Porter Vista Public Utility District vs. Childress, Darby Elaine

Case No.: VCU333225 Date: June 22, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide Motion: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion without prejudice

Facts

In this matter, Plaintiff Porter Vista Public Utility District (the "District") seeks a preliminary injunction, permanent injunction and penalties against Defendant Childress.

Plaintiff alleges that on or about July 10, 2003, the District enacted Wastewater Ordinance No. 2003-2004-1 (the "Ordinance") which notes it is unlawful to place, deposit, or permit waste to be deposited in any unsanitary manner, unlawful to discharge to any natural outlet or water course any sewage, industrial waste, or other polluting waters, unlawful to construct or maintain any privy, private vault, septic tank, cesspool, seepage pit or other facility intended or used for the disposal of sewage and unlawful to construct private sewage disposal systems or connect new dwellings to existing systems. (Complaint P.5.)

Further, that the District, on information and belief, alleges Defendant constructed two sewage disposal systems on Assessor's Parcel No. 264-010-026 and Assessor's Parcel No. 264-010-027 (the "Subject Property") and that Defendant has maintained a privy, privy vault, septic tank, cesspool, seepage pit or other facility intended or used for the disposal of sewage in violation of the Ordinance. (Complaint P.6.)

Additionally, the District alleges it became aware of these events August 6, 2025 and, via counsel, sent a letter to Defendants alleging violations of the Ordinance. (Complaint P.7.)

However, as of October 10, 2025, the violations had not been cured and a second letter was sent. (Complaint P.8.)

Further, that on January 15, 2026, the violations remained uncured and a third letter was sent. (Complaint P.9.)

Further, the District alleges it lacks an adequate remedy at law as to violation of the ordinance and continued use of the septic tanks rather than connection to the sewer system. (Complaint P.11.)

The Ordinance provides that the District may petition for a preliminary or permanent injunction, or both, restraining a person from continuing violations and/or for the issuance of an order stopping or disconnecting a service if the charges for that service are unpaid at the time specified in the Ordinance. (Complaint P.12.)

Further, the Ordinance permits criminal penalties up not to exceed $25,000 per day for intentional or negligent violation of the Ordinance. (Complaint P.12.)

On April 29, 2026, the District filed this motion for preliminary injunction.

The District seeks a preliminary Injunction enjoining and restraining Defendant and Defendant's officers, agents, employees, representatives and all other persons acting in concert of participating with Defendant's from continuing to use the sewer system and for an order to disconnect the dwelling units located on said property from the septic tank system and connect said dwelling units to the public sewage disposal system owned by the District.

The motion is based on the unverified complaint and the declaration of the manager of the District, who states that on or about July 22, 2025, the District became aware of three dwelling units on the Subject Property, two of which had not been connected to the District's sewer system. (Declaration of Sifuentes P.2.)

Further, that declarant contacted the Tulare County Resource Management Agency and determined that in 2022, the Tulare County Resource Management Agency had authorized two permits at said location to construct "a new septic system." (Declaration of Sifuentes P.3.)

Further, that declarant "searched the Tulare County Recorder's Office to determine who owned the real property" which resulted in a Grant Deed dated November 2, 2024, attached as Exhibit B, reflecting a transfer to Defendant Childress. (Declaration of Sifuentes P.4, Ex B.)

Defendant answered the complaint and provided a declaration in opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction.

The declaration notes Defendant was "added to the deed" in November 2024, that her elderly and medically fragile mother "retained actual possession, management and control" over the Subject Property, and that Defendant has a limited role concerning the Subject Property. (Declaration of Defendant Childress.)

Further, that in August 2025, Defendant's mother informed Defendant that all septic and sewer related matters had been previously permitted and legally addressed. (Declaration of Defendant Childress.)

Defendant, thereafter, attended the District's board meetings, following the receipt of further correspondence and have actively attempted to communicate and participate with the District's representatives. (Declaration of Defendant Childress.)

The declaration further states "Additionally, we attempted to propose interim solutions while investigating the matter further. We contacted Porta Vista and offered to pay a reasonable monthly utility amount pending further review and engineering evaluation. That proposal was rejected. We were informed that an approved engineering plan would first be required." (Declaration of Defendant Childress.)

Further "During the board meetings, my husband also discussed the possibility of utilizing the city right-of-way adjacent to the property for installation of piping infrastructure. That suggestion was likewise rejected, and no mutually agreeable resolution was presented." (Declaration of Defendant Childress.)

Finally, the declaration notes that "on Monday, May 11, 2026, immediately following service of the summons and complaint, my husband, Dwayne, contacted Cen Cal Engineering and spoke directly with the owner regarding the matter. Thereafter, we promptly entered into an agreement for professional engineering services related to the project. Cen Cal Engineering is currently engaged in evaluating and engineering the necessary plans in an effort to bring the property into compliance and resolve the matter in good faith and as expeditiously as reasonably possible." (Declaration of Defendant Childress.)

Authority and Analysis

"The granting or denial of a preliminary injunction does not amount to an adjudication of the ultimate rights in controversy. It merely determines that the court, balancing the respective equities of the parties, concludes that, pending a trial on the merits, the defendant should or that he should not be restrained from exercising the right claimed by him." (Cont'l Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 528.)

"The general purpose of such an injunction is the preservation of the status quo until a final determination of the merits of the action." (Id.)

"Thus, the court examines all of the material before it in order to consider 'whether a greater injury will result to the defendant from granting the injunction than to the plaintiff from refusing it.'" (Id.)

An injunction is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 526 where, for example, it appears by the complaint that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded and the relief, or any part, where the commission or continuance of some act would produce great or irreparable injury. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 526(a)(2).)

Injunctive relief is available where pecuniary compensation is inadequate and where it is "extremely difficult" to ascertain adequate compensation. (Code Civ. Proc Sec. 526(a)(4)(5).)

The burden is on plaintiff to show all elements necessary to support issuance of the injunction. (O'Connell v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.)

"A superior court must evaluate two interrelated factors when ruling on a request for a preliminary injunction: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial and (2) the interim harm that the plaintiff would be likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm the defendant would be likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued. (Smith v. Adventist Health System/West (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 729, 749.)

The court employs a more probable than not standard. (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 206.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Ordinance noted above.

However, the complaint is unverified and cannot stand as evidence in support of the Ordinance.

No request for judicial notice of the Ordinance is requested.

The declaration of Sifuentes does not contain an authenticated copy of the Ordinance.

Additionally, the Ordinance allegedly makes it unlawful to place, deposit, or permit waste to be deposited in any unsanitary manner, unlawful to discharge to any natural outlet or water course any sewage, industrial waste, or other polluting waters, unlawful to construct or maintain any privy, private vault, septic tank, cesspool, seepage pit or other facility intended or used for the disposal of sewage and unlawful to construct private sewage disposal systems or connect new dwellings to existing systems.

However, there is no evidence of the placement, depositing or permission of waste deposited or discharged, no evidence of construction or maintenance of any privy, private vault, septic tank, cesspool, seepage pit or other facility intended or used for the disposal of sewage, or construction of private sewage disposal or connection of new dwellings.

The only evidence in support of this motion in this matter appears to be the declaration of Sifuentes, which states "That after July 22, 2025, I contacted the Tulare County Resource Management: Agency and determined that in 2022, the Tulare County Resource Management Agency had authorized two permits at said location to construct 'a new septic system.'"

This gap in evidence appears acknowledged in the memorandum, which states: "That Plaintiff is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief alleges that in 2022, the Defendants, and each of them, constructed two new private sewage disposal system (septic tank) within the District boundary and connected two new or existing dwelling to the private sewage system. That Plaintiff is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief alleges that the Defendants are using the septic system which they constructed and are continuing to use the system in violation of the District Ordinance."

The Court cannot grant the motion on information and belief, as to an Ordinance not properly before this Court and lacking evidence of a violation of the terms of the Ordinance.

Further, Plaintiff has failed to set forth what interim harm would be suffered by Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Court denies the motion without prejudice.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary.

The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division.

The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re: Navarro, Gabriel vs. Bull Runner, Inc. et al