Preview
Filing # 129827678 E-Filed 06/30/2021 02:41:42 PM IN ME COUNTY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: JUDGE: DIVISION: 111 LAKE HOUSE JV LLC D/B/A LAKE HOUSE APARTMENTS PLAINTIFF, VS CARLY SEIDNER DEFENDANT(S). COMPLAINT FOR TENANT EVICTION Because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, you may be eligible for temporary protection from eviction under Federal Law. Learn the steps you should take now: visit www.cfpb.gov/eviction or call a housing counselor at 800-569-4287. Plaintiffsues defendant(s) and alleges: COUNT I — EVICTION 1. This is an action to evict a tenantfrom property in ORANGE County, Florida commenced under authority of Part IIof Chapter 83 (Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act) and Chapter 51 (Summary Procedure) of Florida Statutes. 2. Pursuant to the attached lease agreement, defendant(s) has/have possession of theresidential property described asfollows: 3. Plaintiff is theowner/landlord of the subject property and its common areas and grounds, and the person whose signature appears on attached lease agreement for the owner/landlord isthe agent for the plaintiff. 4. Defendant(s) is/are obligated to pay rent each month to plaintiff, plus late charges when the monthly payments are made late as provided in thelease agreement. 5. Defendant(s) failed to pay rent which was due on 05/01/2021, and plaintiff properly served defendant(s) with a three-day notice to pay rent or give possession, a copy of which isattached, as provided in Florida Statutes 83.56(3), and defendant(s) did not do either. Said three-day notice ismade apart hereof asif copied in fullin this paragraph of this complaint. 6. Defendant(s) owes plaintiff past due rent in thesum of $3,375.00 which is now past due, and may owe additional rent by the date of a hearing. The monthly rentalrate as per lease is$2,720.00. 7. Plaintiffhas elected to terminate defendants right of occupancy pursuant to said lease agreement. 8. Plaintiffis obligated to pay itsattorneys areasonable fee for theirservices for which defendant(s) is/are liable. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment instanter against the defendant(s) for possession of the subject property, costs,and attorney's fees. s/ James I. Barron, III James I. Barron, III(efile@jamesbarronlaw.com) Florida Bar Number: 852953 Attorney forPlaintiff 111 LAKE HOUSE JV LLC D/B/A LAKE HOUSE APARTMENTS Law Offices of James I. Barron, IIIP.A. 121 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1500 Orlando, FL 32801 407-865-5621 135557 LHOR ORANGE AH FLORIDA STATUTORY NOTICE TO PAY RENT OR DELIVER POSSESSION 130 DAY NOTICE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CARES ACT & FLORIDA STATUTE 83.56(3)1 Because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, you may be eligible for temporary protection from eviction under Federal Law. Learn the steps you should take now: visitwww.cfpb.gov/eviction or calla housing counselor at 800-569-4287. Date of Notice: Mav 10. 2021 Carly Seidner & Other Occupants Name of Tenant(s) 295 NE Ivanhoe Blvd. #513 Street Address Orlando, FL 32804 City, State,Zip AND ALL OTHERS IN POSSESSION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PREMISES. You arehereby notified that you are indebted to landlord inthe sum of $3,375.00 for rent and the use of the premises indicated above, in Orange County, Florida, now occupied by you and that the landlord demands payment of the rent or possession of the premises within thirty (30) days from the date of delivery of this notice, to wit:on or before the 25"' d ay of.lune2021. Oft 0_ 6 I 2-1 gent "L:TrefrAl7gnature) Bro/ olle r •a - of .ndlord 295 NE Ivanhoe Blvd. #513 Street Address Orlando, FL, 32804 City, State, Zip 407-745-5400 Telephone Number PROOF OF SERVICE: I hereby certify thatIserved a true and correctcopy of the foregoing notice on the above-named tenant(s) this 14`1' day of May, 2021,inthe following manner: ( )By personally delivering the same upon said tenant (.4 By posting same atthe above described premises inthe of said tenant abseni- r 60tjt 5/1412.1 -1110/1, W1ttyt‘S jo gni. V Scanned with CamScanner Docu Sign Envelope ID: AEOODCEB-7925-4B57-959A-79D9B841EC52 rif) APARTMENT LEASE CONTRACT NAA NATIONAL APARTMENT ASSOCIATION Date of Lease Contract: April 1, 2021 (when the Lease Contract is filled out) This is a binding document. Read carefully before signing. Moving In — General Information 1.PARTIES. This Lease Contract (sometimes referred to asthe 3.LEASE TERM AND TERMINATION NOTICEREQUIREMENTS. "lease)is (list all people signing the between you, the resident(s) The initial term the 3rd of the Lease Contract begins on day Lease Contract): of April 2021 and ends at 11:59 p.m. Carly Seidner the Hth day of April 2022. This Lease Contract will month-to-month automatically renew unless either 60 party gives at least dayswritten notice of termination or intent to move-out as required by this paragraph and paragraph 47 (Move-Out Notice). If the number of days isn't filled in, at least 30 days' notice is required. In the event you fail to provide us with therequired number of days' written notice of termination and coinciding with the lease expiration date, as required intent to vacate by thisparagraph and paragraph 47 (Move-Out Notice), you acknowledge and agree that you shall be liable to us for liquidated of $ damages in the sum 2720.00 (equalto onemonth's rent)if we give you the advanced written notice required by Fla. and theowner:111 Lake House JIT LLC Stat. § 83.575(2). This liquidated damages amount is exclusive to us, insufficient notice under this paragraph and paragraph 47 (Move- Out Notice), and does not limit collection rights with regard to other amountspotentially owed to us.If the lease term a month- is not to-month tenancy, we mustnotify you with written notice nolater than 60 days before the end of the lease term if the lease will (name of apartment or title holder). You'veto notbe renewed. rentApartment No. at Month-to-Month Tenancies: this In the event