hearing oral arguments from the parties, the Court continued the hearing a second time on March 3, 2021. (3/3/21 Minute Order.) Respondents were ordered to file and serve evidence of lack of notice and of their cure of the violations identified by Petitioner. (Id.) Petitioner was permitted to respond to any supplemental papers filed by Respondents. (Id.)

Respondents filed a supplemental brief on April 9 and Petitioner filed a response on April 20.

II. Request for Judicial Notice

Respondents request judicial notice of the November 15, 2019 declarations of Trish Simpson and Mario Flores filed in the case entitled Merle’s Manor II, LLC v. Domitilio Gudino, Case No. 19STCP05067. (4/9/21 Resp. Supp. Brief, RJN, Exhs. A, B.) Respondents’ request is DENIED.

The declarations of Trish Simpson and Mario Flores are not relevant to whether or not Respondents committed the alleged Rules’ violations. Only relevant matters are judicially noticeable. (Aquila, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 569 (citing Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063, overruled on other grounds).)

III. Objections

A. Petitioner’s Objections

Petitioner’s objections to attorney Martin Kovalsky’s April 9, 2021 declaration are SUSTAINED as to Nos. 2, 3, 8-10, 12-13 and OVERRULED as to Nos. 1, 4-7, 11. Petitioner’s objections to the declaration of Respondent Jose’s April 9, 2021 declaration are SUSTAINED as to Nos. 10-12 and OVERRULED as to Nos. 1-9, and 13-15.

B. Respondents’ Objections

Respondents’ objections to the January 29, 2021 declaration of Trish Simpson are OVERRULED as to Nos. 1, 3-7 and SUSTAINED as to No. 2. Respondents’ objections to Exhibits 1-3 attached to the Petition are OVERRULED. Respondents’ objections to the January 29, 2021 declaration of Mario Flores are OVERRULED as to 1, 2, and 4 and SUSTAINED as to No. 3.

Respondents’ objections to the evidence attached to Mario Flores’ April 20, 2021 declaration are OVERRULED.

Finally, Respondents’ objection to the April 20, 2021 declaration of Gregory Beam is SUSTAINED as to Exhibit A only and OVERRULED as to Paragraph 3.

IV. Legal Standard

The Mobilehome Residency Law (“MRL”) gives management an injunctive relief remedy for violations of “reasonable” park rules and regulations. (Civ. Code, § 798.88.) Specifically, management may obtain a restraining order against a continuing or recurring violation of any “reasonable rule or regulation.” (Civ. Code, § 798.88, subd. (b); Rancho Santa Paula Mobilehome Park, Ltd. v. Evans (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1142.) At the time of the hearing, the court shall issue the injunction if it finds by clear and convincing evidence the existence of a continuing or recurring violation of a “reasonable rule or regulation.” (Civ. Code, § 798.88, subd. (d).) The duration of the injunction may not exceed three years. (Civ. Code, § 798.88, subd. (d).)

V. Discussion

Petitioner personally served Respondents with the Petition on December 3, 2020. (12/8/20 Proofs of Service.)

The Petition is supported by the declarations of Trish Simpson (“Simpson”), the regional manager of the Mobilehome Park, and Mario Flores (“Flores”), the resident manager of the Mobilehome Park. Simpson states in her declaration that Petitioner is the owner of the Mobilehome Park and that Respondents entered into a written lease agreement with the Petitioner on or about October 14, 1999. (Mot., Simpson Decl., ¶ 2.) Thereafter, on or about March 15, 2020, Respondents entered into an updated lease agreement requiring, in pertinent part, that Respondents comply with all of the Mobilehome Park’s Rules and Regulations (the “Rules”). (Id., Exh. 1.) The Rules were incorporated into the new lease agreement signed on March 15, 2020. (Id.)

