) ) ) ) ) ) ) ttorney for Plaintiffs, 3OSCO TUAN TRAN, SONNY TRAN SONNY & BOSCO, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Transcription

1 PHUONG DAVE VO, ESQ., SBN: VO LAW FIRM, APLC 7372 Prince Drive, Suite 108 Huntington Beach, CA Telephone: Facsimile: ttorney for Plaintiffs, 3OSCO TUAN TRAN, SONNY TRAN SONNY & BOSCO, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES LONG BEACFl COURTHOUSE SOUTH DISTRICT 13 BOSCO TUAN TRAN, an individual; Case No.: NC SONNY TRAN, an individual; SONNY & BOSCO, NC., a corporation duly licensed by the State of California, NOTICE OF RULING Plaintiffs, 16 VS. WAN E & P, NC., a corporation duly licensed by the State of Wyoming and affiliate of WARREN RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Dept.: Ii 23 Defendants. Complaint filed: March 6, /1/ 1 NOTICE OF RULING

2 I, r( 4, Ye ç. it; ;1fi:!. fl p : fl:i:f;rc ii: ncjr:ct: (tb ew RECORfl: tn: _ lillil tiaiiiliitc, eu( ( U2N FRAN, SONNY TRAN and.qj%4tj. NI IIOSCO. INC.. \iction r I rdi. 1inaty Fnjuniion uiid P 1atcd ioeumeiits came upon Pr Jwa.1n by regu!ar iicticcd i.iniion belne chine entitled Cotta Oil ;Iay 22. 9l 2. Couns,Ls oircorci. Iavc Vo. Ii :ippeaced tbr the biaiiffi m1d Soslitn Ck ie appear.:d ibrits.: J,rrjrn1. WAR Rt4 Ii & P. INC. [he ( nurt took the Motion under submission &tacl ;ssue:u a ritten titling, thich is attach.xi herewith as R chibit A tnd ritli 3 incorpora( into tills Nolic ear Ruling as if hilly fet ibttli herein. Iatcd: May it o J. ITOTLC Ui? aultjg

3 I F I

4 [Most Attachment OK, document this PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION çquest for Judicial Notice of these documents are not properforjudicial notice. Counsel for Defendant attempts to authenticate them but lacks personal knowledge to do so.] an official copy but appears authentic Exhibit 1: LA County Assessor s Map Exhibit 2: Quitclaim Deed granting Lot G to D Exhibit 3: Photograph of Property from Google Earth not recorded document Denied Exhibit 4: Map of Lot C from LA County Assessor website Denied Exhibit 5: ap of Lot 8 from LA County Assessor website Exhibit 6: Photocopy of Cal-OSHA pamphlet Denied Denied OK Opposing Party s Objections to Plaintiffs Evidence Defendant raises 10 objections to Plaintiffs evidence. Objection 1 (to 5 in Bosco Tran Declaration: Overruled in a declaration, not of absolute fact, regardless of the wording; Objection 2 (to 11 in Bosco Tran Declaratiofl: Overruled in a declaration; not reliable; Objection 3 (to Plaintiffs Exhibit A: Sustained this is a statement of belief is a statement of belief is incomplete and therefore Objection 4 (to Plaintiffs Exhibit C: Sustained as to the 1987 photograph as Plaintiffs fail to authenticate the photograph (which is actually a photocopy of a photograph and lack personal knowledge of the appearance of the shop in 1987; Objection 5 (to Plaintiffs Exhibit F: Sustained for lack of personal knowledge; lack of authentication; Objection 6 (to Plaintiffs Exhibit G: Sustained as to legal description; lack of authentication; Objection 7 (to T 89 in Sonny Tran Declaration: Overruled as custodian of the books, Sonny Tran has personal knowledge to discuss company finances; Sonny Tran s reference to records that Plaintiffs failed to attach is noted; Objection 8 (to 4 Gonzalez Declaration: Overruled. Gonzalez does not need to lay foundation for his own recollection and belief, much less his stated use ofth Driveway. To the extent that Defendant objects to Gonzalez reference to Exhibit H, this objection unnecessarily duplicates Objection 9; Objection 9 (to the phrase For legal description...declaration[.] in 4 of Gonzalez Declaration: Sustained as there is no Exhibit H and Exhibit G (which is what Gonzalez appears to mean is inadmissible; Objection 10 (to 6 in Gonzalez Declaration: Overruled as it is a statement of belief. NC May 22, 2012 Page 1 of3