Lease Contract renewson a month-to-month basis, you must of pay the amount (street address) in Orlando rentwecharge at the time the month-to-month tenancy commences 32804 (city), Florida, (zip code) (the "dwelling unie or pursuant to this paragraph and paragraph 15 (Rent Increases and the "premises") for use as a private residence only. The terms "you" Lease Contract Changes), inclusive of any applicable month-to-month and "youe refer to all residents listed above. The terms "we," "us," feesand/or premiums. We may change your rentat any time and "out'refer to the ownerlisted above(orany of owner's thereafter during a month-to-month tenancy by giving you no less successors' in interest or electronic notice to assigns). Written or than notice. You will 30 days' written berequired to abide by all orfrom ourmanagers constitutes notice to or from us. If anyone notice requirements set forth in the lease and remain liable to pay else has guaranteed performance of this Lease Contract, a separate all other applicable charges due under the lease during your month- Lease Contract Guaranty for each guarantor is attached. to-month tenancy unless specifically changed in writing. All sums due under this paragraph shall be additional rent. We may require The U Manager of these apartments Owner or is OneEleven Residential, LLC you to addendum written sign an for month-to-month tenants. Either party may terminate a month-to-month tenancy by giving the other party written later than 15 days' prior to notice no the end of the monthly rental period. If you fail to at least provide us whose address is 174 W. Comstock Avenue Winter 15 days' written terminate a month-to-month notice to tenancy Park FL, 32789 to. company is authorized to receive Such person or prior to the end of the monthly rental period, you shall be liable us additional 1 month's rent. for an notices and demands in the landlord's behalf. A lease termination notice mustbe given in writing. Notice to the 4.SECURITY DEPOSIT. Unless modified by addenda,the total landlordmust be delivered tothe managementofficeatthe of execution security deposit at the time of this Lease Contract for apartment community orany otheraddress designated by 600.00 all residents in the apartment is $ due on orbefore 295 management as follows: NE Ivanhoe Blvd. the date this Lease Contract is signed. Orlando, FL 32804 advance rent Any security deposit or you paid is being held in one ofthe following three ways as indicated below [Landlord check one Notice to the tenant must be delivered to the Resident's address as option]: shown above. ZI1.Ina for your benefit separate NON-INTEREST bearing account OCCUPANTS. The apartment will be occupied only by you and following bank: Ci tizens in the Bank all other occupants not signing the Lease Contract): (list Citizens whose address is 1 Plaza Providence Lila Seidner RI. 02903 OR LI2.Inaseparate INTEREST bearing account benefit in for your the following bank: whose address is If an interest bearing account, you will be entitled to receive and collect interest in an amount of at least 75 percent of the annualized average interest rate payable on such account orinterest at the rate of5 percent per year, simple interest, whichever the landlord elects. No one listed above else may occupy the apartment. Persons not mustnotstay in the apartment for more than 14 days U 3.Ina commingled account following bank at the withoutourprior written If the previous consent. space isn'tfilled in, two daysper month is the limit. l whose address is provided that the landlord posts a surety bond with the county or required by law, and pays you interest state, as onyour advance rent security deposit or of 5 percent per at the rate DS DS year simple interest. © A - 11/2020, Florida Inc. Page1of9 041 tiorrAT,tment soMon, ID: AEOODCEB-7925-4B57-959A-79D9B841EC52 DocuSign Envelope Initials of Resident. Resident acknowledges intended to be liquidated damages since provisions are the added receiving acopy of F.S. 83.49(2)(d) which provides as follows: costs of late payments and damages in such instances aredifficult to determine. We also both agree that the amount of late rent and YOUR LEASE REQUIRES PAYMENT OF CERTAINDEPOSITS. THE LANDLORD MAY TRANSFER ADVANCERENTS TO THE LANDLORD'S animal violation reasonable estimates fees charged are of the ACCOUNT AS THEYARE DUE AND WITHOUT administrative would incur expenses, costs, and damages we in NOTICE. WHENYOU MOVE OUT, YOU MUST GIVE THE LANDLORD YOUR NEW ADDRESS such instances. SO THAT THE LANDLORD CAN SEND YOU NOTICESREGARDING All ofthe foregoing charges will beconsidered to beadditional rent. YOUR DEPOSIT. THE LANDLORD MUST MAIL YOU NOTICE, WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER YOU MOVE OUT, OF THE LANDLORD'S INTENT TO 7. UTILITIES. Well pay for the following items, if checked: IMPOSE A CLAIM AGAINST THE DEPOSIT. IF YOU DO NOT REPLY U water U gas U U electricitymasterantenna. TO THE LANDLORD STATING YOUR OBJECTION TO THECLAIM U wastewater U trashLJ cable TV WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE LANDLORD'S NOTICE, U other THE LANDLORD WILL COLLECT THE CLAIM AND MUST MAIL YOU You'll pay for all other utilities, related deposits, and any charges, THE REMAINING DEPOSIT, IF ANY. services fees, or onsuch utilities. You must notallow utilities to be IFTHE LANDLORD FAILSTO TIMELY MAIL YOU NOTICE, THE disconnected— including disconnection for not paying your bills— LANDLORD MUST RETURN THE DEPOSITBUT MAY LATER FILE until the lease term orrenewal period ends. Cable channels that A LAWSUIT AGAINST YOU FOR DAMAGES. IF YOU FAIL TO TIMELY are if the change provided may be changed during the lease term OBJECT TO A CLAIM, THE LANDLORD MAY COLLECT FROM THE all residents. Utilities applies to may be used only for normal DEPOSIT, BUTYOU MAY LATER FILEA LAWSUIT CLAIMING A not be wasted. If your electricity is household purposes and must REFUND. everinterrupted, you must useonly battery-operated lighting. If YOU SHOULD ATTEMPT TO INFORMALLY RESOLVE ANY DISPUTE any