SUM-200(A) CASE NUMBER:
SHORT TITLE:
CITY OF STOCKTON v. JASWANT SINGH et alii INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE This form may be used as an attachment to any summons if space does not permit the listing of all parties on the summons. If this attachment is used, insert the following statement in the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: "Additional Parties Attachment form is attached." List additional parties (Check only one box. Use a separate page for each type of party.): Plaintiff
ì
Defendant
Cross-Complainant
Cross-Defendant
JASWANT SINGH, an individual; GURDIAL SINGH, an individual; BHOLA SINGH, an individual; GURBACHAN SINGH, an individual; REDROSE SINGH, an individual; ALLIANT CREDIT UNION, INC., as successor to Kaiperm Federal Credit Union; MUFG AMERICA'S HOLDING CORPORATION, as successor to Union Bank of California; and DOES 1 through 50.
Page
1
of
1 Page 1 of 1
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California SUM-200(A) [Rev. January 1, 2007]
ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT Attachment to Summons
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET
CM-010
To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiff's designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Auto Tort Auto (22)–Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the case involves an uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration, check this item instead of Auto) Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/ Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injury/ Wrongful Death Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice– Physicians & Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other PI/PD/WD (23) Premises Liability (e.g., slip and fall) Intentional Bodily Injury/PD/WD (e.g., assault, vandalism) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Other PI/PD/WD Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination, false arrest) (not civil harassment) (08) Defamation (e.g., slander, libel) (13) Fraud (16) Intellectual Property (19) Professional Negligence (25) Legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) Other Non-PI/PD/WD Tort (35) Employment Wrongful Termination (36) Other Employment (15)
CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007]
Contract Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) Contract/Warranty Breach–Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contract/ Warranty Other Breach of Contract/Warranty Collections (e.g., money owed, open book accounts) (09) Collection Case–Seller Plaintiff Other Promissory Note/Collections Case Insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) (18) Auto Subrogation Other Coverage Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute Real Property Eminent Domain/Inverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet Title Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, or foreclosure) Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal drugs, check this item; otherwise, report as Commercial or Residential) Judicial Review Asset Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Writ of Mandate (02) Writ–Administrative Mandamus Writ–Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter Writ–Other Limited Court Case Review Other Judicial Review (39) Review of Health Officer Order Notice of Appeal–Labor Commissioner Appeals
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.400–3.403) Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims (arising from provisionally complex case type listed above) (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of County) Confession of Judgment (nondomestic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certification of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment Case Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Other Complaint (not specified above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Relief Only (nonharassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex) Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not specified above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late Claim Other Civil Petition
Page 2 of 2
1
PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
2 3 4
PARTIES 1.
Petitioner City of Stockton (“City”) is, and at all times relevant herein was, a municipal
5 corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. The City seeks the 6 appointment of a receiver over the parcel of real property known as 2318 South Airport Way, Stockton, 7 California 95206, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 169-152-01 (“Nuisance Property”) pursuant to Health and
8 Safety Code section 17980.7. 9
2.
The Nuisance Property is owned by Respondent Jaswant Singh (“Owner”).
10
3.
Respondents Gurdial Singh, Bhola Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Redrose Singh, Alliant Credit
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
11 Union, Inc. as successor to Kaiperm Federal Credit Union (“Alliant”), and MUFG America’s Holding 12 Corporation as successor to Union Bank of California N.A. (“MUFG”) hold recorded interests in the 13 Nuisance Property. 14
4.
The true names and capacities of Respondents Does 1 through 50 are unknown to the City,
15 and for that reason, they are sued under fictitious names. The City will amend this Petition to allege the 16 Doe Respondents’ true names and capacities when they have been ascertained. The City alleges that 17 each of the Doe Respondents is responsible in some manner for the unlawful, dangerous, and 18 substandard conditions on the Nuisance Property identified herein. 19 20
FACTS
21
5.
The Nuisance Property is located within the City of Stockton, California.
22
6.
The Nuisance Property is a liquor store that has become the site of substantial criminal
23 activity, including homicides, drug sales, and gang activity. 24
7.