Petitioner’s moving papers stated the following: Prior to August 18, 2020, Flores observed Respondents violating several Mobilehome Park Rules as follows: (1) by having two unregistered dogs, tying them up outside and leaving them unattended, allowing them to roam the Mobilehome Park without a leash, and failing to clean up their feces; (2) by having numerous items stored outside of their Mobilehome and failing to maintain the Mobilehome landscaping; (3) by having damaged skirting on their Mobilehome, overgrown trees, and weeds; and (4) by failing to paint their storage shed in a color that matched Respondents’ Mobilehome. (Mot., Flores Decl., ¶ 4.) Following these violations, on August 18, 2020, Simpson issued a Seven-Day Notice to comply with the Rules. (Id., Simpson Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 3.) Flores stated that Respondents only partially complied with the first Seven-Day Notice. (Id., Flores Decl., ¶ 4(a).) On October 8, 2020, Petitioner’s counsel issued a second Seven-Day Notice for continuous violations of the Mobilehome Park Rules. (Id., Beam Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 4.) Simpson and Flores stated Respondents were also given informal notices of their violations before the Seven-Day Notices were issued. (Id., Simpson Decl., ¶ 6; Flores Decl., ¶ 4.) Respondents failed to cure their violations. (Id. Simpson Decl., ¶ 7.) The moving papers stated that, as of the date the Petition was filed, Respondents (1) had not removed all impermissibly stored items from the Mobilehome, (2) continued to allow their two dogs to roam free in the Mobilehome Park; (3) had not painted the storage shed in a color that matched their Mobilehome; (4) had failed to maintain the landscaping; and (5) had not fixed the damaged skirting on their Mobilehome. (Id.; Flores Decl., ¶ 6.)

In their supplemental papers, both parties accused the other of not meeting and conferring in good faith as ordered by the Court. (3/3/21 Minute Order.) Petitioner’s counsel attested Respondent Jose initially discussed the matter with him without an interpreter but when counsel stated any settlement would have to include attorney’s fees, Respondent Jose became combative and demanded an in-person meeting with an interpreter. (Id.) Petitioner also raised new violations, including an unapproved gate and outdoor pizza oven. (Id.) Respondents, on the other hand, argued that Petitioner’s counsel should have provided an interpreter for the meet and confer call, that they were never provided a copy of the Park Rules in Spanish, and that they were not given adequate notice in light of their language barrier. (Id.) Most importantly, they stated, without any evidence, that the alleged violations were cured. (Id.) The Court continued the hearing one final time and ordered Respondents to file additional evidence regarding the arguments above. (Id.)

C. Most Recent Supplemental Papers

1. Adequate Notice

Respondents first argue the Petition must be denied because Petitioner failed to issue three separate seven-day notices. (4/9/21 Resp. Supp. Brief, pp. 6:14-7:10.) Section 798.88, which governs injunctive relief in these cases, requires no such notice.

In pertinent part, Section 798.88 states,

“(a) In addition to any right under Article 6 (commencing with Section 798.55) to terminate the tenancy of a homeowner, any person in violation of a

(b)  may be filed by the management thereof within the limited jurisdiction of the superior court of the county in which the mobilehome park is located. At the time of filing the petition, the petitioner may obtain a temporary restraining order in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 527 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A temporary order restraining the violation may be granted, with notice, upon the petitioner's affidavit showing to the satisfaction of the court reasonable proof of a continuing or recurring violation of a rule or regulation of the mobilehome park by the named homeowner or resident and that great or irreparable harm would result to the management or other homeowners or residents of the park from continuance or recurrence of the violation.”

[¶]

(d) Within 15 days of filing the petition for an injunction, a hearing shall be held thereon. If the court, by clear and convincing evidence, finds the existence of a continuing or recurring violation of a reasonable rule or regulation of the mobilehome park, the court shall issue an injunction prohibiting the violation. The duration of the injunction shall not exceed three years.

[¶][¶]

(g) The remedy provided by this section is nonexclusive and nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude or limit any rights the management of a mobilehome park may have to terminate a tenancy.”

(Emphasis added.)

Unlike other subsections in the Mobilehome Residency Law, Section 798.88 includes no specific notice requirement.

For example, Section 798.61, which relates to declaring a mobilehome abandoned, specifically sets forth certain notice requirements before a petition may be granted. (Civ. Code, § 798.61, subds. (b), (c).) Similarly, Section 798.84 requires 30 days’ notice before homeowners may initiate an action against management for failure to maintain common areas and sets forth the required contents of the notice and method of service. (Civ. Code, § 798.84, subds. (a)-(c).) In addition, Section 798.56, which relates to the termination of a tenancy and not to the issuance of an injunction, requires that management give the homeowner or resident a seven-day notice of an alleged rules or regulation violation before it can be deemed a “failure to comply with [the] reasonable rule or regulation. (Civ. Code, § 798.56, subd. (d).)

Despite multiple continuances, Respondents have not cited any case law or statutory authority demonstrating Petitioner was required to comply with specific notice requirements before a permanent injunction may be issued.

Respondents also argue that the seven-day notices were defective. (4/9/21 Resp. Supp. Brief, p. 7:11-19.) The Court is not persuaded. As discussed, no particular method or length of notice is required by Section 798.88.