utilities aresubmetered for the apartment, or prorated by an allocation formula, we willattach an addendum tothisLease BEFORE FILINGA LAWSUIT.GENERALLY, THE PARTYIN WHOSE Contract in compliance with state agency rules or city ordinance. FAVOR A JUDGMENT IS RENDERED WILL BE AWARDED COSTS Resident shall not heat the apartment using gas-operated stoves AND ATTORNEY FEES PAYABLEBY THE LOSINGPARTY. orovens intended for use which were in cooking. THIS DISCLOSURE IS BASIC. PLEASE REFER TO PART II OF CHAPTER Where lawful, all utilities, charges and fees of any kind under this 83,FLORIDA STATUTES, TO DETERMINE YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS lease shall be considered additional rent, and if partial payments AND OBLIGATIONS. areaccepted by the Landlord, they will be allocated first to non-rent 5.KEYS. You will be provided 1 1 charges and to rent utilities last. Failure to maintainas required apartment key(s), herein is a material violation of the Lease and mailbox key(s), FOB (s), and/or 1 other access may resultin for access additional to the building and amenities at no of tenancy, eviction termination and/or any other remedies under device(s) cost If the key, at move-in. other access FOB, or device is lost or the Lease and Florida law. becomes damaged during your tenancy or returned is not oris 8. INSURANCE. We do not maintain insurance to cover returned damaged when you move your personal out, you will be responsible for property orpersonal injury. We are not responsible to any resident, the costs for the replacement and/or repair of the same. occupant for damage guest, or or loss of personal property or 6.RENT AND CHARGES. Unless modified by addenda, you will personal injury from (including but not limited to) fire, smoke, rain, pay 2720.00 and flood, water pipeleaks, hail, ice, snow,lightning, wind, $ per month for rent, payable in advance and without demand: explosions, earthquake, interruption of utilities, theft, hurricane, negligence of other residents, occupants, or invited/uninvited U at the on-site manager's office, or vandalism unless otherwise required by law. guests or al atouronline payment site, or athttps://zrslakehouse.activebuilding. In urge all Tenants, and particularly those residing in addition, we com coastal areas, areasnearrivers, and areas pronetoflooding, to obtain flood insurance. Renter's insurance may not damage cover to your which property due to flooding. A flood insurance resource may be available includes the National Flood Insurance Program Prorated of rent $ 2538.67 for the remainder of [check is due managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FE MA). one]:311st month orU 2nd month, on April 3 We U requirela insurance do not require you to get your own 2021. for losses to your injuries due to theft, fire, personal property or Otherwise, you must pay your rent onorbefore the 1st day of eachwaterdamage, pipe leaks and the like. If no box is checked, renter's month (due date) with no insurance is not grace period. Cash is unacceptable without required. ourprior written not withhold permission. You must oroffset rent [check one] XI Additionally, you are required to purchase personal unless authorized by statute. We may, at our option, require at any U liability insurance notrequired to purchase personal liability timethat youpayall rent and other sumsincash, certified or If no insurance. box is checked, personal liability insurance is not cashier's onemonthly check rather than check, money order, or required. If required, failure to maintain personal liability insurance checks. At multiple ourdiscretion, we may convertanyand all throughout your tenancy, including any renewal periods and/or checks via the Automated Clearing House (ACH) system for the lease extensions incurable breach of this Lease Contract and is an purposes of collecting payment. Rent is not considered accepted, may result inthe of tenancy and termination eviction and/or any if the payment/ACH is rejected, does not is stopped for any clear, or other remedies as provided by this Lease Contract or statelaw. We may, but are reason. through direct not required to, accept rent other electronic means debit, ACH or established and approved by 9. LOCKS AND LATCHES. Keyed lock(s) will berekeyed after the us.If you don't pay all rent onorbefore the 3rd day of the prior resident movesout.Therekeying will be done before you month, youll pay a late charge. Your late charge will be (check one) move into your apartment. MI a flat rate of $ 125.00 orj % of yourtotal You may at any time ask us to latches 50.00 changeorrekey locks or payment. You'll also pay a charge of $ monthly rent comply with those requests, but during the Lease Term. We must for each returned check or rejected electronic payment, plus a late you mustpay for them, unless otherwise provided by law. charge. If you don't pay rent on fail to pay any rent, utilities time, or or Payment for Rekeying, Repairs, Etc. contractual fees due under a prior lease if this is a renewal lease, pay for all repairs You must replacements arising from misuse you'll be delinquent and all remedies under this Lease Contract will or ordamage to devices by you be authorized. We'll also have all other remedies for such violation. or guests during your occupancy. You your family, occupants, or pay in
Related Contentin Orange County
Case
ATHENE ANNUITY AND LIFE COMPANYvs.RINA 2616 WEST INVESTMENTS LLC et al.
Aug 06, 2024 |Brian S. Sandor |CA - Nonhomestead Residential Foreclosure (above $250,000) |CA - Nonhomestead Residential Foreclosure (above $250,000) |2024-CA-006975-O
Case
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC vs. ALCIME, RICARDOet al.
Aug 09, 2024 |Luis F. Calderon |CA - Homestead Residential Foreclosure btwn $50,001-$249,999 |CA - Homestead Residential Foreclosure btwn $50,001-$249,999 |2024-CA-007116-O
Case
VISTANA SPRINGS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INCvs.AS TO PATRICIA P GAUTHIER, ANY AND ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES et al.
