9 Cal. App. 5th 458
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Owner/trustee Sarvada N. H. Reddy owned the Townhouse Motel in Crescent City; the city issued repeated notices from 2006 and a comprehensive Notice and Order in May 2013 listing 76 code violations.
- After an inspection showed noncompliance, the city sued in July 2013; parties stipulated to a November 2013 judgment requiring specific repairs and other remedial steps within six months.
- A 2014 city inspection found many required repairs undone and numerous hazardous conditions (exposed wiring, leaks, mold, structural/water damage, filth), prompting the city to move to appoint a receiver to rehabilitate the property.
- The city submitted detailed declarations and photographs from a building inspector and code enforcement officer; Reddy submitted competing declarations (himself, manager, contractor) disputing many of the city’s findings. Parties exchanged evidentiary objections.
- At the motion hearing the court treated objections as going to weight not admissibility, denied Reddy’s untimely oral request for live testimony, found Reddy had not complied with the judgment, and appointed a receiver to develop and implement a rehabilitation plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (Reddy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidentiary objections to city declarations | City: declarations and photos admissible; objections go to weight | Reddy: trial court erred by overruling specific objections and should have ruled individually | Court: Reddy forfeited specific challenge; objections largely go to weight, not admissibility; no reversible error |
| Live testimony at law-and-motion hearing | City: hearing properly on declarations per Rules of Court | Reddy: requested live testimony at hearing to rebut city evidence | Court: request was untimely and not in writing as required; even if timely, live testimony would not have changed result |
| Appointment of a receiver under Health & Safety §17980.7 and CCP §564(b)(3) | City: unremedied, extensive violations endanger occupants/public; receiver appropriate after notice and time to comply | Reddy: his declarations show repairs and no dangerous conditions; receiver unnecessary and more drastic than alternatives | Court: substantial evidence supports appointment under §17980.7; no abuse of discretion; court may infer necessary findings |
| Appellate attorney’s fees / sanctions | City: seeks fees under Health & Safety Code or sanctions for frivolous appeal | Reddy: (opposed) | Court: denies sanctions—procedural defects in city’s request; directs city to seek appellate fees first in trial court if desired |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 905 (Cal. 2008) (interpreting Health & Safety Code scheme authorizing receivers for substandard buildings)
- Salas v. Department of Transportation, 198 Cal.App.4th 1058 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (appellate challenge to evidentiary rulings forfeited without specific argument and authority)
- City and County of San Francisco v. Daley, 16 Cal.App.4th 734 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (standard of review for receiver appointment: abuse of discretion)
- Richardson v. City and County of San Francisco Police Com., 214 Cal.App.4th 671 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (substantial-evidence standard and appellate limits on reweighing conflicting declarations)
- Silver v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 79 Cal.App.4th 338 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (law-and-motion procedure requires declarations; live testimony requires timely written request)
- Pulte Homes Corp. v. Williams Mechanical, Inc., 2 Cal.App.5th 267 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (court may imply findings necessary to support order where statute does not require express finding)