Respondents have allowed the Nuisance Property to deteriorate into a substandard and
25 dangerous condition. The substandard conditions upon the Nuisance Property include unsafe and 26 dilapidated ceilings and walls, unpermitted construction, decaying material near food for sale, numerous 27 fire hazards, and junk and debris liberally strewn throughout the interior as well as exterior of the 28 premises. Despite it being unlawful for individuals to reside at the Nuisance Property, it is routinely the – 1 of 18 – PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
1 site of unlawful habitation. There is substantial debris at the Nuisance Property, which severely impedes 2 egress routes, as well as creates a severe fire hazard. The risk of fire is further exacerbated by the 3 exposed and substandard electrical wiring and structural damage. Additionally, the lack of a Knox Box 4 prevents first responders from accessing the Nuisance Property. Furthermore, decaying material is 5 stored next to food for sale at the Nuisance Property. Finally, the Nuisance Property contains dangerous 6 and substandard structural components that put any occupants and neighbors at risk. 7
8.
The City has attempted to gain Respondents’ voluntary compliance and rehabilitation of the
8 Nuisance Property for nearly two years, but to no avail. 9
9.
The City has issued notices and citations that gave Respondents an opportunity to correct
10 the violations, but Respondents failed to abate the violations.
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
11
10. Despite these efforts, the Nuisance Property is the site of highly unsanitary activity, which
12 includes bottles of urine stored next to food for sale. It is also an eyesore to the community, a fire hazard, 13 and a threat to the health and safety of the occupants and the public due to numerous land-use and 14 building violations, as well as the site of substantial criminal activity, which is evidenced by more than 15 150 calls for police service to the Nuisance Property since February 20, 2015. Furthermore, there have 16 been two shootings on the Nuisance Property on May 11 and May 13, 2016, which further proves the 17 substantial danger the Nuisance Property presents to the community. 18
11. The Nuisance Property presents a substantial danger to anyone in its vicinity due to the
19 numerous substandard and illegal building conditions, as well as substantial criminal activity, which 20 includes two recent shootings. These conditions have worsened over time and a receivership is, 21 therefore, critical to avoid disastrous consequences to persons and property. 22
12. The Nuisance Property has been a source of code violations dating back at least a decade.
23
13. On February 2, 2016, the City inspected the Nuisance Property. During the inspection, City
24 inspectors confirmed that the Nuisance Property was extremely substandard and contained several 25 nuisance conditions that threatened the life and safety of occupants, the general public, as well as any 26 invitees that unknowingly walked into the extremely dangerous environment that exists at the Nuisance 27 Property. 28 – 2 of 18 – PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
1
14. The Nuisance Property is currently in violation of numerous State and local laws, including,
2 but not limited to, the California Health and Safety Code (“H&S”), the California Building Standards 3 Code (“CBSC”), the California Building Code (“CBC”), the California Fire Code (“CFC”), the 4 California Plumbing Code (“CPC”), the Uniform Housing Code (“UHC”), the Uniform Code for the 5 Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (“ADB”), and the Stockton Municipal Code (“SMC”). 6
15. The current unlawful, dangerous, and substandard conditions on the Nuisance Property
7 include, but are not limited to:
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
8
15.1.
Unsafe Dilapidated Roof. The dilapidated roof creates a hazard to occupants, and
9
allows for water and insect intrusion that will create further extreme health and
10
safety dangers. (H&S, § 17920.3(b)(6); CBC, § 116.1; UHC, §§ 601.1, 1001.3(6),
11
1001.8.(4); ADB, § 301(17); SMC, §§ 15.10.010, 15.28.010.)
12
15.2.
Unsafe Dilapidated and Missing Ceiling. The interior of the structure contains
13
severely dilapidated and missing ceiling elements, which must be replaced. The
14
dilapidated and missing ceiling elements create a collapse hazard to occupants, and
15
allows for water and insect intrusion that will create further extreme health and
16
safety dangers. (H&S, § 17920.3(b)(7); CBC, § 116.1; UHC, §§ 601.1, 1001.3(7);
17
ADB, § 301(17), SMC, §§ 15.10.010, 15.24.030(b)(2)(vi), 15.24.030(b)(2)(vii),
18
15.28.010.)
19
15.3.
Unsafe Dilapidated Floors.
