That v. Alders Maintenance Ass'n
142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 458
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff Dinh Ton That is a homeowner in The Alders, governed by Alders Maintenance Association.
- In February 2009 a recall election was held but failed to achieve quorum and effectively concluded without adjournment.
- Ton That filed a small claims action seeking penalties and injunctive relief related to the recall proceedings.
- He then pursued a writ of mandate, which the superior court denied, and subsequently filed this civil action.
- The trial court sustained demurrers to the FAC on statute of limitations grounds and to a second amended complaint under UCL, and awarded defendant attorney fees for frivolous conduct.
- Ton That appeals, challenging the demurrers, the UCL ruling, and the attorney-fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is HOA an unlawful business under UCL? | Ton That argues the HOA operates as a business and falls under UCL. | Alders maintains the HOA is not a business for UCL purposes and the claim fails as a matter of law. | HOA is not a business under UCL in this context. |
| Whether attorney fees can be awarded to the prevailing party under Civ. Code § 1363.09(b) where the action is frivolous but the statute does not expressly authorize fees to associations. | Ton That contends the statute allows attorney fees for prevailing associations when frivolous. | Alders argues the statute only allows costs to a prevailing association and law does not authorize attorney fees. | Statute does not authorize attorney-fee awards to prevailing associations. |
| Is the first Civil Code § 1363.09 claim time-barred by a one-year statute of limitations? | Ton That argues estoppel or other theories tolling the period. | Alders contends the action is time-barred by the one-year limit. | First claim barred by the one-year statute of limitations. |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Connor v. Village Green Owners Assn., 33 Cal.3d 790 (1983) (association treated as business establishment in Unruh Act context)
- Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal.4th 939 (2002) (UCL aims to protect fair competition; not all association conduct qualifies)
- Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co., 23 Cal.4th 163 (2000) (UCL not a catch-all substitute for tort/contract actions)
- California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist., 14 Cal.4th 627 (1997) (statutory interpretation; reluctance to rewrite statutes)
- Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.3d 311 (1985) (demurrer standards and de novo review on appeal)
- Turner v. Vista Pointe Ridge Homeowners Assn., 180 Cal.App.4th 676 (2009) (publicly cited in UCL context involving associations)