2. Petitioner’s Burden of Proof and Choice of Remedy

Respondents correctly cite the portion of Section 798.88, subdivision (d), which states the Court shall issue an injunction if it finds the existence of a continuing or recurring violation by clear and convincing evidence. (4/9/21 Resp. Supp. Brief, pp. 4:20-5:7.) (Emphasis added.)

Despite clear language in Section 798.88, Respondents argue that Petitioner must prove “great and irreparable harm.” (4/9/21 Resp. Supp. Brief, pp. 4:20-5:7.) Respondents appear to base this argument on Paragraph 14 of the Petition which states that Respondents’ violations, “unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this Court, will cause great and irreparable harm to the Park, its homeowners and residents.” (Pet., ¶ 14.) (Emphasis added.) The fact that Petitioner included this language in its Petition does not mean it is subject to that higher standard. Indeed, a showing of great and irreparable harm is only required if a petitioner requests that a temporary restraining order be issued pending the hearing on the permanent injunction. (Civ. Code, § 798.88, subd. (b).)

Respondents also take issue with Petitioner’s choice of remedy. Specifically, they argue that, under Civil Code section 798.36, Petitioner should have issued a notice for needed landscaping and clean-up and then billed Respondents for the actual costs. (Mot., pp. 5:21-6:13.) They further argue that, under Park Rule 24, Petitioner could have, and should have, impounded the dogs alleged to have been “running loose” in the community. (Id.) However, Section 798.88 does not require a petitioner to exhaust other remedies before seeking injunctive relief. It expressly states that an injunction under this Section is a nonexclusive remedy. (Civ. Code, § 798.88, subd. (g).)

3. Unclean Hands & Waiver

Respondents next argue Petitioner’s misconduct bars the relief sought. (4/9/21 Resp. Supp. Brief, pp. 8:2-9:5.) Specifically, Respondents state that Simpson’s statements regarding verbal notices provided to them are false and that there was “absolutely no verbal notice or warning [except for the sole exception of painting the shed which was painted]”. (Id.) In his sworn declaration, Respondent Jose states the following:

“Prior to August 18, 2020 I never had any problem with the management at [the Park] throughout my more than 20 years living there. I absolutely never had any problems and absolutely did not receive any written notice that I violated any of [the Park’s] rules until this action…I understand that I have been accused of having recurring rules violations. That is absolutely not true. If anyone says otherwise, they would not be telling the truth.

(4/9/21 Resp. Supp. Brief, Jose Decl.., ¶ 7.) (Emphasis added.)

Petitioner demonstrates this statement is false. Flores submits with his supplemental declaration ten different letters and notices regarding violations ranging from August 24, 2000 through July 29, 2019. (4/20/21 Pet. Supp. Brief, Flores Decl., ¶ 5, Exhs. B-K.) The violations identified in these letters and notices include (1) failure to abide by occupancy limits; (2) failure to properly park vehicles; (3) garbage in the backyard; (4) failure to maintain landscaping; (5) failure to repair and replace skirting; (6) impermissible outside storage; (7) failure to paint and wash the Mobilehome; (8) failure to replace awning; and (9) failure to keep dogs indoors. (Id.) Flores states this is only a fraction of the notices regarding violations that were issued to Respondents over the years. (Id.)

Respondent Jose and counsel are admonished for making a false representation to the Court.

Respondents filed an objection to the evidence in Flores’ second supplemental declaration, arguing new evidence is not permitted in reply papers. (4/21/21 Resp. Objection, p. 3.) A trial court may consider evidence presented in its reply papers when the opposing party had notice and an opportunity to respond to the new evidence. (Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 438, 449.) Respondents had notice of the new evidence but only filed an objection. In addition, Petitioner was permitted to respond to the evidence Respondents submitted in their second set of supplemental papers. The Court cannot disregard this evidence as it is directly relevant to an argument Respondents raised, i.e., that no written notice of any violation was ever provided and that enforcement of the Rules after 20 years of tenancy is now discriminatory.

Relying on Merle’s Manor II, LLC v. Domitilio Gudino, LASC Case No. 19STCP05067, Respondents argue that Petitioner discriminatorily enforces the Rules against non-English speakers. (4/9/21 Resp. Supp. Brief, pp. 3:23-12.) Specifically, they argue Gudino, an English-speaking tenant, was given three seven-day notices, multiple verbal warnings, and other written notices before an action was filed. (Id.) First, Petitioner demonstrated Respondents have received numerous communications from management, largely involving the same violations, dating back to 2000. Second, that Petitioner handled this matter differently than it handled one other case does not demonstrate discrimination. Respondent Jose also includes in his declaration photographs of other mobilehomes at the Mobilehome Park that he argues are also in violation of the rules. (4/9/21 Resp. Supp. Brief, Jose Decl., ¶ 20, Exh. 4.) However, Respondent Jose offers no knowledge of whether management has issued any notices of violation to those homeowners.

