RICBERAY, INC. VS JORGE RODRIGUEZ, SR, ET AL.

ANALYSIS:

Petitioner Ricebray, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition for Permanent Injunction Pursuant to Civil Code Section 798.88 against Jorge Rodriguez, Sr., Rebecca Rodriguez, Ramon Gonzalez, and Jorge Rodriguez, Jr. aka George Rodriguez (“Respondents”) on September 16, 2020. Petitioner moves pursuant to Civil Code section 786.88 for an order enjoining Respondents from continuing violation of the rules of Petitioner’s Mobile Home Park, Sunset Gardens-West Mobilehome Park (“the Park), as follows:

(1) Respondents shall remove all improperly stored items from around the Premises and prohibited from storing any items of personal property, except for outdoor patio furniture and portable barbecues, anywhere outside the Mobilehome and around the Premises, except in an approved storage shed;

(2) Respondents shall remove Jorge Jr. from the Mobilehome and the Premises, and shall be prohibited from allowing anyone other than Jorge Sr., R. Rodriguez and Gonzales, who are the only approved residents for the Premises, to reside in the Mobilehome;

(3) Jorge Jr. shall be ordered to leave the Park and be prohibited from entering the Park for any reason, and is ordered to remain at least 100 yards away from all Park employees, including Kimberly Espinoza, Ricardo Espinoza and Dolores Anderson, at all times;

(4) Respondents shall be prohibited from having any guests stay with Jorge Sr., R. Rodriguez and Gonzalez in the Mobilehome for more than 20 consecutive days or more than 30 days in a calendar year, unless the Guests apply for residency and are approved as Park residents; and

(5) Respondents shall be prohibited from allowing any guests to use the clubhouse and other common areas of the Park unless accompanied by Jorge Sr., R. Rodriguez or Gonzalez;

(Pet., Prayer, ¶1.) Petitioner also requests reasonable attorney fees and costs.

The Petition initially came for hearing on October 15, 2020, at which time the Court found Petitioner had not demonstrated compliance with the personal service requirements of the Notice and Petition set forth at Civil Code section 798.88, subdivision (c). (Minute Order, 10/15/20.) The Court continued the hearing to allow Petitioner to demonstrate compliance with the service requirements. (Ibid.)

On October 30, 2020, Petitioner dismissed Respondents Ramon Gonzalez and Jorge Rodriguez, Jr. from the case. On November 13, 2020, Petitioner filed a “Briefing Regarding Personal Service of Petition and Due Process Requirement for Notice of Hearing.”

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).)

Discussion

Petitioner presents a persuasive argument that personal service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing is not required in these circumstances. Specifically, the Court is persuaded that ordinary service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing satisfy the requirements of Civil Code section 798.88, and that personal service is only required when a temporary restraining order is granted prior to the petition for injunction. (Civ. Code, § 798.88, subd. (c).) Therefore, substitute service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing, which was made on Respondents Ramon Gonzalez and Jorge Rodrigeuz, Jr., meets the statutory requirements. Furthermore, service on those Respondents is no longer relevant as they have been dismissed from the action.

The Petition is supported by the declarations of the Mobile Home Park’s assistant manager, Dolores Anderson (“Anderson”) and on-site resident managers Kimberly Espinoza (“Kimberly”) and Ricardo Espinoza (“Ricardo”). The declarations demonstrate that Respondents Gonzalez, Jorge Rodriguez, Sr. and Rebecca Rodriguez reside in the Mobilehome located on Space 111 of the Park and have resided in the Park since December 2, 1994 pursuant to a written Rental Agreement. (Pet., Anderson Decl., ¶2; K. Espinoza Decl., ¶2 and Exh. 1; R. Espinoza Decl., ¶2.) The Rental Agreement incorporates the Park’s Rules and Regulations, thereby requiring the residents to abide by the same. (Pet., K. Espinoza Decl., ¶3 and Exhs. 1-2.) Respondent Jorge Rodriguez, Jr. is Respondents Jorge Rodriguez, Sr. and Rebecca Rodriguez adult son and has never been approved to reside at the Park. (Pet., Anderson Decl., ¶2; K. Espinoza Decl., ¶2; R. Espinoza Decl., ¶2.) The Park’s Rules were revised in 2017 with notice of the revision provided to all the Park’s residents, including Respondents, with the Revised Rules becoming effective on March 26, 2018. (Pet., K. Espinoza Decl., ¶4.)

The declarations also attest to the following conduct by Respondents in violation of the Revised Rules. First, on July 14, 2020, Respondent Jorge Rodriguez, Jr., was recorded on a security camera video around 3:00 a.m. jumping over a fence and into the Park’s pool area with two other people, despite the pool being closed at that hour and due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Pet., K. Espinoza Decl., ¶5a.) Respondent Jorge Rodriguez, Jr. was also was observed drinking and smoking marijuana in the Park's RV parking area. (Ibid.) This conduct by Respondent Jorge Rodriguez, Jr. is in violation of the Park’s Revised Rules 13.D., 18.A., 18.B., 18.D. and 18.E. (Ibid.)

The other Respondents also allowed Respondent Jorge Rodriguez, Jr. to stay at the Mobilehome when they were not present and to stay for more than 20 consecutive days or more than 30 days in a calendar year without registering with the Park. (Id. at ¶5b.) This was in violation of the Park’s Revised Rules 5.A., 5.C., 5.E. and 5.F. (Ibid.)

Since July 15, 2020, Respondents have stored items on Space 111 and around the Mobilehome and carport, including plastic containers, cleaning supplies, tarps, a bicycle, plywood, hoses, wire fencing and bricks. (Id. at ¶5c.) One of the Mobilehome’s windows was also broken. (Ibid.) By failing to maintain the homesite, Respondents are in violation of the Park’s Revised Rules 12.A and 12.F. (Ibid.)

Also, since July 15, 2020, Respondents had failed to complete the installation of handrails on the stairs of Mobilehome for a period of more than four months. (Id. at ¶5d.) Failure to complete installations on Mobilehomes within 60 days is in violation of the Park’s Revised Rules 8.D. (Ibid.) The lack of handrails is also a violation of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, section 1504(a). (Ibid.)

In addition to these rule violations, Respondent Jorge Rodriguez, Jr. has made several threating comments and actions towards declarants in the month before the Petition was filed. (Id. at ¶7; Anderson Decl., ¶¶3-4.) Petitioner’s counsel issued 7-day Notices to Comply with Park Rules and Regulations on August 18, 2020, August 28, 2020, and September 3, 2020. (Pet., Beam Decl., ¶¶2-3 and Exhs. 4-5; K. Espinoza Decl., ¶10 and Exh. 6.) Despite the Notices to Comply, Respondents continue to be in violation of Rules. (K. Espinoza Decl., ¶¶6-12.)

Petitioner, therefore, has provided clear and convincing evidence of Respondents’ violations of the Park’s reasonable Revised Rules.

Conclusion

Petitioner Ricebray, Inc.’s Petition for Permanent Injunction for Violation of Mobile Home Park Rules is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.