This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/08/2019 at 02:42:11 (UTC).

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS NU-WAY INDUSTRIES

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8677

  • Filing Date:

    08/24/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

DUKES, ROBERT A.

OKI, DAN THOMAS

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Respondents

IRWINDALE CITY OF

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE

CITY OF IRWINDALE

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE

Defendants, Appellants and Cross Plaintiffs

MNOIAN MANAGEMENT INC.

DOES 1- 100

GARCIA ROLANDO

LBC IRWINDALE LLC

LB CRUSHING LLC

ROLY'S TRUCKING INC

LAUER BRENT

NU-WAY INDUSTRIES INC

MNOIAN JIM

MNOIAN MANAGEMENT INC

LBC IRWINDALE LLC.

NU-WAY INDUSTRIES INC.

LB CRUSHING LLC.

ROLY'S TRUCKING INC.

Respondents and Plaintiffs

CITY OF IRWINDALE

COUNTY LEGAL SERVICE INC.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE

Cross Defendant and Defendant

LBC IRWINDALE LLC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

GALANTE FRED

GALANTE FRED ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

TRAN GARY LAW OFFICES OF

CREYAUFMILLER TIMOTHY

CORRELL MICHELLE J. ESQ.

CORRELL MICHELLE JOANNA ESQ.

DARLING JOHN DUANE

DARLING JOHN D.

Other Attorneys

TRAN GARY ROBERT

 

Court Documents

Civil Case Cover Sheet

8/24/2016: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Proof of Service by Mail

9/19/2016: Proof of Service by Mail

Unknown

9/20/2016: Unknown

Case Management Statement

12/30/2016: Case Management Statement

Unknown

1/17/2017: Unknown

Unknown

2/24/2017: Unknown

Unknown

2/24/2017: Unknown

Unknown

2/24/2017: Unknown

Unknown

3/22/2017: Unknown

Unknown

3/28/2017: Unknown

Unknown

3/28/2017: Unknown

Unknown

3/28/2017: Unknown

Opposition

2/13/2019: Opposition

Objection

2/20/2019: Objection

Declaration

3/18/2019: Declaration

Notice

4/5/2019: Notice

Unknown

6/4/2019: Unknown

Stipulation and Order

6/5/2019: Stipulation and Order

96 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/06/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (STIP & ORDER FOR EXT. OF TIME TO FILE MTN); Filed by CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed; Filed by MNOIAN MANAGEMENT, INC. (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Memorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Notice (NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER AND JUDGMENT); Filed by CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • at 3:52 PM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Order (Ruling on Court's Modified Tentative Ruling posted 02/27/19); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order;) of 04/03/2019 and Court's Modified Tentative Ruling of 02/27/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Order (Proposed Order); Filed by CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
160 More Docket Entries
  • 09/19/2016
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2016
  • Affidavit (Reasonable diligence); Filed by CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2016
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THE (Plaintiff); CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2016
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2016
  • Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2016
  • Summons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2016
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THE (Plaintiff); CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2016
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by CITY OF IRWINDALE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

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

Judicial\r\nNotice

\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

Receivership

\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

Showing Required:

\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.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where IRWINDALE CITY OF is a litigant

Latest cases where CITY OF IRWINDALE is a litigant

Latest cases where ROLY'S TRUCKING INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where CONTY LEGAL SERVICE INC. is a litigant