Gorenberg v. Emerson Maintenance Assn. CA4/3
G061121
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 3, 2023Background:
- Homeowner Alan Gorenberg requested association records and the membership list under Civil Code §§ 5205 and 5225; the Emerson Maintenance Association failed to produce them.
- Gorenberg petitioned for a peremptory writ of mandate; the trial court granted the writ and ordered issuance, but the court removed the phrase "officers, directors, and/or managing agents" from the writ before issuance.
- The association provided a partial production; Gorenberg moved to compel full compliance and sought an order requiring individual officers, directors, and managing agents to obey the writ and pay penalties.
- The trial court fined the association but denied the request to compel individual board members, reasoning they were not named respondents or served individually in the original petition.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that board members can be compelled to secure compliance with a writ directed to the association because an association acts through its board and CCP § 1097 and § 128 authorize orders necessary to enforce writs and control persons connected to proceedings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could order individual officers/directors to comply with a writ issued to the association | Gorenberg: §1097 lets the court impose fines and "make any orders necessary and proper" to enforce a writ, including ordering officers/directors to obey; associations act through their boards | Emerson: Individuals were not named or served; court cannot expand the scope after issuance | Reversed — court may compel individual board members to secure compliance; a writ to the association binds persons who act for it |
| Whether excising "officers, directors, and/or managing agents" from the writ narrowed its legal effect | Gorenberg: language was unnecessary because a writ directing the board necessarily commands the persons who act for the board | Emerson: Deleting the language limited who could be compelled | Held: The deletion did not change the writ’s legal scope; orders against the association reach those who act on its behalf |
Key Cases Cited
- Ritter & Ritter, Inc. Pension & Profit Plan v. The Churchill Condominium Assn., 166 Cal. App. 4th 103 (2008) (associations act through boards; supports including directors within scope of orders)
- Signal Oil Etc. Co. v. Ashland Oil Etc. Co., 49 Cal.2d 764 (1958) (injunctions against a corporation bind officers/agents who act for the corporation and know of the decree)
- Taylor v. Burks, 6 Cal. App. 225 (1907) (court may punish board members who refuse to obey a writ; naming individuals is often advisable but not always required)
- Reid v. Google, Inc., 50 Cal.4th 512 (2010) (statutory construction principles governing appellate review)
- Finley v. Superior Court, 80 Cal. App. 4th 1152 (2000) (homeowners association subject to corporate-law principles governing boards)