Respondents further argue “[t]he lengthy conduct of non-enforcement constituted a waiver of [P]etitioner’s rights to enforce the rules in non-public areas of owners where no neighbor complaints [sic].” This argument is not persuasive. Again, Petitioner demonstrated it has repeatedly notified Respondents of their violations. That no neighbors complained of Respondents’ conduct does not negate they violated the Rules.

Lastly, it is greatly disputed between the parties the extent to which Respondents speak and understand English. However, Respondents cited no authority demonstrating that failure to give them letters and notices of violations in Spanish precludes Petitioner from obtaining an injunction under Civil Code section 798.88.

D. Permanent Injunction

Respondent Jose’s declaration includes over 20 photographs purporting to show the alleged violations related to the maintenance of the Mobilehome have been cured. (4/9/21 Resp. Supp. Brief, Jose Decl., ¶ 26, Exh. 10.) He also states that, out of an abundance of caution, both dogs complained of were rehomed at the end of January, that the shed has been painted and fixed, and that the damaged skirting has been repaired. (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 11, and 25.) Respondents’ photographs, however, do not demonstrate the skirting was properly repaired. The skirting appears to remain crooked and bent. (Id. at Exh. 10.) Respondent Jose’s declaration also admits he obtained at least one new dog without Petitioner’s permission. (Id. at ¶ 9.)

The Court finds Petitioner carried its burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents have repeatedly and continually violated the Mobilehome Park Rules.

Respondents argue that Petitioner did not give notice it would seek an injunction based on a recurring violation; rather, the Petition only sought an injunction based on a continuing violation. (4/21/21 Resp. Obj., p. 3:7-25.) The Petition contains no such limitation. The Petition states that there is clear and convincing evidence of Respondents’ “continuing or recurring” violations. (Pet., p. 8, ¶ 17.) Notably, Respondents did not argue the Rules Petitioner seeks to enforce are unreasonable.

The Court’s order is limited to the violations presented in the original Petition. Thus, the Court issues a permanent injunction (1) requiring Respondents to maintain the area around their Mobilehome and shed clear of any items except for those permitted by their lease agreement and the Park Rules; (2) requiring Respondents to maintain the landscaping around their Mobilehome; (3) requiring Respondents to repair the damaged skirting and to maintain their Mobilehome and shed in good condition, including the Mobilehome and shed paint job; and (4) requiring Respondents to obtain permission from Petitioner for any new pet.

VI. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Merle’s Manor II, LLC’s Petition for Permanent Injunction Pursuant to Civil Code section 798.88 is GRANTED FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS (1) requiring Respondents to maintain the area around their Mobilehome and shed clear of any items except for those permitted by their lease agreement and the Park Rules; (2) requiring Respondents to maintain the landscaping around their Mobilehome; (3) requiring Respondents to repair the damaged skirting and to maintain their Mobilehome and shed in good condition, including the Mobilehome and shed paint job; and (4) requiring Respondents to obtain permission from Petitioner for any new pet.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STCP03752    Hearing Date: January 14, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., January 14, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Merle’s Manor II, LLC v. Ramirez, et al. PET. FILED: 11-12-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP03752

NOTICE: OK

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE SECTION 798.88

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Merle’s Manor II, LLC

RESP. PARTY: None

PERMANENT INJUNCTION

(Civil Code § 798.88)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Merle’s Manor II, LLC’s Petition for Permanent Injunction Pursuant to Civil Code section 798.88 is GRANTED FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS. However, the request for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 798.85 is CONTINUED TO MARCH 1, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the request for attorney’s fees and costs being denied.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of January 12, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of January 12, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

Petitioner Merle’s Manor II, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition for Permanent Injunction Pursuant to Civil Code section 798.88 (the “Petition”) against Respondents Jose Ramirez (“Jose”) and Guadalupe Ramirez (“Guadalupe”) (collectively, “Respondents”) on November 12, 2020. Petitioner moves pursuant to Civil Code section 798.88 for an order enjoining Respondents from continuing violations of the rules of Petitioner’s mobilehome park located at 1000 N. Figueroa St., Wilmington, CA 90744 (the “Mobilehome Park”). (Pet., pp. 7-8, ¶¶ 2, 14-16.) Respondents’ mobilehome occupies Space No. 2 in Defendant’s Mobilehome Park (the “Premises”). (Id. at ¶ 2.) Petitioner requests that Respondents be immediately ordered to (1) remove all items outside their mobilehome and storage shed except outdoor patio furniture and barbecues and be prohibited from storing any items except outdoor patio furniture and barbecues outside the mobilehome; (2) remove two unapproved, unregistered dogs; (3) trim the overgrown trees and bushes; (4) repair and/or replace the damaged skirting on the mobilehome; and (5) paint the storage shed in a color that matches Respondents’ mobilehome. (Pet., Prayer, ¶ 1.)