Aug 07, 2024 |Brian S. Sandor |CA - Other Real Property Actions (up to $50,000) |CA - Other Real Property Actions (up to $50,000) |2024-CA-007019-O
Case
PARK VIEW PRESERVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INCvs.FULCHER, FRANTZ et al.
Aug 09, 2024 |Brian S. Sandor |CA - Other Real Property Actions (up to $50,000) |CA - Other Real Property Actions (up to $50,000) |2024-CA-007142-O
Case
FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATIONvs.BROTHERS, MICHAEL et al.
Aug 08, 2024 |Eric J. Netcher |CA - Nonhomestead Residential Foreclosure ($50,001-249,999) |CA - Nonhomestead Residential Foreclosure ($50,001-249,999) |2024-CA-007100-O
Case
M AND I GENERAL CONTRACTINGvs.VISTAS AT STONEBRIDGE PLACE CONDOMINIUM
Aug 06, 2024 |Patricia L. Strowbridge |CA - Other Real Property Actions (above $250,000) |CA - Other Real Property Actions (above $250,000) |2024-CA-006997-O
Case
ASHLEY, CARLTONvs.ASHLEY, SABRINA
Aug 07, 2024 |A. James Craner, III |CA - Other Real Property Actions (up to $50,000) |CA - Other Real Property Actions (up to $50,000) |2024-CA-007025-O
Case
FAIRWINDS CREDIT UNIONvs.COSME, ANASARA et al.
Aug 09, 2024 |A. James Craner, III |CA - Nonhomestead Residential Foreclosure ($50,001-249,999) |CA - Nonhomestead Residential Foreclosure ($50,001-249,999) |2024-CA-007129-O
Case
GERALD HERTZ AND FAY HERTZ AS CO TRUSTEES OF THEvs.CRYPTO MARKET REAL INVESTMENT GROUP INC et al.
Aug 06, 2024 |A. James Craner, III |CA - Nonhomestead Residential Foreclosure ($50,001-249,999) |CA - Nonhomestead Residential Foreclosure ($50,001-249,999) |2024-CA-006974-O
Ruling
Cheryl Baca vs. Dave Martin
Aug 05, 2024 |C23-01474
C23-01474CASE NAME: CHERYL BACA VS. DAVE MARTIN*HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERFILED BY: MARTIN, DAVE*TENTATIVE RULING:*Appearance required.The parties will be required to meet and confer about limiting, and then responding to the alreadypropounded discovery. They can do so now. Otherwise, the court will continue the hearing so that ajoint statement may be filed detailing the reduction of discovery issues. Regardless, an appearance bycounsel is required.
Ruling
CYRUS V. GODFREY, AS TRUSTEE OF THE CYRUS VINCENT GODFREY LIVING TRUST, ET AL. VS ERIN LAREAU, ET AL.
Aug 06, 2024 |21STCV11951
Case Number: 21STCV11951 Hearing Date: August 6, 2024 Dept: 54 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Cyrus V. Godfrey, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No.: 21STCV11951 vs. Tentative Ruling Erin Lareau, et al., Defendants. Hearing Date: August 6, 2024 Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Moving Parties: Defendants Erin Lareau, Eric H. Ahola, and Sisu Construction, Inc. Responding Parties: Plaintiffs Cyrus V. Godfrey, individually and as Trustee of the Cyrus Vincent Godfrey Living Trust T/R: DEFENDANTS MOTION IS GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO DEFENDANTS ERIC H. AHOLA AND SISU CONSTRUCTION, INC. THE MOTION IS DENIED AS TO DEFENDANT ERIN LAREAU. DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:30 am on the day of the hearing. The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply. BACKGROUND On March 15, 2022, Plaintiffs Cyrus V. Godfrey and Cyrus V. Godfrey as Trustee of the Cyrus Vincent Godfrey Living Trust filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Defendants Erin Lareau, Eric H. Ahola, and Sisu Construction, Inc., asserting causes of action for (1) nuisance, (2) negligence, (3) nuisance parties, and (4) covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs). The FAC alleges that Defendants operate a construction business out of Plaintiffs neighbor Lareaus residence and use that residence in such a manner that extremely loud and excessive noise and construction work occurs there, and vibration, including the use of electric saws, electric drills, electric grinding, mechanized equipment, and the like. (FAC. ¶¶ 8, 9.) At the Final Status Conference on April 12, 2024, the Court ordered a jury trial as to the first cause of action for nuisance, second cause of action for negligence, and third cause of action of nuisance, and decided the fourth cause of action would be addressed in a separate bench trial after the jury trial. On May 3, 2024, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Defendants on causes of action one through three. Defendants Lareau, Ahola, and Sisu Construction, Inc. now move for judgment on the pleadings and/or to dismiss as to the fourth cause of action. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of these facts: 1. On April 12, 2024, the Court issued an order limiting the bench trial to the CC&R cause of action and equitable relief flowing therefrom; and 2. To the extent that the CC&Rs apply and were enforceable, the CC&Rs have been revoked and are no longer enforceable. Defendants argue that those facts were established through (A) the Minute Order dated April 12, 2024, and (B) the Revocation of Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, recorded at the Los Angeles County Recorders Office on May 24, 2024, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Nikhil P. Pole. Although a court cannot take judicial notice of hearsay allegations in a court record, it can take judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in documents such as orders, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgments. (Starr v. Ashbrook (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 999, 1014.) Similarly, [c]ourts can take judicial notice of the existence, content and authenticity of public records and other specified documents, but do not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted in those documents. [Citation.] (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 389, 400.) The Court grants the request to take judicial notice of the Minute Order dated April 12, 2024, and the recorded documents. But the Court cannot take judicial notice of the asserted fact that the CC&Rs have been revoked. Plaintiffs hearsay objection to facts asserted in the recorded documents is sustained. ANALYSIS A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings when the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (CCP § §§ 438(b)(1) and (c)(1)(B)(ii).) The grounds shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (CCP § 438(d).) Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) The Court finds that the motion is timely. It was served and filed on June 27, 2024, more than 30 days before the second phase of trial scheduled for August 26, 2024. (See CCP § 1005.5 [A motion upon all the grounds stated in the written notice thereof is deemed to have been made and to be pending before the court for all purposes, upon the due service and filing of the notice of motion, but this shall not deprive a party of a hearing of the motion to which he is otherwise entitled.]) Defendants argue that the fourth cause of action is moot because the CC&Rs have been revoked. According to the CC&Rs, a note of a majority of the then owners of the lots & [could] agree[] to change said covenants, conditions and restrictions in whole or in part. (Exhibit A to the FAC, p. 4, ¶ 10.) On May 19, 2024, a majority (i.e., eight out of thirteen) owners signed an agreement to revoke the CC&Rs. On May 24, 2024, the revocation agreement was recorded in the Los Angeles County Recorders Office (Exh. B to the Pole Dec.) As discussed above the Court cannot take judicial notice of these facts and cannot grant the motion on this ground. Defendants next argue that Defendants Ahola and Sisu Construction, Inc. cannot be bound by the CC&Rs because Lareau is the sole owner and in possession of the property, and the CC&Rs bind only the property owners and their heirs, personal representatives, or assigns.[1] As Defendants argue, [w]hat is bound by an equitable servitude enforceable under CC&Rs is a parcel, a lot, in a subdivided tract, not an individual who has no ownership interest in the lot. [Citation.] [W]hen the owner of a subdivided tract conveys the various parcels in the tract by deeds containing appropriate language imposing restrictions on each parcel as part of a general plan of restrictions common to all the parcels and designed for their mutual benefit, mutual equitable servitudes are thereby created in favor of each parcel as against all the others. [Citation.] [Citation.] (Martin v. Bridgeport Community Assn., Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1024, 1036.) The FAC alleges that Defendant ERIN LAREAU & is the sole owner, and in possession and control of, real property consisting of land and improvements constituting a single family residence at the address commonly known as 2645 Desmond Estates Rd., Los Angeles, CA 90046. (FAC, ¶ 2; Shirvanyan v. Los Angeles Community College District (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 82, 100 [The complaints allegations are a judicial admission that concede the truth of [the] matter and have the effect of removing it from the issues. [Citations]].) The CC&Rs also state: NOW THEREFORE, THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY, as owners of the aforementioned real property, impose on such property, and each and every parcel thereof, the following provisions, restrictions and covenants, hereinafter referred to as covenants, which shall apply to and bind the undersigned and all parties hereafter acquiring title to any of said parcels, their heirs, personal representatives and assigns. (Exhibit A to the FAC, p. 4, ¶ 10.) The FAC does not allege that Ahola and Sisu Corporation are owners of the property, or heirs, personal representatives, or assigns of Lareau. Plaintiffs have not shown they can amend the FAC to allege facts sufficient to show a claim for breach of the CC&Rs against Ahola and Sisu Corporation. The Court grants the motion as to Defendants Ahola and Sisu Corporation without leave to amend. The Court denies the motion as to Defendant Lareau. The parties briefs also address the issue of what relief can be awarded at the bench trial. The fourth cause of action alleges that Defendants breached the CC&Rs by engaging in a business on the Lareau property, which is aggravated by the facts&that the business is noisy, disruptive, and a nuisance. Plaintiffs also allege Defendants breached the CC&Rs by constructing structures not built and maintained exclusively for private residence purposes. (FAC ¶ 40.) In paragraph 41, Plaintiffs seek an injunction stopping this alleged wrongful conduct because there is no adequate remedy at law due to the difficulty of determining the precise amount of damages& In paragraph 42, Plaintiffs seek emotional distress damages for interference with their enjoyment of the property. A party who is damaged by a violation of the CC&R's may seek money damages. (Cutujian v. Benedict Hills Estates Assn. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1385.) Here, however, all of Plaintiffs emotional distress claims arise from alleged interference with their enjoyment of the property caused by noise and disruption. The jury rejected these claims for emotional distress damages in Phase 1 of this trial. Plaintiffs do not allege separate or distinct emotional distress arising solely from the claimed violation of the CC&Rs. The Court will adopt the jurys conclusion on the issue of emotional distress damages; that will not be relitigated at the bench trial. "Issues adjudicated in earlier phases of a bifurcated trial are binding in later phases of that trial and need not be relitigated." (Arntz Contracting Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 464, 487.) "Where legal claims are first tried by a jury and equitable claims later tried by a judge, the trial court must follow the jury's factual determinations on common issues of fact." (Hoopes v. Dolan (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 146.) The bench trial will be limited to the issues of whether the CC&Rs were properly revoked, and if not, whether the Court should enjoin any ongoing breach of the CC&Rs. [1] The Court rejects Plaintiffs argument that Lareau may not make arguments on behalf of Ahola and Sisu. Their attorneys signed the motion.
Ruling
MEKHAIL vs BASKARON
Aug 08, 2024 |CVRI2401554
Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens byCVRI2401554 MEKHAIL vs BASKARONPAUL BASKARONTentative Ruling: No tentative ruling.
Ruling
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE vs RIOS
Aug 07, 2024 |CVRI2302469
Motion to Consolidate on Complaint forEminent Domain/Inverse CondemnationCOUNTY OF RIVERSIDE vsCVRI2302469 (Over $25,000) of COUNTY OFRIOSRIVERSIDE by COUNTY OFRIVERSIDETentative Ruling: Grant.
