This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/01/2020 at 15:56:32 (UTC).

ROYAL PALMS APARTMENTS INC VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF T

Case Summary

On 08/29/2008 ROYAL PALMS APARTMENTS INC filed an Other - Declaratory Judgment lawsuit against LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF T. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ROLF M. TREU, LEE SMALLEY EDMON, ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE, ELIHU M. BERLE and LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7256

  • Filing Date:

    08/29/2008

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Other - Declaratory Judgment

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ROLF M. TREU

LEE SMALLEY EDMON

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

ELIHU M. BERLE

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ROYAL PALMS APARTMENTS INC.

Defendants and Respondents

AARON RUTH A.

ACEVEDO VICTOR EDWARD

ADKINS GRACIELA

AUSTRIA CECILIA

BACHMAN GUY

BAILEY WAYNE A.

BAILON EDITH

BARNARD MARINA

BAU LEONARD F.

BAUTISTA DOREEN A. - DOE 19

BAUTISTA RICHARD A. - DOE 18

BEARDSLEY DALLAS

BENARA JANA MARIE

BENJAMIN PATRICIA

BERGMAN MARGOT

BERNARD GERALD

BERRY DEAN R. G.

BIGGERS BRIAN - DOE 11

BIXLER KENNETH M.

457 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MARKS LESLIE S. ESQ.

MOORE PAMELA ABBOTT

MARKS LESLIE STEVEN

WOLFSEN NICHOLAS J.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BARTON NICHOLAS ESQ.

SMITH MILFORD ESQ.

RAMSEYER ALBERT PRIN. DEPUTY CO. COUNSL

SAUR JOHN K.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AWARD OF COSTS, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS FEES INCURRED IN APPEAL; DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME

9/6/2011: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AWARD OF COSTS, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS FEES INCURRED IN APPEAL; DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS ON APPEAL

9/6/2011: MEMORANDUM OF COSTS ON APPEAL

TENTATIVE RULING

11/29/2011: TENTATIVE RULING

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by ANDREW KIRK, SHAREHOLDER ROYAL PALMS APARTMENTS, INC. (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Plaintiff's Motion, filed on 11/07/19) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Plaintiff's Motion, filed on 11/07/19)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2020
  • DocketProof of Service - Civil; Filed by ANDREW KIRK, SHAREHOLDER ROYAL PALMS APARTMENTS, INC. (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2020
  • DocketMoving Party's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Moving Party's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Moving Party's Motion for OSC re:Contempt (CCP1209)11/02/2009 Judgement of Court After Trial; Filed by ANDREW KIRK, SHAREHOLDER ROYAL PALMS APARTMENTS, INC. (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by ANDREW KIRK, SHAREHOLDER ROYAL PALMS APARTMENTS, INC. (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2020
  • DocketReply (to Royal Palms Apartment, Inc.'s Opposition to Motion for an OSC re: Contempt (CCP 1209) of 11/02/2009 Judgment by Court After Trial); Filed by ANDREW KIRK, SHAREHOLDER ROYAL PALMS APARTMENTS, INC. (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2020
  • DocketOpposition (to Motion for an OSC re Contempt); Filed by Royal Palms Apartments Inc., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2020
  • DocketObjection (and Objection); Filed by Royal Palms Apartments Inc., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Royal Palms Apartments Inc., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
458 More Docket Entries
  • 09/16/2008
  • DocketAcknowledgement of Receipt (Party Served: DOE 2, an Individual & as Trustee of the Special Needs Trust FBO Susan Elizabeth Riese ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2008
  • DocketAcknowledgement of Receipt (Party Served: J. SHEIN WIN ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2008
  • DocketAcknowledgement of Receipt (Party Served: BETTY PROBST FRENCH ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2008
  • DocketAcknowledgement of Receipt (Party Served: LEROY MISURACA ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2008
  • DocketAcknowledgement of Receipt (Party Served: VICTOR H. KERSHAW ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2008
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (DOE 5 ); Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2008
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Royal Palms Apartments Inc., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2008
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2008
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2000
  • DocketAcknowledgement of Receipt (Signed By: CHERYL T. DAVIS ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC397256    Hearing Date: August 27, 2020    Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: OSC ON CONTEMPT

On August 29, 2008, Plaintiff Royal Palms Apartments Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor (“LACOA”) and the owners of Plaintiff’s common stock that gave each individual defendant the exclusive right to occupy and possess a specific unit in Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff sought a declaration as to who must bear the financial responsibility for the property tax reassessment and in what amounts. Defendant Andrew Kirk (“Kirk”) was substituted for Doe 11 in January 2009.

In relevant part, the judgment in this action required Plaintiff to assess individual shareholders according to the tax allocation as contained and determined by and in the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor’s Worksheets. Plaintiff was required to assess and collect future property tax assessments from the specific shareholders who purchased Plaintiff’s stock. The Tax Assessor was required to provide Plaintiff with updated assessor worksheets for all future property tax assessments on a unit-by-unit basis until separate property tax bills were generated. All future property tax assessments were ordered to be assessed against the shareholder of the specific unit for which the property taxes were assessed. The Court retained jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

On October 31, 2019, Kirk filed Andrew Kirk v. Royal Palms Apartments, Inc., et al., Case No. 19LBCV00642, against Plaintiff and others for slander of title and breach of fiduciary duty arising from Plaintiff’s conversion of the property to condominiums. On July 29, 2020, the Court sustained the defendants’ demurrer and dismissed the action with prejudice.

On November 7, 2019, while the other action was pending, Kirk filed a request in this action for the Court’s assistance in enforcing the judgment and finding Plaintiff in contempt. A court may find a person in contempt for disobedience of a lawful court order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1209, subd. (a)(6), 1218.) “ ‘The elements of proof necessary to support punishment for contempt are: (1) a valid court order, (2) the alleged contemnor’s knowledge of the order, and (3) noncompliance. [Citation.]’ ” (Koshak v. Malek (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1548-1549.) A finding of contempt must be based on a “clear, intentional violation of a specific, narrowly drawn order. Specificity is an essential prerequisite of a contempt citation.” (Van v. Language Line Services, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 73, 82.) “Unless the cite has concealed himself from the court, he must be personally served with the affidavit and order to show cause; otherwise, the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed.” (Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286-1287.)

Kirk did not personally serve Plaintiff with the contempt papers. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction.

Even if service had been proper, Kirk did not identify a clear, intentional violation of a specific, narrowly drawn order. Kirk alleges that on June 22, 2010, Plaintiff presented to LACOA a plan that was filed without CC&Rs or signatures as required by Civil Code section 4290. According to Kirk, this caused LACOA to erroneously list the project as a new condominium conversion when the property taxes were segregated. Kirk filed a declaration on March 2, 2020, requesting that the Court review Plaintiff’s actions before and after the passage of a 2008 condominium conversion resolution to find Plaintiff in contempt of the judgment. (Kirk Decl. at ¶ 10.) Kirk describes actions taken by Plaintiff’s Board of Directors in 2010-2019, including elections of new Board members, recording a condominium conversion plan, further discussions about the conversion to condominiums, and Kirk’s objections to the plan. (Id. at pp. 13-34.)

In sum, Kirk is complaining about the conversion and wants the Court to undo the conversion. That is not the proper subject for an OSC re contempt.

Accordingly, the request for a finding of contempt is DENIED. Kirk’s August 7, 2020 request for judicial notice is also denied, as the documents are not relevant to the Court’s decision of this motion.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.