II. Legal Standard

The Mobilehome Residency Law (“MRL”) gives management an injunctive relief remedy for violations of “reasonable” park rules and regulations. (Civ. Code, § 798.88.) Specifically, management may obtain a restraining order against a continuing or recurring violation of any “reasonable rule or regulation.” (Civ. Code, § 798.88, subd. (b); Rancho Santa Paula Mobilehome Park, Ltd. v. Evans (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1142.) At the time of the hearing, the court shall issue the injunction if it finds by clear and convincing evidence the existence of a continuing or recurring violation of a “reasonable rule or regulation.” (Civ. Code, § 798.88, subd. (d).) The duration of the injunction may not exceed three years. (Civ. Code, § 798.88, subd. (d).)

III. Discussion

A. Permanent Injunction

Petitioner personally served Respondents with the Petition on December 3, 2020. (12/8/20 Proofs of Service.)

The Petition is supported by the declarations of Trish Simpson (“Simpson”), the regional manager of the Mobilehome Park, and Mario Flores (“Flores”), the resident manager of the Mobilehome Park. Simpson states in her declaration that Petitioner is the owner of the Mobilehome Park and that Respondents entered into a written lease with the Petitioner on or about October 14, 1999. (Mot., Simpson Decl., ¶ 2.) Thereafter, on or about March 15, 2020, Respondents entered into an updated lease agreement requiring, in pertinent part, that Respondents comply with all of the Mobilehome Park’s Rules and Regulations (the “Rules”). (Id., Exh. 1.) The Rules were incorporated into the new lease agreement signed on March 15, 2020. (Id.)

Prior to August 18, 2020, Flores observed Respondents violating several Mobilehome Park Rules as follows: (1) by having two unregistered dogs, tying them up outside unattended, allowing them to roam the Mobilehome Park without a leash, and failing to clean up feces; (2) by having numerous items stored outside of their mobilehome and failing to maintain the mobilehome landscaping; (3) by having damaged skirting on their mobilehome, overgrown trees and weeds; and (4) by failing to paint the storage shed in a color that matched Respondents’ mobilehome. (Mot., Flores Decl., ¶ 4.) Following these violations, on August 18, 2020, Simpson issued a Seven-Day Notice to comply with the Rules. (Mot., Simpson Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 3.) Respondents only partially complied with the first Seven-Day Notice. (Id., Flores Decl., ¶ 4(a).) On October 8, 2020, Petitioner’s counsel issued a second Seven-Day Notice for continuous violations of the Mobilehome Park Rules. (Id., Beam Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 4.) Respondents were also given informal notices of their Rule violations prior to service of the Seven-Day Notices. (Id., Simpson Decl., ¶ 6; Flores Decl., ¶ 4.) Despite the Seven-Day Notices and informal notices, Respondents failed to cure their violations. (Id. Simpson Decl., ¶ 7.) Specifically, Respondents (1) have not removed all items from the Premises, (2) continue to allow their two dogs to roam free in the Mobilehome Park; (3) have not painted the storage shed in a color that matches their mobilehome; (4) have failed to maintain the landscaping; and (5) have not fixed the damaged skirting on their mobilehome. (Id.; Flores Decl., ¶ 6.)

Based on the foregoing evidence, which is unopposed, the Court finds that Petitioner has shown a continuing violation of its reasonable rules and regulations by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, the Petition for a Permanent Injunction against Respondents is GRANTED.

B. Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Petitioner requests its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as provided for under Civil Code section 798.85. (Pet, Prayer ¶ 1.) Civil Code section 798.85 provides that the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Although requested in the Petition, no evidence was provided regarding the attorney’s fees or costs incurred. Thus, Petitioner is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers providing this information.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Merle’s Manor II, LLC’s Petition for Permanent Injunction Pursuant to Civil Code section 798.88 is GRANTED FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS. However, the request for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 798.85 is CONTINUED TO MARCH 1, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the request for attorney’s fees and costs being denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BEAM GREGORY BRUCE