On 08/24/2016 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against NU-WAY INDUSTRIES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are PETER A. HERNANDEZ, DUKES, ROBERT A. and OKI, DAN THOMAS. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Pomona Courthouse South
Los Angeles, California
PETER A. HERNANDEZ
DUKES, ROBERT A.
OKI, DAN THOMAS
IRWINDALE CITY OF
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE
CITY OF IRWINDALE
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE
MNOIAN MANAGEMENT INC.
DOES 1- 100
LBC IRWINDALE LLC
LB CRUSHING LLC
ROLY'S TRUCKING INC
NU-WAY INDUSTRIES INC
MNOIAN MANAGEMENT INC
LBC IRWINDALE LLC.
NU-WAY INDUSTRIES INC.
LB CRUSHING LLC.
ROLY'S TRUCKING INC.
CITY OF IRWINDALE
COUNTY LEGAL SERVICE INC.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE
LBC IRWINDALE LLC.
GALANTE FRED ESQ.
TRAN GARY LAW OFFICES OF
CORRELL MICHELLE J. ESQ.
CORRELL MICHELLE JOANNA ESQ.
DARLING JOHN DUANE
DARLING JOHN D.
TRAN GARY ROBERT
8/24/2016: Civil Case Cover Sheet
9/19/2016: Proof of Service by Mail
12/30/2016: Case Management Statement
6/5/2019: Stipulation and Order
Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Stipulation and Order (STIP & ORDER FOR EXT. OF TIME TO FILE MTN); Filed by CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed; Filed by MNOIAN MANAGEMENT, INC. (Appellant)Read MoreRead Less
Memorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice (NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER AND JUDGMENT); Filed by CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 3:52 PM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Court Order;)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order (Ruling on Court's Modified Tentative Ruling posted 02/27/19); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order;) of 04/03/2019 and Court's Modified Tentative Ruling of 02/27/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order (Proposed Order); Filed by CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Affidavit (Reasonable diligence); Filed by CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THE (Plaintiff); CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Summons (on Complaint)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THE (Plaintiff); CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: KC068677 Hearing Date: August 23, 2021 Dept: O
Plaintiff City of Irwindale’s Application\r\nfor Appointment of Receiver is DENIED.\r\n\r\n
The\r\nCourt GRANTS Plaintiff City’s Request for Judicial Notice pursuant to California\r\nEvidence Code section 452 subdivisions (d) and (h).\r\n\r\n
“A\r\nreceiver may be appointed by the court in which an action or proceeding is\r\npending, or by a judge thereof… In all other cases where necessary to preserve\r\nthe property or rights of any party.” \r\n(CCP § 564(b)(9).) A receiver may also be appointed by the court after\r\njudgment, to carry the judgment into effect or after judgment to dispose of the\r\nproperty according to judgment, or to preserve it during the pendency of an appeal. (CCP § 564(b)(3), (b)(4).)\r\n\r\n
The\r\nenforcement agency, tenant, or tenant association or organization may seek and\r\nthe court may order, the appointment of a receiver for the substandard building\r\npursuant to this subdivision… (1) In appointing a receiver, the\r\ncourt shall consider whether the owner has been afforded a reasonable\r\nopportunity to correct the conditions cited in the notice of violation. (2) The\r\ncourt shall not appoint any person as a receiver unless the person has\r\ndemonstrated to the court his or her capacity and expertise to develop and\r\nsupervise a viable financial and construction plan for the satisfactory\r\nrehabilitation of the building… (3) If a receiver is appointed, the\r\nowner and his or her agent of the substandard building shall be enjoined from\r\ncollecting rents from the tenants, interfering with the receiver in the\r\noperation of the substandard building, and encumbering or transferring the substandard\r\nbuilding or real property upon which the building is situated. (Health &\r\nSafety Code § 17980.7(c).)\r\n\r\n