The building contains inadequate, damaged, or
20
missing flooring that needs to be repaired or replaced to meet building code
21
standards to prevent tripping and falling hazards. (H&S, § 17920.3(b)(2); CBC, §
22
116.1; CFC, §§ 110.1.1, 701.2; UHC, § 1001.3(2), (3); ADB, § 302(1), (2); SMC,
23
§§ 15.10.010, 15.24.030(b)(2)(ii), 15.28.010.)
24
15.4.
Unsafe Dilapidated Interior Walls. Interior walls are extremely damaged. All
25
walls need to be repaired or replaced sufficient to building code standards, including,
26
but not limited to, restoration of missing or damaged baseboards, abating exposed
27
insulation, and repainting. (H&S, § 17920.3(b)(1); CBC, § 116.1; CFC, §§ 110.1.1,
28 – 3 of 18 – PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
1
701.2; UHC, § 1001.3(4); ADB, § 302 (9), (13); SMC, §§ 15.24.010,
2
15.24.030(b)(2)(iv), 15.28.010.)
3
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
Insufficient Fire Rated Construction. The required fire-resistance rating of fire-
4
resistance-rated construction has not been maintained.
5
construction increases the likelihood of a fire starting or spreading to the building,
6
and places occupants and neighbors in peril. (H&S, § 17920.3(m); CFC, § 703.1;
7
UHC, §§ 901, 1001.9; 1001.13; ADB, § 302(9), (16); SMC, §§ 15.10.010,
8
15.28.010.)
9
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
15.5.
15.6.
Insufficient fire rated
Junk and Debris Creating Fire Hazard. The building is full of junk and debris.
10
All junk and debris must be cleared from the building to reduce the fire and health
11
hazards. Accumulation of junk and debris can serve as a harborage for vermin,
12
which spread illness and damage property. Excess debris also facilitates the spread
13
of fire and places occupants and neighbors in peril. (H&S, § 17920.3(g); CBC, §
14
116.1; UHC, § 1001.9; ADB, § 302(9), (16); SMC, §§ 15.24.010, 15.24.030(b)(10),
15
15.28.010.)
16
15.7.
Junk and Debris Creating Insanitary Conditions. The building is full of junk
17
and debris in an area where food is served. All debris must be cleared from the
18
building to reduce the health hazards. (H&S, § 17920.3(g); CBC, § 116.1; UHC, §
19
1001.2(15); ADB, §§ 302(9), (16); SMC, §§ 8.68.030, 15.10.010, 15.28.010.)
20
15.8.
Decaying Material Near Food For Sale. Human waste in bottles and other
21
decaying material is found next to food for sale. All decaying material must be
22
removed from the Nuisance Property to reduce health hazards. (H&S, § 17920.3(g);
23
CBC, § 116.1; UHC, § 1001.2(13); ADB, § 302(9), (16); SMC, §§ 8.68.060,
24
8.68.120, 15.24.010, 15.28.010.)
25
15.9.
No Knox Box. The structure does not have a Knox box, which prevents emergency
26
responders from having access to the building. A Knox Box must be built and a key
27
made accessible for emergency responders. (CFC, §§ 506.1, 506.2; UHC, § 901;
28
SMC, §§ 15.10.010, 15.12.010, 15.24.030(b)(16).) – 4 of 18 – PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
1
15.10.
2
shock or fire. Abate all exposed wiring and replace missing light fixtures. Exposed
3
wiring increases the risk of fire starting and places the lives and property of
4
neighboring properties in danger. (H&S, § 17920.3(d); CBC, § 116.1; UHC,
5
§1001.5; ADB, §§ 302(13), (16); SMC, §§ 15.24.030(b)(4), 15.28.030.)
6
15.11.
significant risk of electrical shock or fire. Hire an electrician to permit wiring and
8
bring sub-standard electrical up to code. (H&S, § 17920.3(10); CBC, § 105.1; UHC,
9
§ 1001.5; ADB, § 302(17); SMC, §§ 15.04.250, 15.08.010, 15.24.010,
11
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
Unpermitted Electrical Wiring. The installation of unpermitted wiring poses a
7
10
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
Exposed Electrical Wiring. Exposed wiring poses a significant risk of electrical
15.24.030(b)(4), 15.28.010.) 15.12.
Missing or Exposed Electrical Switches and Outlets. Replace all missing or
12
damaged electrical switch and outlet covers to meet building code standards.
