Case Name:    Marcos Nunez and Irma Ponce v. Juan Salazar and Lorena Pimentel, et al.

Case No.:        1-14-CV-265929

Plaintiffs Marcos Nunez and Irma Ponce (“Plaintiffs”) have filed a motion for injunctive relief to compel Defendants Juan Salazar and Lorena Pimentel to make payments allegedly required under San Jose Housing Code.  The motion was timely and properly served, is unopposed.  However, the motion is DENIED for the reasons specified below.

1. In support of the motion, Plaintiffs have cited only to the San Jose Housing Code (“Housing Code”), which generally states that Tenants have a private right of action under the Housing Code to bring an action against an owner for “damages, injunctive or declaratory relief or any other appropriate action…”   Nothing in the quoted language suggests that the general requirements for seeking injunctive relief under the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply in Housing Code cases.

The Court finds that injunctive relief is not appropriate under the allegations stated in the moving papers.   Plaintiffs have not established that legal remedies are inadequate, as the only relief sought in this motion is a mandatory injunction to compel Defendants to pay specified money allegedly owed to the Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs have not cited any authority that suggests that the court can order payment of money damages under the guise of an injunction.  When an award of damages is an adequate legal remedy, a judge may not issue a preliminary injunction.  CCP sec. 526(a)(4)-(5); See Tahoe Keys Prop. Owners’ Ass’n v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4^th 1459, 1471; AIU Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 807, 838; Friedman v. Friedman (1993) 20 Cal.App.4^th 876, 889.

2)         The application for preliminary injunction is not supported by admissible evidence, only a declaration of counsel that on its face is not based on personal knowledge, and makes allegations based on information and belief.  See CCP 527(a); Gray v. Superior Court (2005) 125 Cal.App.4^th  629, 640-41.

3)         The request for attorney fees is DENIED.  Although the Housing Code provides for an award of attorney fees to “tenants who prevail,” whether the Plaintiffs have prevailed will be determined at the time of entry of judgment.