Ana Pace v. Crest Enterprises, LLC et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: September 8, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. You must also contact the other side before 4:00 P.M. to inform them that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

9:00 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 24CV434168 Toll Bros, Inc. v. Application for the sale of a dwelling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.750.) By Lefco Inc., a stipulation of the parties, the application is CONTINUED to February 23, California 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 10. The stipulation and order filed Corporation September 3, 2026, will be the order of the court. Line 2 25CV477176 Maniam Click LINE 2 or scroll down for ruling. Enterprises, LLC v. Isaac Barrera et al. Line 3 26CV486559 Eric Wiedemann Click LINE 3 or scroll down for ruling. v. Juggernaut Consulting, LLC et al. Line 4 26CV489001 Sophie Shen v. Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. Fasikl, Ltd. et al. Line 5 25CV467743 Ana Pace v. Click LINE 5 or scroll down for ruling. Crest Enterprises, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: September 8, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. You must also contact the other side before 4:00 P.M. to inform them that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

Line 6 25CV467743 Ana Pace v. Click LINE 5 or scroll down for ruling. Crest Enterprises, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company et al.

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 5 Case Name: Ana Pace v. Crest Enterprises, LLC et al. Case No.: 25CV467743

Defendant Crest Enterprises, LLC’s motion for order that plaintiff Ana Pace temporarily relocate to allow for mold remediation. (Civ. Code, §§ 1954, 1941.7.) Defendant initially moved ex parte for a preliminary injunction without requesting a temporary restraining order. The court set the matter for a hearing.

Background

This lawsuit involves a complaint against defendant for, among other things, the breach of implied warranty of habitability. Plaintiff is defendant’s tenant at the subject residence. The complaint alleges a “black mold infestation” at the subject residence. (Complaint, ¶ 15.)

Defendant’s motion is supported by several documents. Counsel for defendant declares that plaintiff was first informed of the need to temporarily relocate in February 2026. (8/26/26 Simmons dec., ¶¶ 9-13.) Plaintiff has apparently consistently refused to relocate, except on conditions to which defendant will not agree. Attached to counsel’s declaration is an April 2025 letter from an environmental consultant plaintiff hired to inspect the subject residence. The environmental consultant recommended mold remediation. The letter notes, “During the mold remediation process, you and your family may need to be temporarily relocated, which may be at the expense of the landlord.” (Exh. 1 to 8/26/26 Simmons dec.)

There is a declaration from Michael Yelavich, a general contractor who declares he has been licensed for more than 40 years. (8/26/26 Yelavich dec., ¶ 1.) Yelavich declares that he inspected the subject residence on August 17, 2026, with representatives from a retained mold remediation company. (Id., ¶ 5.) The inspection revealed that “water damage to the flooring had spread and now requires replacement of all first-floor flooring, the underlying insulation, and likely portions of the subflooring.” (Id., ¶ 6.) Thirty to 40 square feet of drywall will also need to be removed. (Ibid.) The mold remediation company will then need to perform mold remediation throughout the affected areas. (Id., ¶ 8.) He opines that the subject property will be dangerous for non-construction personnel until the work is complete. (Id., ¶ 7.) The work will take “at least 30 days to complete.” (Id., ¶ 11.)

A declaration from defendant’s co-manager attaches a notice of violation by the Department of Housing and Community Development, dated August 3, 2026. (Exh. E to 8/26/26 Der Torossian dec.) The notice found “visible water damage to the sheetrock, baseboard, and flooring inside the dining room/kitchen area of the residence.” The notice states, “homeowner must provide documentation from a licensed mold remediation specialist confirming that the area of the residence affected by the mold has been remediated within five days of receiving this Notice.” (Id., p. 2.)

Defendant served plaintiff with a 60-day notice of termination of tenancy, notice of entry, and notice of temporary relocation for necessary repairs on August 14, 2026. (9/2/26 Simmons dec., ¶ 2.)