13
Missing or exposed electrical switches increases the risk of electrical shock to
14
occupants using the switches and outlets. (H&S, § 17920.3(a); CBC, § 116.1; UHC,
15
§ 1001.5; ADB, § 302(13), (16); SMC, §§ 15.24.010, 15.24.030(b)(4), 15.28.030.)
16
15.13.
Missing Light Fixtures. Replace all missing light fixtures and components to meet
17
building code standards. Exposed light fixtures increases the likelihood of an
18
occupant being harmed from electrical shock. (H&S, § 17920.3(a),(c); CBC, §
19
116.1; UHC, §§ 1001.2(10), 1001.5; ADB, § 302(13); SMC, §§ 15.24.010,
20
15.24.030(b)(4), 15.28.030.)
21
15.14.
Inadequate Lighting. Add lights to meet building code and sanitation standards.
22
There is inadequate lighting at the structure, where food is offered for sale. (H&S,
23
§ 17920.3(a)(10); CBC, § 116.1; UHC, § 1001.2(8); ADB, § 302(9); SMC, §§
24
8.72.010; 15.24.010, 15.28.030.)
25
15.15.
Illegal Construction. Remove illegally constructed shower or obtain permits for
26
shower.
27
substandard conditions. (H&S, § 17920.3(i); CBC, §§ 105.1, 116.1; CPC, § 103.1;
28
UHC, § 301; SMC, §§ 8.68.030, 15.04.250, 15.08.010, 15.16.010, 15.24.010.)
The unpermitted installation of this item is creating insanitary and
– 5 of 18 – PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
1
water heater. The unpermitted installation of this item is creating insanitary and
3
substandard conditions. (H&S, § 17920.3(i); CBC, §§ 105.1, 116.1; CPC, §§ 103.1,
4
502.1; UHC, § 301; SMC, §§ 8.68.030, 15.04.250, 15.08.010, 15.24.010.) 15.17.
Illegal Construction. Remove illegally installed walk-in cooler or obtain permits
6
for walk-in cooler. The unpermitted installation of this item is creating insanitary
7
and substandard conditions. (H&S, § 17920.3(i); CBC, §§ 105.1, 116.1; CPC, §
8
103.1; UHC, § 301; SMC, §§ 8.68.030, 15.04.250, 15.08.010, 15.16.010,
9
15.24.010.)
10
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
Illegal Construction. Remove illegally installed water heater or obtain permits for
2
5
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
15.16.
15.18.
Inadequate Sanitation—Bathroom.
Repair and clean the bathroom to meet
11
building and plumbing code standards, including turning hot water on, installing
12
sink, and removing all garbage. (CPC, § 101.7; UHC, §§ 1001.2(13), 1001.4; SMC,
13
§§ 8.68.030, 15.08.010, 15.16.010.)
14
15.19.
Inadequate Sanitation—Food Areas. Increase lighting near food and acquire
15
potable water at the structure. Adequate lighting and potable water are necessary at
16
places where food is sold. (H&S, §§ 114149, 114099.7; CPC, § 101.7; UHC, §§
17
1001.2(13), 1001.4, 1001.11; SMC, §§ 8.68.030, 15.10.010, 15.16.010.)
18
15.20.
Faulty Weather Protection. Repair all broken or missing windows, replace the
19
missing roof that currently is allowing the elements inside the building, and repaint
20
the exterior and interior of the building. Faulty weather protection allows moisture
21
and heat to enter the building, which may undermine the buildings construction and
22
allows for the spread of mold. (H&S, § 17920.3(g); CBC, § 116.1; UHC, § 1001.8;
23
ADB, §§ 302(8), (9), (13); SMC, §§ 15.08.010, 15.10.010, 15.24.030(b)(7)(ii),
24
15.24.030(b)(7)(iii), 15.24.030(b)(9).)
25
15.21.
Maintain Fire Door. The fire door must be properly maintained and operational.
26
(CFC, § 703.2; UHC, § 901, SMC, §§ 15.10.010, 15.12.010, 15.24.030(b)(13),
27
15.24.030(b)(16).)
28 – 6 of 18 – PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
1
The Nuisance Property is not designed to be a residence and occupying the Nuisance
3
Property is unsanitary and creates health hazards. (ADB, § 302(9); UHC, § 1001.14;
4
SMC, §§ 15.10.010, 15.28.010.) 15.23.
