ROYAL PALMS APARTMENTS INC VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF T

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.