NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION VS ALL CLAIMANTS TO SURPLUS FUNDS AFTER TRUSTEES SALE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT: 1747 WEST 168TH STREET, GARDENA, CA 90247

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP02656    Hearing Date: March 03, 2021    Dept: 25

Case Number: 20STCP03752    Hearing Date: March 03, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:    Wed., March 3, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

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

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP03752 

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 CONTINUED TO MAY 3, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRINT STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing Respondents must file and serve supplemental papers, including documentary evidence, as requested herein.

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

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

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

ANALYSIS:

1. 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.) Respondents did not file an opposition.

Both Petitioner and self-represented Respondents appeared at the initial January 14, 2021 hearing. (1/14/21 Minute Order.) Respondents required 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. Respondents filed a substitution of attorney form, indicating they are now being represented by attorney Martin Kovlasky on March 1. (3/1/21 Substitution of Attorney.) That same day, Respondents filed a reply to Petitioner’s supplemental papers.

1. 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).)

1. 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.) 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 Rules 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.) The moving papers stated that, as of the date the Petition was filed, Respondents (1) had not removed all impermissibly stored items from the Premises, (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 its supplemental papers, Petitioner provides details regarding the parties’ meet and confer efforts. (2/9/21 Pet. Supp. Brief, p. 2:6-19.) Petitioner states that Respondents made no effort to contact Petitioner’s counsel, so on January 28, 2021, Petitioner’s counsel called Respondent Jose. (Id.) Petitioner states counsel and Respondent Jose initially discussed the matter without an interpreter but when counsel stated that any settlement would have to include attorney’s fees, Respondent Jose became “combative” and demanded an in-person meeting with an interpreter present. (Id.) Petitioner also states that on January 29, 2021, Respondent Jose stated he wanted to go back to Court. (Id.) Additionally, Petitioner provides evidence that, as of January 25, 2021, Defendant continued to violate Park Rules by continuing to impermissibly store unapproved items outside their mobilehome and shed, failing to register pets, and failing to repair damaged skirting. (Id., pp. 4:25-5:3, Flores Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. A.) Petitioner also notes several violations not previously raised, including Respondents’ unapproved gate and outdoor pizza oven. (Id.)

In Respondents’ reply brief, they argue they were never provided a copy of the Park Rules in Spanish even though they are Spanish speakers and that they were not given adequate notice of the violations Petitioner complains of in light of their language barrier. (Resp. Reply, p. 2:2-19.) However, Respondents do not include any evidence, such as a declaration from Respondents themselves, attesting to this. Respondents also argue that Petitioner’s counsel did not meet and confer in good faith because Petitioner’s counsel called Respondent Jose without a Spanish interpreter and because the settlement amount offered was unreasonable. (Id. at pp. 3:18-4:2.) As to the pizza oven raised for the first time in Petitioner’s supplemental papers, Respondents argue that Flores gave Respondents express permission to install it and further argue the “unapproved” gate was approved and installed in 2003. (Id. at p. 4:2-8.) However, Respondents do not present any evidence regarding Petitioner’s permission for the pizza oven or gate.

Lastly, without including any evidence, Respondents state that the alleged violations have now been cured. Specifically, Respondents state that the gate has been removed, that the dogs have been given away, that the skirting has been repaired and painted, and that the roof of the shed has been repaired and painted. (Id. at p. 12-24.) Notably, Respondents do not state or provide evidence that the other impermissibly stored items identified in Flores’ supplemental declaration, including bikes, weights and a weight bench, hose, ladder, containers, pieces of wood, trash, furniture, pieces of metal, and cinder blocks were also removed. (2/9/21 Pet. Supp. Brief, Flores Decl., ¶ 7.)

Because Respondents did not submit any evidence regarding Respondents’ lack of notice for these violations nor any evidence regarding Respondents’ cure of the violations identified in Petitioner’s moving and supplemental papers, the Court is unable to issue a ruling at this time. Respondents are ordered to file and serve supplemental papers, including documentary evidence, in support of the arguments made in their reply brief at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing.

1. 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 CONTINUED TO MAY 3, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRINT STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing Respondents must file and serve supplemental papers, including documentary evidence, as requested herein.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STCP02656    Hearing Date: January 25, 2021    Dept: 25

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

CASE NAME: National Default Servicing Corp. v. All Claimants to Surplus Funds

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP02656 PET. FILED: 08-20-20

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION AND DECLARATION REGARDING UNRESOLVED CLAIMS AND DEPOSIT OF UNDISTRIBUTED SURPLUS PROCEEDS OF TRUSTEE’S SALE

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner National Default Servicing Corporation

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION AND DECLARATION REGARDING UNRESOLVED CLAIMS AND DEPOSIT OF UNDISTRIBUTED SURPLUS PROCEEDS OF TRUSTEE’S SALE

(Civ. Code § 2924j(b)-(c))

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition and Declaration Regarding Unresolved Claims and Deposit of Undistributed Surplus Proceeds of Trustee’s sale is CONTINUED TO MARCH 3, 2021 AT 1`0:30 A.M. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Petitioner is ordered to file and serve a corrected notice of intent to deposit on all potential claimants and interested parties at least 16 court days before the next hearing. Petitioner’s counsel is also ordered to submit a declaration regarding the basis for the attorney’s fees requested.

OPPOSITION: None filed as of January 21, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of January 21, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background & Discussion

On August 20, 2020, Petitioner National Default Servicing Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition and Declaration Regarding Unresolved Claims and Deposit of Undistributed Surplus Proceeds of Trustee’s Sale (the “Petition”).

Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that Petitioner has not complied with all notice and procedural requirements. Specifically, the notice of intent to deposit does not include the correct address and phone number of this Court. The notice was also not mailed to all claimants via first-class mail. Thus, the requirements of Civil Code section 2924j, subdivision (d) have not been met. Petitioner is ordered to file and serve a corrected notice of intent to deposit on all potential claimants and interested parties with a proof of service at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing.

In addition, Petitioner seeks attorney’s fees and costs of $3,524.67. (Pet., ¶ 15.) However, Petitioner’s counsel did not submit a declaration detailing their hourly rate or time spent on this matter. Thus, Petitioner’s counsel is ordered to provide this information before attorney’s fees may be considered.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition and Declaration Regarding Unresolved Claims and Deposit of Undistributed Surplus Proceeds of Trustee’s sale is CONTINUED TO MARCH 3, 2021 AT 10:30 A.M. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Petitioner is ordered to file and serve a corrected notice of intent to deposit on all potential claimants and interested parties at least 16 court days before the next hearing. Petitioner’s counsel is also ordered to submit a declaration regarding the basis for the attorney’s fees requested.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.