The\r\napplicant must show, by declarations or verified pleading: 1) the nature of the emergency and the\r\nreasons irreparable injury would be suffered if no receiver was appointed; 2) a\r\ndescription of the property and the names and addresses of the persons in\r\npossession; 3) if the property is used as a business, facts sufficient to show\r\nthe impact which appointment might have on the business, and reasonable\r\ndiligence to ascertain any of the above matters if such matters have not been\r\nfully ascertained. (CRC 3.1175.)\r\n\r\n
Description of the property:\r\n\r\n
13620\r\nLive Oak Lane, Irwindale, California; and 1380 Arrow Highway, Irwindale, California\r\n(the “Properties”).\r\n\r\n
Nature of Emergency and Impact of\r\nthe Appointment:\r\n\r\n
Plaintiff\r\nCity of Irwindale (“Petitioner”) contends that the Properties are being used for ongoing unpermitted and unlicensed\r\nactivities. (Declaration of Jeffrey Tyler [Tyler Decl.] ¶ 4.) The unpermitted\r\nand unlicensed businesses, e.g., storing of materials, importing, exporting,\r\nstockpiling, and crushing broken concrete is injurious to the public health,\r\nsafety, and welfare, and constitutes public nuisances. (Tyler Decl., ¶ 20.). It\r\nis imperative that Petitioner obtain control over the property to protect the\r\nhealth and safety of the public.\r\n\r\n
Defendants\r\nNu-Way Industries, Inc. and Mnoian Management, Inc. (“Defendants”) oppose the application\r\nfor appointment of receiver. Defendants submit the declaration of their attorney\r\nJohn Darling. Defendants contend that they have been proactive in complying\r\nwith the judgment. (Declaration of John Darling [Darling Decl.], ¶¶ 2-13.) Defendants contend that they have actively\r\nand repeatedly requested that the City extend the November 1, 2020 compliance deadline,\r\nbut the Plaintiff has not provided the courtesy of a reply to the request. (Darling\r\nDecl., ¶ 15.) Particularly, Defendants contend that COVID-19 has impacted their\r\ncompliance with the grading permit application. (Darling Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.)\r\n\r\n
Defendants\r\nalso submit the declaration of James Mnoian, the President of Mnoian\r\nManagement, Inc. In declaration, Mr. Mnoian contends that Mnoian Management,\r\nInc. (“MMI”) has worked to comply with the terms of the Judgment, including spending\r\nmore than $2,769,238 in improvements on the Property. (Declaration of James\r\nMnoian [Mnoian Decl.] ¶ 6.) MMI has invested in geotechnical services,\r\nperformed $1.5 million in site improvements, and paid Plaintiff City nearly $1\r\nmillion in fines and taxes. (Id.) Further, MMI represents that it has succeeded\r\nin crushing and removing approximately 840,645 cubic yards of aggregate of the\r\n990,645 cubic yards initially located on the Property, leaving only 150,000 cubic\r\nyards to remain. (Mnoian Decl., ¶ 7.) As to the violations by MMI’s tenant, LB\r\nCrushing, MMI asserts that it was not aware that its tenant had commenced trucking\r\nto and from the site in 2021, only learning of those violations upon the filing\r\nof this motion. (Mnoian Decl., ¶ 11.) As to its tenant trucking to and from\r\nsite, MMI states that it “immediately rectified the situation and all trucking\r\nto and from the Property ceased following receipt of this motion when MMI\r\nlearned of the activity.” (Id.) MMI asserts that “as of today’s date [August\r\n13, 2021], MMI is in compliance with the Judgment, but for the remaining\r\naggregate material to be crushed.” (Mnoian Decl., ¶ 13.)\r\n\r\n
In\r\nreply, Plaintiff takes issue with the representation that the Property is in\r\nsubstantial compliance with the Judgment, arguing that the aggregate was supposed\r\nto be completely removed by November 1, 2020. Plaintiff also contends that Defendants\r\nhave indicated that the Property will be sold to a third party, which also requires\r\nthe appointment of a receiver.\r\n\r\n
There are\r\ncompeting declarations as to the level of nuisance left on the Properties. Thus, the court is inclined to deny the\r\nrequest for appointment of receiver. Defendants indicated that they have attempted\r\nto comply with prior order for nuisance abatement. Thus, Plaintiff has not sufficiently shown reasons\r\nirreparable injury would be suffered if no receiver was appointed at this time.\r\n\r\n
Appointment\r\nof receiver is DENIED without prejudice.'
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases