CitiFinancial Services, Inc. v. Studebaker CA3

Filed 2/25/21 CitiFinancial Services, Inc. v. Studebaker CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Calaveras) ----

CITIFINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., C074485

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11CV37825)

v.

STEPHEN J. STUDEBAKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Stephen J. Studebaker appeals from a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction obtained by plaintiff and respondent CitiFinancial Services, Inc. (CSI). Studebaker contends that the trial court erred in issuing the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because he did not receive adequate notice of the hearings and did not receive valid service of CSI’s moving papers concerning the

1

temporary restraining order.1 We conclude Studebaker’s contentions that he received inadequate notice and invalid service concerning the temporary restraining order are moot by the court’s subsequent issuance of a preliminary injunction. We further conclude that Studebaker waived his contention that he received inadequate notice of the hearing on the preliminary injunction by appearing at that hearing and arguing the merits of the injunction. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND CSI sued Studebaker for declaratory relief and nuisance relative to a parcel of real property located in Calaveras County and owned by Studebaker. CSI alleged it, as owner of a contiguous parcel of real property, holds an easement (prescriptive, equitable or by necessity) over Studebaker’s property for ingress, egress, and access to its property that it obtained when it acquired title to the property from the property’s prior owner. It further alleged that once CSI obtained title to the property, Studebaker began blocking access over the easement, preventing ingress, egress, and access to CSI’s property, and that Studebaker refused to desist his efforts to interfere with CSI’s use of the easement despite repeated requests. CSI sought a declaration from the trial court that it holds an easement over Studebaker’s property, injunctive relief preventing Studebaker from interfering with CSI’s use of the easement, and damages relative to Studebaker’s interference with CSI’s use of the easement.