Ruling
JOHN GALLAGHER, ET AL. VS WILSHIRE INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
Aug 08, 2024 |11/28/2022 |24SMCV00708
Case Number: 24SMCV00708 Hearing Date: August 8, 2024 Dept: N TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiffs John Gallagher and Juliana Gallaghers Request for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Plaintiffs John Gallagher and Juliana Gallagher to give notice. REASONING Plaintiffs John Gallagher and Juliana Gallagher (Plaintiffs) move the Court for an order restraining any party from further transferring any ownership interest in the subject property located at 11657 Chenault Street, Apartment 301, Los Angeles, California 90049 until this matter is adjudicated on the merits and that Defendants Wilshire Investment Group, LLC and Brentwood Real Estate Group (Defendants) be stayed from prosecuting any unlawful detainer proceedings against Plaintiffs while this litigation is pending. Legal Standard The function of a preliminary injunction is the preservation of the status quo until a final determination of the merits. (Beehan v. Lido Isle Cmty. Assn (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 858, 866.) Trial courts traditionally consider and weigh two factors in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction. They are (1) how likely it is that the moving party will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative harm the parties will suffer in the interim due to the issuance or nonissuance of the injunction. (Dodge, Warren & Peters Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Riley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1414, 1420.) The greater the showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction. (Ibid., quoting Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678, brackets and ellipses omitted.) The burden of proof is on the plaintiff as the moving party to show all elements necessary to support issuance of a preliminary injunction. (OConnell v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.) Preliminary injunctive relief requires the use of competent evidence to create a sufficient factual showing on the grounds for relief. (See, e.g., Ancora-Citronelle Corp. v. Green (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 146, 150 [injunction erroneously granted without verified complaint, affidavits, or declarations to support injunctive relief].) Injunctive relief may be granted based upon a verified complaint only if it contains sufficient evidentiary, as opposed to ultimate, facts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 527, subd. (a).) A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must also show the absence of an adequate damages remedy at law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 526, subd. (a)(4).) A preliminary injunction may be classified as either a prohibitory injunction, which requires parties to refrain from a particular act, or a mandatory injunction, which requires parties to perform an affirmative act that changes the position of the parties. (Davenport v. Blue Cross of California (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 435, 446.) Mandatory preliminary injunctions are rarely granted. (Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association v. Furlotti (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493.) More specifically, [t]he granting of a mandatory injunction pending trial is not permitted except in extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established. (Ibid.) Background Plaintiffs allege that they have been tenants at 11657 Chenault Street, Apartment 301, in Los Angeles since November 2021, and the property owner defaulted on a loan secured by the property in 2023, but Plaintiffs were informed of the default or a pending foreclosure sale. (Compl. ¶¶ 8-10.) On December 12, 2023, a trustees sale took place, and Plaintiffs only learned the day after the sale, such that they were unable to bid at the foreclosure sale, but they intended to bid after the sale pursuant to Civil Code section 2924m, which gives a right of first refusal to tenants to purchase a foreclosed property. (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12.) Plaintiff John Gallagher learned the property was sold to a third-party investment group, and he was informed by Defendant Trustee Corps. of everything that needed to be submitted in a Notice of Intent to Bid and Affidavit. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-17.) Plaintiff submitted the Notice of Intent to Bid, Affidavit, and supporting documentation on December 21, 2023, and he later called to confirm receipt, but he was incorrectly told the notice was submitted after the deadline, and he was informed on January 4, 2024, that the winning bidder at auction had submitted their own affidavit, which closed the sale immediately, thereby allowing for the deed to be transferred, and Plaintiffs did not tender the funds required to complete their bid and take title to the property. (Compl. ¶¶ 18-27.) Plaintiffs allege claims for (1) violation of Civil Code section 2924m, (2) declaratory relief, (3) injunctive relief, (4) quiet title, (5) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and (6) negligence. As to Defendants Wilshire Investment Group, LLC and Brentwood Real Estate Group, Plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and quiet title. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction on the grounds that an eligible tenant buyer has a right to complete a bid 45 days after the trustees sale; Defendant Trustee Corps. delivery of the deed to Defendants denied Plaintiffs rights as eligible tenant buyers; and Plaintiff will incur irreparable harm without the granting of an injunction. Defendants oppose the issuance of a preliminary injunction on the grounds that Wilshire Investment Group, LLC (Wilshire) is a bona fide purchaser without notice of Plaintiffs claims, which bars all causes of action against Wilshire; the plain language of Civil Code section 2924m indicates no intent that the statute should trump bona fide purchaser status; the claim for quiet title cannot succeed because the complaint is not verified and Plaintiffs cannot prove title superior to Wilshire; the claims for declaratory relief and injunctive relief must fail because they are equitable remedies, not independent causes of action, and Plaintiffs claim for declaratory relief seeks to redress an alleged past wrong; and the balancing of irreparable harm favors Wilshire. Analysis Under [Civil Code] section 2924, there is a conclusive presumption created in favor of a [bona fide purchaser] who receives a trustees deed that contains a recital that the trustee has fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. (Melendrez v. D & I Investment, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1250.) A bona fide purchaser is one who pays value for the property without notice of any adverse interest or of any irregularity in the sale proceedings. (Ibid.) The two elements required to make a buyer a bona fide purchaser are that the buyer (1) purchase the property in good faith for value, and (2) have no knowledge or notice of the asserted rights of another. (Id. at p. 1251, italics omitted.) Here, the evidence shows that Wilshire purchased the property at a public trustees sale following a nonjudicial foreclosure, paying the amount of $875,644.90, and Wilshire received a recorded copy of the Trustees Deed Upon Sale from Trustees