In Re: Monarch Bay Terrace Property Owners Association

relevant time period. Debtor points to the court’s prior July 2025 ruling relating to subpoenas Creditor served, but nothing in that ruling limited Creditor’s rights to seek discovery from Debtor. Debtor has not presented any evidence, authority, or argument that supports her request to narrow the requests.

The court finds the time period sought to be appropriate, and there is nothing inappropriate about Creditor seeking from Debtor any documents in Debtor’s possession, custody, or control relating to an entity in which she may hold an interest. The request is appropriately directed to Debtor, not a third party, and requires Debtor to produce documents in her possession, custody, or control. Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED.

Debtor is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant, further written responses without objections to the subject discovery and to produce all responsive documents within her possession, custody, and control all within 30 days of service of notice of this order.

Sanctions are warranted as Debtor did not timely oppose the motion and nonetheless failed to offer any substantial justification for her failure to fully respond to the subject discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(h).) The court imposes a reasonable monetary sanction of $1,947.50 against Debtor, payable to Creditor, through his counsel of record, within 30 days of service of notice of this order. Counsel for Creditor is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

11. In Re: Monarch Bay Terrace Property Owners Association 2026-01547636 Before the court is the “Petition to Approve Amendment to Consolidate Homeowners Association CC&R’S by Reducing Required Voting Percentage [Corp. Code § 7515]” filed on February 13, 2026, by petitioner Monarch Bay Terrace Property Owners Association (Petitioner).

As more fully set forth below, the petition is DENIED for Petitioner’s failure to provide adequate and proper notice as ordered by the court.

Upon filing the petition, Petitioner filed a request for an ex parte order setting the hearing on the petition. On March 10, 2026, after hearing from Petitioner about the governing law and further discussing with Petitioner how to give notice of this hearing, the Court signed the “Order Setting Hearing on Petition and Notice Requirement” setting forth the specific requirements for Petitioner to provide notice to all members regarding the petition and the hearing thereon.

Specifically, the court ordered: “No later than April 6, 2026, Petitioner shall serve by first class mail a Notice of Hearing and a copy of this Order to each of the owners of the residential property within the seven tracts of Monarch Bay Terrace, as defined in the Petition. The notice shall include the following: (1) the date, time, and location of the hearing; (2) a brief description of the subject of the Petition; (3) a copy of the Petition’s main pleading, including the proposed revised CC&Rs; and (4) a brief description of the other components of the Petition and the url of a website at which the entire Petition and all supporting documents may be read and downloaded.” The court further ordered Petitioner to file proof of such service not later than May 1, 2026.

Petitioner has woefully failed to comply with the court’s order. On April 14, 2026, Petitioner filed a proof of service that failed to identify what documents were served and simply attached a lengthy list of names and addresses. On April 30, 2026, Petitioner filed a “Proof of Service [Superseding].” That filing actually included three proofs of service plus what appears to be the same “Service List” that was attached to the earlier proof of service. This second proof of service identified the petition as the document that was served.

Much more was required to comply with the court’s order. There is no indication Petitioner served a Notice of Hearing as ordered by the court. No such document was filed with the court, and no such document was identified on any proof of service. As stated in the order, that notice was required to include several pieces of information.

First, it was required to include the date, time, and location of the hearing. There is nothing in the record to show anyone was given notice of today’s hearing. The petition that was served does not provide any notice of hearing.

Second, it was required to provide a brief description of the subject of the petition. There is nothing in the record to show any members were given such a description.

Third, the notice was to include a copy of the petition, including a copy of the proposed revised CC&Rs. This appears to be the only provision with which Petitioner complied.

Finally, the notice was to include a brief description of any other components of the petition and a URL for a website at which the entire petition and all supported documents could be read and downloaded. There is nothing in the record to show this was done.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to show who the individuals identified on the “Service List” are. Presumably, they are all the members of the homeowners association and the addresses lists are the mailing addresses they have provided to Petitioner. There, however, is no evidence in the record to support that presumption. As such, Petitioner has failed to show that the limited notice it provided was given “to each of the owners of the residential property within the seven tracts of Monarch Bay Terrace, as defined in the Petition” as the court ordered.

The court further notes Petitioner’s reply identifies an additional opposition it received and acknowledges that opposition was not filed with the court. Nonetheless, Petitioner has not attached a copy of that opposition to the reply or otherwise provided a copy to the court. Many of the owners are not attorneys and are not familiar with civil procedure or how to file something with the court.

Based on Petitioner’s many failures to comply with the court’s specific order regarding notice of this hearing, the petition, and the specific relief being sought, the petition is DENIED. Petitioner’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling to all owners.

12. NNN Capital Fund I, LLC vs. Mikles 2017-00910991 Hearing VACATED as stated in the minute order dated May 20, 2026.

13. Shanghai Breeze Technology Company, Ltd. vs. Willard Marine, Inc. 2022-01252832 Before the court is the motion to amend judgment to add GEM Ventures Ltd. (GEM) as a co-judgment debtor as alter ego of respondent and judgment debtor Willard Marine, Inc. (Respondent) filed by petitioner and judgment creditor Shanghai Breeze Technology Company, Ltd. (Petitioner).

As more fully set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 187 provides, “When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding