DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CVME2400806·riverside·Civil·Property Easement
Hearing todayThe Court finds that there is not a public easement giving access to the public pursuant to Civil Code Section 1009. The Court further finds that there is a private easement that was delineated by the CC&Rs and the parcel maps.

LA CRESTA HIGHLANDS ASSOCIATION vs URIZAR

MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

Hearing date
Aug 18, 2026
Department
3
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffLA CRESTA HIGHLANDS ASSOCIATION
DefendantURIZAR

Ruling

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME LA CRESTA HIGHLANDS MOTION FOR DECLARATORY CVME2400806 ASSOCIATION vs RELIEF URIZAR Tentative Ruling:

The Court finds that there is not a public easement giving access to the public pursuant to Civil Code Section 1009. The Court further finds that there is a private easement that was delineated by the CC&Rs and the parcel maps.

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME PINYON CREST MOTION FOR SUMMARY COMMUNITY CVRI2402278 JUDGMENT ON CROSS- ASSOCIATION vs LGR COMPLAINT DEVELOPMENT Tentative Ruling: See below

3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME PINYON CREST COMMUNITY MOTION FOR SUMMARY CVRI2402278 ASSOCIATION vs LGR JUDGMENT ON COMPLAINT DEVELOPMENT Tentative Ruling:

The Complaint in this action was filed by the homeowners’ association, Pinyon Crest Community Association (“Association”), seeking a judicial declaration that it properly denied LGR Development’s (“LGR”) architectural applications for approval of its plans to develop its parcels in the residential community under the Association’s governance. In response, LGR filed its Cross-Complaint Association and its board of directors, challenging their refusal to approve its plans.

The Association filed its Complaint in this case on April 24, 2024, alleging a single cause of action for declaratory relief. The Complaint alleges that LGR is presently the owner of three undeveloped parcels of land in the Pinyon Crest Community. (Complaint, ¶ 4.) It alleges that, on July 16, 2023, LGR submitted three applications and plans to Association for the construction of three homes on its parcels. (Complaint, ¶ 5.) Association alleges that it timely denied the applications and plans on September 2, 2023, in accordance with Association’s governing documents, consisting of the Amended Declaration (“CC&Rs”) and the Restated Architectural & Landscaping Rules, Standards and Guidelines (“Architectural Rules”) adopted in 2005. (Complaint, ¶ 8.) The denial was based on the ground that the plans did not comport to the Governing

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share