Corps. on January 12, 2024. (Oppn, Abrahams Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Defendants provide evidence that they were not involved with or relation to Trustees Corp., no personal knowledge relating to Plaintiffs claims against Trustees Corp., Wilshire was unaware of Plaintiffs claims prior to paying value for the property and receiving the deed, Wilshire has no personal knowledge as to any irregularities with the sale bid process, and the first time Defendants were made aware of Plaintiffs claims was when they were served with the complaint in February 2024. (Oppn, Abrahams Decl. ¶ 3.) The deed states as follows: This deed is made pursuant to the authority and powers given to Trustee (or to Successor Trustee) by law and by that certain Deed of Trust dated December 16, 2015, made to ADAM JOANNES, A SINGLE MAN and recorded on December 22, 2015, as Instrument No. 20151607322 of Official Records in the office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County, CA Trustee (or Successor Trustee) having complied with all applicable statutory provisions and having performed all of his duties under the said Deed of trust. All requirements of law and of said Deed of Trust relating to this sale and to notice thereof having been complied with. Pursuant to the Notice of Trustees Sale, the above described property was sold by Trustee (or Successor Trustee) at public auction on December 12, 2023 at the place specified in said Notice, to Grantee who was the highest bidder therefore, for $875,644.90, in lawful money of the United States, which has been paid. (Oppn, Abrahams Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A, capitalization and bolding in original.) There are no facts in the complaint upon which the trier of fact could conclude that Wilshire did not purchase the property in good faith for value, or that it had knowledge or notice of the asserted rights of another. Plaintiffs provide evidence here that Plaintiffs counsel was in touch with Paul Skikne, a representative of Wilshire, on January 17, 2024, regarding Plaintiffs claims to the property and their intent to file this action, and email following up on the conversations was sent to Keith Abrahams, principle of Brentwood Real Estate Group, Inc., the managing member of Wilshire, on January 23, 2024. (Reply, Perez Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. 1.) Notably, this does not show that Wilshire had knowledge of Plaintiffs claims because this communication occurred after the sale and after receipt of the deed on January 12, 2024. Plaintiffs also argue that the transfer was void because it was prohibited by Civil Code section 2924m, but there is no indication in the statute that the presumption created in favor of a bona fide purchaser will be set aside in favor of Civil Code section 2924m. Whether Defendants had notice is something that is not clear at this juncture with the evidence provided, and while discovery may show that Defendants had notice, such that Plaintiffs may prevail on their claim, the Court will not issue a preliminary injunction based on what future evidence may show. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood that they will prevail on the merits of their claims because the evidence shows that Wilshire was a bona fide purchaser of the property. Accordingly, Plaintiffs John Gallagher and Juliana Gallaghers Request for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Evidentiary Objections The Court declines to rule on Defendants objections to the declarations of John Gallagher, as the evidence was not material to the Courts ruling herein.
Ruling
Guravtar Sandhu vs. Tejinder Pal Sandhu
Aug 08, 2024 |19CECG01948
Re: Sandhu v. Sandhu, et al. Superior Court Case No. 19CECG01948Hearing Date: August 8, 2024 (Dept. 503)Motion: by Plaintiff to Enforce SettlementTentative Ruling: To grant the motion to enforce settlement. Plaintiff Guravtar Sandu is directed tosubmit to this court, within 10 days of service of the minute order by the clerk, a proposedjudgment.Explanation: Under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, “If parties to pending litigationstipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orallybefore the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, mayenter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, thecourt may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performancein full of the terms of the settlement.” “If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement,it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of thesettlement. The statute expressly provides for the court to ‘enter judgment pursuant tothe terms of the settlement.’” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182-1883,internal citations omitted.) Here, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, the essential terms ofwhich were agreed upon orally before the court following the May 31, 2024 TrialReadiness Settlement Conference. The court agreed to retain jurisdiction pursuant toCode of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The parties agreed the settlement agreementwould be reduced to a written agreement. Following the settlement conference, counselfor defendant Tejinder Pal Sandhu (“Pal”) prepared a draft of the written settlementagreement. The initial draft was shared with counsel for plaintiff Guravtar Sandhu(“Guravtar”) who red-lined the draft and forwarded to opposing counsel for review andhis client’s signature. A dispute has arisen regarding the terms of the written settlement agreement. Paldesires to have specific amounts owed and paid within the terms of the writtenagreement. Guravtar argues the parties agreed to a third-party, Susan Thompson,conducting a final accounting to determine those figures and by seeking to add theseterms Pal is attempting to modify the terms of the settlement agreed upon orally beforethe court. Guravtar now seeks the court’s intervention enforcing the terms of theagreement made before the court. Both the initial draft and red-lined draft at paragraph 10 reflect the terms agreedto before the court that Susan Thompson of Hemming Morse would conduct anaccounting of Sandhu Farms LLC. Ms. Thompson is tasked with determining what amountsthe parties put in, paid out, or owed the limited liability company in order to distribute toeach party their share of the company’s assets. Her final accounting is binding on bothparties. The parties agreed upon a final accounting by Susan Thompson to distribute theassets of Sandhu Farms, LLC equally based upon amounts the parties put in, paid out, orowed the company. The specificity of the amounts Pal seeks to have included within theagreement appears to be conducting the final accounting before the written settlementagreement is signed. This is not consistent with what was agreed upon orally before thecourt. Therefore, the court intends to grant Guravtar Sandhu’s motion to enforce thesettlement. Prevailing party is directed to submit a judgment consistent with the terms ofsettlement entered into on May 31, 2024. The moving party requests attorney fees be awarded for having to obtain a courtorder to enforce the settlement. Although the fees are provided for under the settlementagreement, there is no evidence before the court of the time billed by Mr. Whelan inpursuing this order. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: jyh on 8/6/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
RICHARD LOPEZ VS RAFAEL DAVID MIRANDA, ET AL.
