Cramer v. Auburn Lake Trails Property Owners Association CA3

Filed 5/9/25 Cramer v. Auburn Lake Trails Property Owners Association CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

DAVID CRAMER, C099848

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. S-CV- 0049209) v.

AUBURN LAKE TRAILS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff David Cramer, proceeding in propria persona, appeals from the trial court’s order granting attorneys’ fees to defendant Auburn Lake Trails Property Owners Association (the Association) as a “prevailing party” under the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code, § 4000 et seq.) (Davis-Stirling Act). Because Cramer’s brief asserts only conclusory claims of error without supplying adequate argument or citation to legal authority, we treat his contentions as forfeited and affirm the trial court’s order.

1

BACKGROUND Cramer sued a number of California counties, cities, courts, and other entities asserting criminal conspiracies related to numerous incidents and legal proceedings in various jurisdictions. One of the named entities was the Association, a homeowners’ association of which Cramer was a member. Cramer’s amended complaint described certain disputes with neighbors regarding his yard and property stored on it, which apparently led him to file a separate suit in El Dorado County before filing this one. He alleged that the Association failed to adhere to its governing documents and conspired with the county to find that no violations had occurred. The Association filed a demurrer, asserting, among other arguments, that Cramer failed to engage in alternative dispute resolution before filing his suit against the Association, in contravention of the Davis-Stirling Act (Civ. Code, § 5930). Shortly before the scheduled demurrer hearing, Cramer filed a request for voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to the Association. The trial court clerk entered the voluntary dismissal. The Association then moved for an award of attorneys’ fees as the “prevailing party” pursuant to Civil Code section 5975, subdivision (c), which provides: “In an action to enforce the governing documents, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” After a hearing and full briefing, the trial court granted the Association an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,712.50. The court reasoned that Cramer’s action against the Association was covered by the Davis- Stirling Act because Cramer was alleging that the Association failed to follow its rules and regulations. The court further concluded that the Association was the prevailing party in light of Cramer’s voluntary dismissal. Cramer filed this timely appeal.