Attractive Nuisance. The Nuisance Property has become so dilapidated and
6
deteriorated as to become an attractive nuisance to children with large amounts of
7
debris. Remove debris and address dilapidated conditions. (H&S, § 17920.3(c);
8
UHC, 1001.4; ADB, § 302(12); SMC §§ 15.10.010, 15.24.030, 15.28.010.)
9
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
Unlawful Use of Property. The Nuisance Property cannot be used as a residence.
2
5
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
15.22.
15.24.
Deteriorated Gutters and Downspouts. Repair gutters and downspouts to prevent
10
leaks. The dilapidated gutters are creating unnecessary dampness, which endangers
11
public health. (SMC, § 15.24.030(b)(9).)
12
15.25.
13 14
Inadequate Lighting in Parking Lot. Add lights to meet building code standards. The inoperable lights in the parking light to be repaired. (SMC, § 15.04.030(b)(4).)
15.26.
Deteriorated Parking lot. The parking lot is dilapidated and needs to be properly
15
maintained, by repairing pot-holes, re-striping parking spaces.
16
§16.64.030.C.)
17
15.27.
(SMC,
Chipping or Cracking Exterior Paint. The paint on the buildings is in such a
18
condition as to permit decay, cracking, peeling, and warping so as to render the
19
building unsightly and in a state of disrepair. Repaint the exterior so it is free from
20
chips and cracks and remove all graffiti. (H&S, § 17920.3(g); UHC, § 1001.8(1);
21
SMC, §§ 15.10.010, 15.24.030(b)(7)(iii).)
22
15.28.
Improper Garbage Storage.
Put dumpster in enclosed location. Garbage
23
dumpsters must be stored in an enclosed location approved by the City. (SMC, §
24
8.04.080.)
25
15.29.
Water Damage Creating Unsanitary Conditions. Repair all leaks at the Nuisance
26
Property. The leaks throughout the Nuisance Property are creating unsanitary
27
conditions, which endangers public health and safety. (CBC, § 116.1; SMC, §§
28
15.24.030(b)(5), 15.24.030(b)(7)(ii).) – 7 of 18 – PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
1
15.30.
Property Creating Nuisance. Address the nuisance conditions at the building by
2
abating code violations. The numerous violations at the building are injurious to
3
public health. (H&S, 17920.3(l); SMC, § 15.24.030.)
4
15.31.
Dilapidation Caused by Improper Maintenance. Abate the code violations at the
5
Nuisance Property and begin regular maintenance. Failure to adequately maintain
6
the Nuisance Property has caused it to become a substandard building. (H&S,
7
17920.3(a)(14); CBC, § 116.1.)
8
16. These unlawful, dangerous, and substandard conditions on the Nuisance Property
9 substantially endanger the health and safety of all potential occupants and the public. The Nuisance 10 Property poses a severe risk of injury to occupants due to the risk of fire or electrical shock, as well as
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
11 the highly unsanitary materials stored on the Nuisance Property, which includes bottles of urine near 12 food for sale. The dangers presented by the Nuisance Property are further increased because it is run as 13 a store open to the public, which means invitees can unknowingly wonder into the cesspool of unsanitary 14 materials, fire hazards, and criminal activity. 15
