Case Number: 17STCP00152 Hearing Date: January 17, 2018 Dept: 77

The Petition for Injunction for Violation of Park Rules Pursuant to Civil Code, Section 798.88 is DENIED.

Notice and Proof of Service of Notice

As set forth in the Minute Order, Petitioner was required to give notice of the September 13, 2017 Minute Order and file both the notice and proof of service of such no later than October 27, 2017. (Minute Order, p. 4.)

Petitioner filed a notice on October 27, 2017, and again on December 12, 2017. It appears that Petitioner did not attach a copy of the reservation receipt to the October notice, despite including the Reservation ID on the first page. The December 12, 2017 notice includes the receipt on the last page and, without explanation, has photos attached. Neither notice, however, includes the Court-ordered proof of service. On this ground alone, the Petition must be denied.

Whether Respondent is Bound to Current Rules and Regulations

Petitioner has provided a copy of the Rules and Regulations Respondent signed in 1995, which confirm that the current Rules and Regulations Petitioner is attempting to enforce are not identical to the ones that existed when Respondent filed the lease. (Compare Exh. 2 with Exh. 3.) Indeed, the Rules and Regulations adopted are significantly different than the Rules and Regulations that existed in 1995. The 1995 Rules and Regulations is a single page, while the amended Rules and Regulations is 27 pages.

Petitioner claims that it properly provided notice to homeowners of the amendments to the regulations in accordance with Civil Code section 798.25. (Phillips Supp. Decl. ¶ 6.) Petitioner however, has provided incomplete exhibits. Specifically, Petitioner did not include the “(Proposed) Rules and Regulations and FHAA Fair Housing Policy” that was purportedly enclosed with the January 27, 2016 “Initial Notice of Meeting and Amendments to Rules and Regulations.” (See Exh. 4.) Likewise, Petitioner did not include the “(Final) Rules and Regulations” that was purportedly enclosed with the March 3, 2016 Final Notice. (See Exh. 4.) While Petitioner suggests that the current Rules and Regulations (exhibit 3) was enclosed with the March 3, 2016 notice, there is no evidence that is true.

Assuming Respondent is bound to the amended rules, Petitioner concedes that they were not effective until September 3, 2016 (six months after the March 3, 2016 notice). (Phillips Supp. Decl. ¶ 6.) Because there is no evidence Respondent consented to immediate enforcement, Petitioner’s August 23, 2016 7-Day Notice was premature. (See Exh. 6, pp. 1-3 [8/23/16 Notice to Respondent].)

Whether Respondent’s Violations are Continuous and Recurring

Petitioner has failed to resolve this Court’s previous concerns regarding evidence of Respondent’s continuous and recurring violations.

First, Petitioner has not provided evidence that establishes when or how often Respondent violated Rule 15(B), which prohibits street parking. (See Exh. 7 [all notices].) None of the photographic evidence shows that Respondent is parking his car on the street in violation of Park rules. (See Exhs. 7-11.) As such, there is no clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner violated Rule 15(b).

Second, Petitioner’s argument that Respondent is in violation of the Rules and Regulations by failing to register a pet is unsupported. The applicable rule states written permission “must be obtained in advance.” (Exh 3., pp. 16-17, ¶ 20.) This wording indicates that the rule is limited to proposed pets and does not apply to a grandfathered pet. Indeed, the rule goes on to state that “[s]hould you lose your pet, no longer have the pet in the Park, or should your pet die, you must obtain written permission from Management before acquiring another pet. Any replacement pet must meet these requirements despite a formerly grandfathered pet.” (Exh. 3, pp. 16-17, ¶ 20.) Because Petitioner neither argues nor presents evidence that Respondent’s cat is a replacement pet to a formerly grandfathered pet, there is no clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is in violation of Rule 20(A).

Third, while Petitioner has provided better quality photographs, none are timestamped. (See Exhs. 7-11.) Even if the exhibits represent photographs that were taken during different months, it is difficult to determine what, if any, violations are continuous and recurring. For the photographs in each exhibit are taken from different positions, angles, and perspectives. Complicating analysis further, Petitioner does not identify which rule is being violated in each individual picture. (See Exhs. 7-11.) In fact, review of the photographs suggest that Respondent might have attempted to comply with the rules. (See Exh. 9 [less weeds in front of mobilehome than shown in Exh. 7, less storage outside than what appears in Exh. 8].) As such, there is, thus, no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent has been in continuous and recurrent violation of the rules.

Finally, Petitioner still does not explain why it omits to seek enforcement of Rule 29(A), which is included in nearly all the 7-Day Notices. (Exh. 6 [August 23, 2016 Notice, November 4, 2016 Notice, December 6, 2017 Notice, and January 19, 2017 Notice].)

For these reasons, the petition is DENIED.

Petitioner to give notice.