5 while Attachment May Analysis In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a trial court weighs two interrelated factors: the likelihood the moving party ultimately will prevail on the merits, and the relative interim harm to the parties from the issuance or nonissuance of the injunction. Generally, the ruling on an application for a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. The exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that it has been abused. A trial court may not grant a preliminary injunction, regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim. (Hunt v. Superior Court ( Cal.4th 984, Plaintiffs contend that they have a strong possibility of prevailing on the merits, and that the balance of the harms weighs significantly in their favor. Plaintiffs offer evidence in support of their position. In response, Defendant offers evidence that Plaintiffs will not, in fact prevail, and that they too would suffer potential harm if the injunction were granted. Plaintiffs first Cause of Action to quiet title is based on the argument that they have acquired an easement by prescription, through adverse possession, that permits them to use the driveway. Easement By Prescription To establish the elements of a prescriptive easement, the claimant must prove use of the property, for the statutory period of five years, which use has been (1 open and notorious; (2 continuous and uninterrupted; (3 hostile to the true owner; and (4 under claim of right. (Harrison v. Welch ( Cal.App.4 46 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1305 th 1084, 1090 (quoting Mehdizadeh v. Mincer (1996 Plaintiffs allege that they have personally been openly using the driveway continuously since (Complaint j 12-13, 16 They also allege that the driveway was openly used by their predecessor-in-interest continuously from 1984 until (Complaint 13 This establishes the first and second elements. Defendant does not really dispute that Plaintiffs have been using the driveway openly and continuously. Instead, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs are unable to establish the third element, because Plaintiffs use was premised on a lease rather than a claim of right. The evidence with regard to whether Plaintiffs use of the driveway was hostile or permissive is not clear-cut. None of the documents provide a decisive answer, given that they are legal descriptions that would not mention an easement by prescription. The lease is likewise not decisive, as it does not include a more precise description of the land the parties intended to the south east 5,000 feet could include the driveway, it could as easily not. include Balancing of the Harms Defendants concerns are more persuasive. Defendant has expended a significant amount of money to build the fence and, if the Court grants the injunction, Defendant will have to pay to tear the fence down. If Defendant ultimately prevails, it would have to rebuild the fence at yet NC Page 2 of3 22, 2012

6 foundation, vague, legal Attachment more expense. If Defendant prevails and Plaintiffs have been permitted to use the land, Defendant will be out the rental income for that land. Defendant s concerns regarding liability are legitimate, particularly in light of the nature of Plaintiffs business. A preliminary mandatory injunction is rarely granted, and is subject to stricter review on appeal. The granting of a mandatory injunction pending trial is not permitted except in extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established. (Shoemaker v. Count of Los Ane1es ( Cal.App.4th 618, 625 (internal quotations and citations omitted Weighing the equities compel the denial of the requested injunction. Evidentiary Objections by Plaintiffs 1. Overruled. 2. Overruled. 3. Overruled. 4. Sustained 5. Sustained 6 Sustained 7. Sustained 8. Sustained 9. Sustained 10. Overruled. 11. Sustained 12. Sustained 13. Overruled. foundation. hearsay. hearsay. foundation. relevance. foundation. relevance. argument, not evidence, therefore irrelevant. SO ORDERED. ROSS M. KLEIN, JUDGE Dated: 5/22/12 NC May 22, 2012 Page 3 of 3

7 - I - thereon am employed in the county of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to 2 the within action; my address is 7372 Prince Drive, Suite 108, Huntington Beach, CA On May Q, 2012, I served the foregoing document(s described as: A NOTICE OF RULING RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION & RELATEI DOCUMENTS 6 on the interested parties by placing a true copy thereof to: Joshua Dale, Esq. 7 Michel & Associates, P.C 180 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite Long Beach, CA _X_ (BY U.S. MAIL I caused such envelope, with postage fully prepaid thereon, to be placed in the United States mail at Huntington Beach, California. 12 (PERSONAL SERVICE I caused such envelope to be hand-delivered to a person(sjoffice(s over the 3 age of eighteen (18 years old at the above address(es at the following time and physical description: (BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSiON 1 caused the above-referenced document(s to be transmitted to 15 the above-named person(s at the following telecopier number F J at the hours of p/a.m I am readily familiar with the finns practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage fully prepaid at Huntington Beach, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 22 Executed on May, 2012, at Orange County, California. 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and 24 correct and that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service 25 was made. JIA Michelle Truong 8 PROOF OF SERVICE