Ronnoco Properties of Pleasanton v. Crossroads CEIC Partners CA1/1
Filed 8/14/14 Ronnoco Properties of Pleasanton v. Crossroads CEIC Partners CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
RONNOCO PROPERTIES OF PLEASANTON, L.P., Plaintiff and Appellant, A136698
v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. CROSSROADS CEIC PARTNERS, L.P., No. VG10505583) Defendant and Respondent.
Plaintiff Ronnoco Properties of Pleasanton, L.P. (Ronnoco) is the owner of a building in a commercial development. Under the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R’s) governing the development, defendant Crossroads CEIC Partners, L.P. (Crossroads) is responsible for maintaining the common area. Ronnoco contended Crossroads had violated the CC&R’s by refusing to pay for the collection of trash generated by the tenants in Ronnoco’s building and failing to clean the portion of the common area near the building. After a bench trial, the court held for Crossroads on several different grounds. We affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Ronnoco filed suit against Crossroads in March 2010, asserting a claim for breach of contract and seeking a declaration of the rights of the parties and an accounting. The complaint alleged that Crossroads, which is in charge of maintaining the common area of a commercial development in which Ronnoco holds property, had breached the CC&R’s
1
by failing to pay for trash collection and to clean the common areas. The matter proceeded to a bench trial in October 2011. The Crossroads at Hacienda (Hacienda) is a commercial development of seven parcels of real property in Pleasanton. Six of the parcels consist of buildings and the land directly underneath the building footprint; the seventh is the remainder of the lot, referred to as the “common area” and consisting largely of walkways and the parking lots. Ronnoco owns one of the building parcels, and Crossroads owns two of them. The remainder is owned by nonparties. The common area is owned jointly by the owners of the building parcels as tenants in common. Hacienda is subject to a set of CC&R’s, and Crossroads is the “declarant” under the CC&R’s. The CC&R’s required Crossroads, as the declarant, to “operate and maintain” the common area. In a section entitled, “Common Area Operation Obligations,” Crossroads was required, among other duties, to maintain the concrete surface, lighting, landscaping, signage, and utilities and to enforce the rules governing Hacienda. As particularly relevant here, Crossroads was also required to “[r]emove all papers, debris, filth and refuse and wash or sweep the surface of the parking areas and sidewalks in the Common Area as often as reasonably necessary.” The CC&R’s also prohibited “selling or retail activity” in the common area. Throughout the relevant period, lasting over a decade, Crossroads had permitted Ronnoco and other building owners whose tenants operate food service businesses to maintain tables and chairs outside their buildings, although at trial Crossroads contended this practice constituted a violation of the prohibition on “selling or retail activity” in the common area. Trash generated by the business operations of the buildings’ tenants was placed in dumpsters, or in Ronnoco’s case a compactor, kept in enclosures behind the buildings. Because all land not directly underneath the buildings was part of the common area, these enclosures were in the common area. At the time Ronnoco purchased its building in Hacienda in 1998, the project had been operating for some time. To handle day-to-day management of its building operations, Ronnoco hired a company that was already performing the service for another building owner at Hacienda. In reliance on that property manager’s direction, Ronnoco
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)