Chernick v. Casa Palermo Homeowners Assn. CA2/8

Filed 6/2/14 Chernick v. Casa Palermo Homeowners Assn. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

MICHAEL LEE CHERNICK, B244078

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS132203) v.

CASA PALMERO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ann I. Jones, Judge. Affirmed.

Michael Lee Chernick, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin and Norman S. Wisnicki for Defendant and Respondent.

__________________________

Michael Lee Chernick appeals from the judgment entered for Casa Palmero Homeowners Association in this mandate action by Chernick challenging the Association’s 2011 Board of Directors Election. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Michael Lee Chernick brought a mandate action to invalidate the May 2011 Board of Directors Election of the Casa Palmero Homeowners Association, which governs the Los Angeles condominium complex where Chernick lives. Chernick ran for a board seat in that election, but lost. The petition alleged that the Association’s property management company, which conducted the election, twice issued incorrect, confusing, or misleading information. Chernick alleged that those deficiencies were corrected after he brought them to the property manager’s attention, but that a third election notice included incorrect and misleading proxy voting instructions. Chernick alleged that a quorum was not obtained due to the misleading proxy instructions and that the board then improperly appointed three new directors instead of holding a second election with a reduced quorum, as had happened in the past. Chernick also alleged that the board would not let him see certain documents related to other matters, such as the board’s supposed use of unqualified and unlicensed electrical contractors. Chernick asked the court to: invalidate the 2011 election; appoint new board members based on the 2011 ballots; order that all future elections follow reduced quorum rules that lead to a second election if necessary; grant approval for the board to appoint new directors if there were insufficient votes to reduce the quorum; and otherwise ensure that future elections were held in conformity with the Association’s governing documents and applicable laws. The trial consisted of argument to the trial court after the parties had submitted their points and authorities and supporting declarations and exhibits. The trial court took the matter under submission and later issued a written decision, where it rejected Chernick’s claims. The trial court found that there was no competent evidence to support Chernick’s claim that the election process had been rigged or was otherwise improper.