N/A

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. I) September 2, 2026 DEPARTMENT I LAW AND MOTION RULINGS If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

calendar for today has been WITHDRAWN. There will therefore be no hearing today. Case Number: 24SMCV03557 Hearing Date: September 2, 2026 Dept: I This is a motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendant has scheduled a foreclosure sale for September 22, 2026. The theory is that plaintiff has failed to pay the association dues in full. Plaintiff contends that the dues are being inappropriately assessed--he contends that the assessments need to be based on square footage while the HOA is assessing each unit equally. Plaintiff also contends that the HOA has failed to participate in the IDR/ADR process, which it must do under the CC&Rs before going forward with the lien and non-judicial foreclosure process.

A few preliminary matters. This dispute has been ongoing for a number of years. It has seen its way to trial resulting in a judgment in 2024. There was a small claims action resolved a few years back as well. The HOA has in the past attempted to foreclose on the property, although it has not been successful up to this point (the HOA claims that this is because more senior debt was foreclosing). The court understands that the stakes are high.

Defendant objected to the moving papers. While the motion is overlength, it is only by a few lines. The court will not strike it.

The objection to the entirety of plaintiff's declaration is OVERRULED. There are argumentative statements in it and it improperly attempts to restate the evidence, but it does not change the outcome. Objections 1-7 are OVERRULED. The objections are based on hearsay, but the testimony is not hearsay; it is plaintiff giving his version of events. Where he bases his statement on documents and the documents are attached, the court views the documents as the best evidence of the contents. The emails and texts in paragraph 21 are being offered to show their effect.

The spreadsheet objection is OVERRULED. It is true that it is plaintiff's spreadsheet, but that does not make it invalid. As to the website exhibit, that goes to the date of the sale. While that may or may not be the actual date, defendant can state when the actual sale will be and the court will take defendant's word that it will not take place before then.

The requests for judicial notice are GRANTED to the extent of court filings and proceedings as to the jural effect of the documents or that statements were made. As to former testimony under oath by a party, the court will accept it.

Turning to the merits, the court must weigh two interrelated