Aug 08, 2024 |22STCV22815
Case Number: 22STCV22815 Hearing Date: August 8, 2024 Dept: 74 Richard Lopez v. Rafael David Miranda, et al. Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, or alternatively, for Summary Adjudication The court grants Lopezs request for judicial notice. All evidentiary objections are preserved. The court finds that Lopez has carried his prima facie initial burden and Miranda has not shown the existence of one or more triable issues of material fact. Lopez has been the sole rightful legal and equitable owner of the Property continuously since May 2017. (SUF 1.) The Settlement Agreement does not entitle Miranda to any interest in the Property as against Lopez. (SUF 6, 11.) The Improper Default Judgment had been set aside and could not support recording the Trust Transfer Deed. (SUF 17, 22, 23.) As such, the Trust Transfer Deed is void. Because Lopez is entitled to judgment of the first cause of action for quiet title as the Propertys sole rightful legal and equitable owner, cancellation of the Trust Transfer Deed is necessary to clear title and effectuate the judgment for Lopez on the quiet title action. Miranda recorded the Trust Transfer Deed knowing it to be false and without privilege or justification. (SUF 21) Miranda knew that Lopez was no longer a party in the First, Second, or Third Miranda lawsuits when Miranda improperly included in Mirandas proposed default judgment that Lopezs Grant Deed be expunged. (SUF 17.) Miranda did not serve Lopez with his proposed default judgment or the Improper Default Judgment. (SUF 17, 18.) Miranda also refused to apply to amend the Improper Default Judgment to remove the reference to the Property. (SUF 20.) Instead, he clouded the title of the Property by recording the Trust Transfer Deed. (SUF 21.) Lopez has suffered pecuniary loss due to Mirandas recordation of the Trust Transfer Deed. Lopez has incurred $70,934.00 in attorneys fees and $4,652.47 in costs necessary to remove the doubt cast by the Trust Transfer Deed and to clear title. (SUF 24.) Miranda fails to create a triable issue for any of the foregoing. The court grants summary adjudication for Lopez on the first, second, and third causes of action. Plaintiff shall prepare a proposed judgment.
Ruling
2023PRDE017324
Aug 08, 2024 |Roger L. Lund |Hearing on Petition to Determine Title and Order Transfer of Real Property |2023PRDE017324
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Probate Notes 2023PRDE017324: IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTOPHER P RUSHING 08/08/2024 in Department J6 Hearing on Petition to Determine Title and Order Transfer of Real PropertyNotice to the Condor Squadron Officer’s & Airmen’s Association, Inc., must begiven in the manner provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10) inTitle 5 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Prob. Code, § 851, subd. (a)(2).)This does not mean that a summons should be served but rather that the mannerof service must be the same as for a summons (e.g., personal service, leavingand mailing copies, or by mail with acknowledgement of receipt).Subject to statutory notice or a waiver thereof, the Court intends to grant thepetition.__________________The Court uses Zoom exclusively for remote appearances in Department J6. Forinformation on the Zoom procedures, and for general information regardingJudge Lund and his courtroom rules and procedures, please visit:http://www.judgerogerlund.com.
Document
PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES LLC vs. MARTINEZ, CARMENet al.
Dec 28, 2023 |Chad K. Alvaro |CA - Homestead Residential Foreclosure btwn $50,001-$249,999 |CA - Homestead Residential Foreclosure btwn $50,001-$249,999 |2023-CA-017977-O
Document
WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs. AXTELL, BROOKE Aet al.
Aug 18, 2014 |Patricia L Strowbridge |CA - Homestead Residential Foreclosure above $250,000 |CA - Homestead Residential Foreclosure above $250,000 |2014-CA-008800-O
Document
M AND I GENERAL CONTRACTINGvs.VISTAS AT STONEBRIDGE PLACE CONDOMINIUM
Aug 06, 2024 |Patricia L Strowbridge |CA - Other Real Property Actions (above $250,000) |CA - Other Real Property Actions (above $250,000) |2024-CA-006997-O
Document
SELENE FINANCE LP vs. FONT, ELIZABETH Aet al.
Mar 21, 2024 |A. James Craner, III |CA - Homestead Residential Foreclosure btwn $50,001-$249,999 |CA - Homestead Residential Foreclosure btwn $50,001-$249,999 |2024-CA-002473-O
Document
FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION vs. UNKNOWN HEIRS BENEFICIARIES DEVISEES AS TO THE ESTATE OF JUAN T. ANDINOet al.
Jun 22, 2022 |Patricia L. Strowbridge |CA - Homestead Residential Foreclosure btwn $50,001-$249,999 |CA - Homestead Residential Foreclosure btwn $50,001-$249,999 |2022-CA-005706-O
Document
MARBELLA RESERVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION vs. HARP, MARKISHA L
Dec 22, 2020 |Reginald K Whitehead |CA - Homestead Residential Foreclosure up to $50,000 |CA - Homestead Residential Foreclosure up to $50,000 |2020-CA-012660-O
Document
ECON TRAILS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INCvs.MIA BELLA EXQUISITES LLC et al.
Aug 07, 2024 |Eric J. Netcher |CA - Other Real Property Actions (up to $50,000) |CA - Other Real Property Actions (up to $50,000) |2024-CA-007015-O
Document
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY vs. THE UNKNOWN HEIRSINTEREST IN THE ESTATE OF MARGAREet al.
Jun 01, 2022 |A. James Craner, III |CA - Homestead Residential Foreclosure btwn $50,001-$249,999 |CA - Homestead Residential Foreclosure btwn $50,001-$249,999 |2022-CA-004888-O
