MERLE'S MANOR II, LLC VS DOMITILO GUDINO

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCP05067    Hearing Date: February 05, 2020    Dept: 26

Merle’s Manor II, LLC v. Gudino, et al.

PERMANENT INJUNCTION

(Civil Code § 798.88)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Merle’s Manor II, LLC’s Petition for Permanent Injunction Against Respondent Domitilo Gudino is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

Petitioner Merle’s Manor II, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition for Permanent Injunction against Domitilo Gudino (“Respondent”) on November 26, 2019. Petitioner moves pursuant to Civil Code section 786.88 for an order enjoining Respondent from continuing violation of the rules of Petitioner’s Mobile Home Park. Specifically, that Respondent be immediately (1) ordered to remove all items from outside the Mobile Home and storage shed except outdoor patio furniture and barbecues from the Premises, and prohibited from storing any items except outdoor patio furniture and barbecues outside of the Mobile Home and on the Premises; (2) prohibited from tying his dog up outside and allowing his dog to roam the Park without a leash; (3) ordered to trim the overgrown trees and bushes on the Premises; and (4) prohibited from playing loud music and from swearing at his neighbors. (Notice of Hearing, filed 1/28/20.)

The Petition and Notice of Hearing were personally served on Respondent on January 26, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

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, § 786.88, subd. (b); Rancho Santa Paula Mobilehome Park, Ltd. v. Evans (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1142.) The Petition and Notice of Hearing must be personally served on the respondent. (Civ. Code, § 786.88, subd. (c).) 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, § 786.88, subd. (d).) The duration of the injunction may not exceed three years. (Civ. Code, § 786.88, subd. (d).)

Discussion

Petitioner has complied with the service requirements set forth at Civil Code section 798.88, subdivision (c) by personally serving Respondent with the Petition and Notice of Hearing. The Petition is supported by the declarations of the Mobile Home Park’s manager, Mario Flores (“Flores”) and regional manager, Trish Simpson (“Simpson”). Simpson states in her declaration that the subject Mobile Home Park (“the Park”) is located at 1000 N. Figueroa Street, Wilmington, California and is owned by Petitioner. (Pet., Simpson Decl., ¶1.) Both Flores and Simpson work for St. Claire Management, which was hired by Petitioner to oversee operations of the Park. (Pet., Flores Decl., ¶1.) On July 3, 2003, Respondent entered into a written agreement with Petitioner to lease Space 71 of the Park (“the Premises”). (Id. at ¶2 and Exh. A.) Respondent owns the Mobile Home that is located on the Premises. (Id. at ¶2.) Pursuant to the lease agreement, Respondent agreed to the Park Rules, which were incorporated therein. (Id. at ¶3.)

Since June 2019, Flores has observed Respondent violating several Park Rules as follows:

• Having an unregistered dog, tying the dog up outside, and allowing the dog to roam the Park without a leash in violation of Rules 24A-K;

• Having unapproved structures as part of the landscaping of the Premises in violation of Rules 8A-B;

• Storing multiple items on the Premises and outside the Mobile Home and failing to keep the landscaping in good condition in violation of Rules 10B, 10C, 10P, 10Q; and

• Playing loud music at night and swearing at his neighbors in violation of Rules 13A, 13C and 13E.

(Id. at ¶4(a)-(d).) Following these violations, Petitioner’s counsel issued seven-day Notices to Comply with Rules and Regulations in July and October, 2019. (Id. at ¶4(e) and Exh. C; Beam Decl., ¶¶2-3; Exhs. 3-5.) Despite these Notices to Comply, Respondent continues to be in violation of Rules. (Id. at ¶4(d).) 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.

The Petition for Permanent Injunction Against Respondent Domitilo Gudino is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.