N/A

about the timing of plaintiff's complaint. And the court does not believe that plaintiff can refuse to meet with the Board's counsel. (The court notes that the proposed IDR included the Board itself; counsel might well be present, but the decision-makers were going to be there.) That is bad faith. And there is some doubt as to whether plaintiff complained of the date before the meeting.

For the HOA's part, the court is concerned again. Even if plaintiff simply failed to appear, he later explained why. The Board should have rescheduled the meeting to discuss this. The court is also not convinced that plaintiff can insist on both IDR and ADR. That said, the Board agreed to participate in a mediation (the costs to be split). Plaintiff apparently did not respond to that offer. ADR is defined in the Act as including mediation; it need not be an arbitration. (Civ. Code sec. 5925 subd. (a).) The court will inquire whether the CC&Rs state differently. If this is the case, the court will inquire as to why plaintiff did not agree to the ADR.

Defendant's problem is that while the merits are somewhat muddled, the balance of hardships is strongly in favor of plaintiff, as is maintaining the status quo ante. The court is therefore inclined to GRANT the preliminary injunction in that regard, but only to a limited extent. That is without prejudice to a summary judgment motion with a fuller record regarding the October 2, 2023, letter--including production of metadata as to whether it in fact was sent (to the extent it was sent electronically).

The court also notes that the amount unpaid is under $8000. Given that there is so little harm to the defense, the bond will be $500. Further, the court will see if there is any metadata that can be produced to show that the October 2 letter was actually sent on October 2. If there is not, and if defendant's metadata suggests that the letter was not sent on that date, then defendant can move to lift the injunction, and the motion will very likely be granted.

As to the merits of the dispute--the way that dues are assessed--plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction to required the HOA to change its formula. The court will not do that. Mandatory injunctions--where a party is compelled to do something as opposed to be told not to do something--are disfavored at the preliminary injunction stage. The court will not undertake that here. (City of Corona v. MAG Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 291.) The request for a preliminary injunction as to the formula is DENIED.

Finally, the court will entertain a motion (not today) by the HOA to bifurcate the case and to try the injunctive portion first and quickly. Because it is an injunction, that would be a bench trial.

DENIED. Plaintiff filed this action against defendants. Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint and defendants oppose. Plaintiff states that the opposition was not served on him in a timely fashion. The court will inquire as to that issue. The deadline for service was August 20, but plaintiff states he did not get it until August 25. That gave him only one court day to file his reply. However, defendant attaches a proof of service stating that the opposition was served by email on August 18. If that POS is accurate--and there ought to be metadata to prove it--then it was timely.

Worse, the court will want to know why plaintiff accuses defendant of lying in that regard. On the other hand, if the POS is not accurate, the defendant will have some explaining to do as to why the person serving the papers committed perjury. That said, the opposition did not really change the outcome for the reasons below.

Plaintiff wants to add claims against defendants by adding details and asserting statutory violations. Leave to amend is freely granted absent prejudice. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739.) This is plaintiff's third attempt at an amended pleading. Plaintiff still fails to comply with Rule of Court 3.1324. That requires that he include a copy of the amended complaint, state the allegations that he proposes to delete, and state what allegations he proposes to add. This motion does not do that.

And there is no redlined copy of the proposed pleading that might otherwise satisfy the requirement. And the court will not grant the motion based on attempts to cure the problem in reply. Further, the causes of action are not numbered, as required in Rule 2.112. Plaintiff should try again and try to follow the rules. The likelihood is that if he can file a proper motion, it will be granted given the liberality standard articulated above. But the fact is that if this is important enough for plaintiff to pursue, he can spend the time and effort to comply with the rules.

The court notes that other self-represented litigants are able to do so.

Case Number: 26SMCV01656 Hearing Date: September 2, 2026 Dept: I The court has before it defendants' demurrer to the complaint. Plaintiffs oppose. Plaintiffs allege that they were once members of K&B Surgical Center, LLC. According to the complaint, they received various distributions over time, but the distributions ceased in early 2015. Plaintiffs assert that the reason is that defendants falsely represented that the enterprise was no longer profitable. In 2019, plaintiff sought certain financial statements, but they were not forthcoming.

Worse, plaintiffs assert that defendants screamed obscenities in response and threatened to evict Enayati. Plaintiffs allege that the relationship with defendants deteriorated, leading to retaliation and a hostile environment. In March 2024, plaintiffs state that the enterprise offered to buy out plaintiffs' membership interests at 30 cents on the dollar for each investment. K&B valued the enterprise at $4,549,000, which plaintiffs believed was unreasonably low. The consultant that came up with the number stated that it did not audit, review, or compile the financial information upon which the valuation was based, and plaintiffs contend that the financial information was likely false.

Upon seeing the valuation, plaintiffs sought the underlying data. In response, some limited information was