TUMBLING WATERS MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC VS TAMMY ANNE KNAPP-ARAGON, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP02536    Hearing Date: January 19, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., January 19, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Tumbling Waters Mobile Home Park, LLC v. Knapp-Aragon, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP02536 PET. FILED: 08-11-20

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION FOR INJUNCTION TO PREVENT RECURRING MOBILEHOME PARK RULE VIOLATIONS

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Tumbling Waters Mobile Home Park, LLC

RESP. PARTY: None

PERMANENT INJUNCTION

(Civil Code § 798.88)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition for Injunction to Prevent Recurring Mobilehome Park Rule Violations is 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 14, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of January 14, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On August 11, 2020, Petitioner Tumbling Waters Mobile Home Park, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition for Injunction to Prevent Recurring Mobilehome Park Rule Violations (the “Petition”) against Respondents Tammy Anne Knapp-Aragon aka Tammy Knapp (“Tammy”), Jacqueline Anne Yamada aka Jackie Yamada (“Jackie”), James Knapp (“James”), Jeremy Knapp (“Jeremy”), Jerry Franklin (“Jerry”), Secorrah Labelle (“Labelle”), and Tumbling Waters Mobile Home Park Homeowners Association (the “HOA”) (collectively, “Respondents”).

To date, no opposition has been filed.

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.) The Petition and Notice of Hearing must be personally served on the respondent. (Civ. Code, § 798.88, 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, § 798.88, subd. (d).) The duration of the injunction may not exceed three years. (Id.)

1. Discussion

Petitioner filed proofs of service demonstrating all Respondents were personally served with the instant Petition.

The Petition is supported by the declaration of Kyle Joffe, the supervising property manager for Petitioner’s mobilehome park located at 1380 N. Citrus Ave., Covina, CA 91722 (the “Park”) and the declaration of Jackie Dior (“Dior”), resident manager of the Park. (Pet., Kyle Joffe, ¶ 1, Dior Decl., ¶ 1.) Both Joffe and Dior work for J&H Asset Property Management, Inc. (“J&H”), which managers the Park. (Id., Joffe Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. 5.)

Petitioner argues Respondents violated Rule 24 of the Park’s Rules and Regulations, which states:

“Except in an emergency, please do not telephone or contact Park Management after normal business hours. The Park’s office phone is for business and emergency use only.

A. Except for emergencies, all complaints must be in writing and signed by the person making the complaint.

B. All community business is conducted during posted business hours.

C. Resident shall not request maintenance personnel to perform jobs for Resident, nor shall Resident give instruction to maintenance personnel. All repair or maintenance requests shall be submitted in writing to park management.”

(Id., Dior Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 7.)

Petitioner also cites Governor Gavin Newsom’s stay at home order requiring all property management business to be handled remotely or with appropriate social distancing guidelines. (Pet., p. 3:16-23, Attach. 2.)

In her declaration, Dior states (1) that Respondent Tammy is the president of the HOA, (2) that Respondents Tammy, James, Franklin, Jeremy, Labelle, and Jackie broke into the management office on July 26, 2020, (3) that Respondents Tammy and Franklin confronted a J&H employee outside a laundry room regarding “taking over” the Park management office, (4) that Respondent James entered the Park management office before normal business hours and refused to leave until the police were called on July 20, 2020; (4) that Respondent Tammy called the Park management office to demand the keys to the office and clubhouse because “residents own the Park” and (5) that normal business hours are Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. (Id., Dior Decl., ¶ 5.)

Petitioner seeks a permanent injunction requiring (1) that, except in an emergency, all Respondents have no in-person or verbal contact (including via electronic devices) with Petitioner’s ownership members, J&H and its management personnel, immediate family members of ownership members, immediate family members of Petitioner’s management personnel; (2) that all communications be in writing and directed to Petitioner’s attorney of record via U.S. mail or fax; (3) that, except in an emergency, Respondents not visit Petitioner’s on-site park management office or attempt to access the office by force or deceit at any time; (4) that Respondents not publish knowingly false information about the ownership of the Park or that the payment of rent is for homeowners association dues; (5) that Respondents not publish knowingly false information about the management authority of J&H or the lawful management of its on-site employees; and (6) that Respondents remove from all common areas in the Park publications by the HOA and/or its officers, agents, and/or employees which contain knowingly false information about the ownership of the Park, the management authority of J&H, J&H’s lawful on-site employees, payment of rent constituting payment of “dues” to the HOA or any other entity that is not the park; and (7) that Respondents be restrained from reposting any publications described above. (Pet., pp. 4:2-5:7.)

The Court declines to issue a permanent injunction. First, it appears that Respondent James does not live at the Park, and thus Petitioner cannot seek an order requiring him to cease violations of the Park’s Rules and Regulations. Second, Petitioner has only identified Rule 24 as being violated. Although it appears that some of the incidents Dior discusses in her declaration occurred outside of normal business hours, Petitioner’s request that Respondents cease all contact with J&H, whether in person, telephone, or electronically in all cases except for emergencies is overly broad and not reasonable. Petitioner has not identified any additional Park rule or regulation violation that would justify the remaining injunction requests.

Thus, the Court finds Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements for a permanent injunction under Civil Code section 798.88.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition for Injunction to Prevent Recurring Mobilehome Park Rule Violations is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.