Motion for New Trial and In The Alternative For Changes To The Statement Of Decision And For Modifications Of The Judgment
HG21090336: Property Investors 2020, LLC VS Spanish Ranch 1 Association 06/12/2026 Hearing on Motion for New Trial and In The Alternative For Changes To The Statement Of Decision And For Modifications Of The Judgment; filed by Property Investors 2020, LLC (Plaintiff) CRS# A-21090336-001 in Department 25
Tentative Ruling - 06/10/2026 Jenna Whitman
The Motion for New Trial filed by Property Investors 2020, LLC on 05/18/2026 is Denied.
PI2020's argument that it may raise new issues in post-trial briefing under Hoffman-Haag v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 10 is persuasive only insofar as PI2020 raises new issues of law based upon undisputed facts, i.e., pure legal issues, that change the outcome. (1 Cal.App.4th at pp. 15-16.) PI2020 mainly advances this principle with respect to its request for nominal damages for alleged violations of the Warehouse Lien Law. However, it has not satisfactorily addressed the Court's finding that no violation of Commercial Code section 7210 occurred.
Section 7210 only prohibits enforcement by sale, absent compliance with its procedural requirements, including timely notice to [a]ll persons known to claim an interest in the goods." (Comm. Code, § 7210, subd. (a), (b)(1), (c) & (i).) Here, Park Management, after being confronted by PI2020 and its objections to the Notice of Warehouse Lien and demand for restraining order, cancelled the lien sale. The Court is unaware of any authority holding that, absent a sale, the failure to comply with section 7210's notice requirements itself actionable under section 7210, or that section 7210's notice requirements impose independent duties, irrespective of any sale, for purposes of derivative claims.
Thus, regardless of whether PI2020 waived its argument for nominal damages by failing to support it with authority or reasoned argument until after briefing was complete, there is no reason for the Court to reconsider the merits of its conclusion regarding the propriety of nominal damages (or, on the same theory, declaratory or injunctive relief).
PI2020 also reasserts that the Notices of Termination of the Tenants' site lease were defective. PI2020 is correct that Ex. 48 was admitted to evidence and thus, that there is evidence to support this contention. The FSOD is accordingly AMENDED, hereby, to STRIKE the Court's contention to the contrary. That said, PI2020's Motion fails to demonstrate how any defects in those Notices would be material in this case. (See FSOD pp. 8-9 [discussing election framework under CCP 798.56a(a), (b), (e) and legal owner's forfeiture of right to conduct an on-site sale]; & pp. 13-14 [application of statutes to facts of this case, including illustrating how PI2020 never acquired a right to demand a site lease]. See also Opp. Mem., § IV.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The issues raised by the motion are otherwise addressed by the Court's Final Statement of Decision. Except to the extent stated above, the Motion is therefore DENIED.