Legal Standards

Although a preliminary injunction may not be the precisely appropriate framework to seek an order that will be temporary, the legal standard for that relief is nonetheless useful in guiding the court’s discretion. “In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two ‘interrelated’ factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction.” (Butt v.

State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 677-678.) “The trial court’s determination must be guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interimharm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction.” (Ibid.) The granting of mandatory injunctive relief is not permitted except in extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established. (City of Corona v. AMG Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 291, 299.)

Civil Code section 1941.7 provides that a “landlord may enter a dwelling unit to repair a dilapidation relating to the presence of mold..., provided the landlord complies with the provisions of Section 1954.” Civil Code section 1954 describes the notice that is generally required before a landlord enters a unit to make repairs; the standard is reasonable notice. Civil Code section 1954, subdivision (b) states, “Except in cases of emergency or when the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises, entry may not be made during other than normal business hours unless the tenant consents to an entry during other than normal business hours at the time of entry.”

And Civil Code section 1954, subdivision (c) states, “The landlord may not abuse the right of access or use it to harass the tenant.” A landlord’s repair obligations are not triggered if a tenant “interferes substantially with the landlord’s obligation under Section 1941 to effect the necessary repairs.” (Civ. Code, § 1941.2.)

Though not directly applicable here, Government Code section 7260, subdivision (i) defines “Comparable replacement dwelling” as being, among other things: “Decent, safe, and sanitary”; “Adequate in size to accommodate the occupants”; “Comparable with respect to the number of rooms, habitable space, and type and quality of construction”; “In an area not subject to unreasonable adverse environmental conditions”; and “In a location generally not less desirable than the location of the displaced person’s dwelling with respect to public utilities, facilities, services, and the displaced person’s place of employment.”

Discussion

There is a threshold issue that may streamline the decision. Defendant has served defendant with a 60-day notice to end her tenancy. If plaintiff is willing to confirm on the record that she will comply with that 60-day notice and vacate the subject residence, then the balance of hardships is such that the court will not grant the motion. Some minimal work by the landlord merely to temporarily cover any areas of mold during normal business hours would be acceptable in this scenario.

If plaintiff is unwilling to confirm on the record that she will comply with the 60-day notice, then the court will grant the motion with conditions. Plaintiff’s case is about mold contamination. Plaintiff’s own consultant indicated relocation may be necessary. Defendant’s general contractor declares that it would not be safe for plaintiff to remain while remediation occurs. Defendant has already been issued a notice of violation that requires it to remediate the mold. And plaintiff has refused to temporarily leave the subject residence. This is an extreme case where temporary mandatory injunctive relief is appropriate.

The court tentatively imposes the following conditions, which will be subject to discussion at the hearing: Plaintiff must vacate the subject residence no later than September 15, 2026. The duration of the relocation is 30 days; defendant must immediately inform plaintiff if the repairs are completed before the 30 days are complete. Defendant must limit the scope of remediation work to water-damage repair and mold remediation. Access by defendant and its contractors is limited to areas needing repair.

Defendant must use a licensed mold-remediation contractor for the work, and must disclose the name of the contractor to plaintiff. Plaintiff may contact defendant if she needs to retrieve personal items; defendant is allowed to be present when plaintiff retrieves personal items (but defendant must remain in the parts of the subject residence where work is being performed). Plaintiff may not access the subject residence without defendant present. Defendant must provide comparable replacement housing to plaintiff for the duration of the relocation; the maximum budget for that replacement housing is one month of plaintiff’s rent plus $1,000 (to adjust for inflation).

Defendant may satisfy that obligation by giving plaintiff a check in the amount of one month of plaintiff’s rent plus $1,000. Plaintiff may have one mold remediation expert on site during repairs. That expert may observe work from a safe distance, which may include taking photographs of work. The expert may not interfere with the mold remediation work or discuss the work with defendant or those hired by defendant.

The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -

12