17. The City has formally and informally inspected the Nuisance Property numerous times.
16 Each time, City inspectors were able to verify the continuing existence of the dangerous and unsanitary 17 conditions on the Nuisance Property. The City has ordered Respondents to abate the unlawful conditions 18 multiple times. Nonetheless, the extensive code violations continue to persist and worsen. 19
18. Considering the numerous substandard conditions existing on the Nuisance Property—
20 including hazardous and exposed electrical wiring, decaying material near food for sale, and the 21 accumulation of junk, trash, and debris—the potential for fire and catastrophic injury or death is high. 22
19. Therefore, in an effort to prevent catastrophic injury or death the City issued a Legal Notice
23 And Order To Repair Or Abate pursuant to H&S section 17980 et sequentes on August 19, 2015 24 (“NoV”) and again on April 14, 2016 (“N&O”). Each N&O ordered the complete rehabilitation of the 25 Nuisance Property to be completed within 30 days. 26
20. Subsequent inspections of the Nuisance Property revealed that not only had nothing been
27 done to correct the violations cited in the NoV, but between August 19, 2015 and April 14, 2016 the 28 violations at the Nuisance Property significantly increased. – 8 of 18 – PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
1
21. Additionally, since the N&O was issued, the Nuisance Property remains in the same
2 dangerous and substandard condition. 3
22. As of the date of this filing, Respondents have failed to properly abate the conditions at the
4 Nuisance Property and have failed to comply with the City’s numerous warnings. 5
23. The dangerous conditions at the Nuisance Property include, but are not limited to, hazardous
6 electrical wiring, decaying material near food for sale, debris accumulation, and unpermitted 7 construction, as well as substantial criminal activity, which is evidenced by more than 150 calls for
8 police service to the Nuisance Property since February 20, 2015, and two recent shootings. These 9 dangerous conditions violate multiple State and local laws. Accordingly, the appointment of a receiver 10 to abate the unlawful, dangerous, and substandard conditions on the Nuisance Property pursuant to H&S
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
11 section 17980.7(c) is necessary and proper. 12 13
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
14
(Substantially Dangerous Property—Against All Respondents)
15
(H&S section 17980.7(c))
16
24. The City re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs as though set forth herein.
17
25. The Nuisance Property contains extensive building code violations that substantially
18 endanger the health and safety of public health and violate numerous State and local laws, including but 19 not limited to the H&S, the CBSC, the CBC, the CFC, the CPC, the UHC, the ADB, and the SMC. 20 These violations are so extensive and of such a nature that the health and safety of occupants and the 21 public is substantially endangered. 22
26. The City has afforded Respondents an adequate and reasonable opportunity to correct the
23 substantially dangerous conditions. Since recent enforcement efforts resumed, Respondents have had 24 nearly two years to improve the conditions, or find someone to take responsibility for the Nuisance 25 Property, but this has not occurred. 26
27. The first NoV that was issued in accordance with H&S section 17980.6 on August 19, 2015,
27 provided 30 days for the Nuisance Property to be rehabilitated. A true and accurate copy of the August 28 19, 2015 NoV is attached to this Petition as Exhibit A and it is incorporated herein. – 9 of 18 – PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
1
28. Despite the issuance of the August 19, 2015 NoV more than 200 days ago, Respondents
2 not only did nothing to abate the serious violations of law on the Nuisance Property, but the conditions 3 worsened significantly. 4
29. Therefore, the City issued the second N&O in accordance with H&S section 17980.6 on
5 April 14, 2016, and provided an additional 30 days for the Nuisance Property to be rehabilitated. A true 6 and accurate copy of the April 14, 2016 N&O is attached to this Petition as Exhibit B and it is 7 incorporated herein.
8
30. Despite the issuance of not one, but two N&O’s, which have provided Respondents more
9 than 250 days to bring the Nuisance Property into compliance, Respondents have been unable or 10 unwilling to abate the serious violations of law and dangerous conditions at the Nuisance Property.
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
11
31. The City has also provided the Respondents with at least three days advance notice (“3 Day
12 Notice”) of the filing of this Petition in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10 et 13 sequentes as required by H&S section 17980.7(c). True and accurate copies of the Proofs of Service for 14 the 3 Day Notice are attached to this Petition as Exhibit C and they are incorporated herein. 15
32. Pursuant to H&S section 17980.7(c), the City requests that the Court appoint a receiver to
16 take full and complete possession and control of the Nuisance Property in order to rehabilitate the 17 Nuisance Property and bring the Nuisance Property into compliance with all applicable laws. 18
33. Based on Respondents’ failure to comply with the NoV and N&O, pursuant to H&S section
19 17980.7(b)(1), Respondents are not entitled to claim any deduction with respect to State taxes for 20 interest, taxes, expenses, depreciation, or amortization paid or incurred with respect to the Nuisance 21 Property for taxable year 2016, and during the pendency of this action. 22
34. Due to Respondents’ continued failure to comply with the City’s notices, the NoV, and the
23 N&O, the City has been forced to file this Petition and seek the Court’s appointment of a receiver. As 24 a result, the City has incurred, and will continue to incur, administrative expenses, court costs, and 25 attorneys’ fees. The City is entitled to recover all costs, expenses, and fees from Respondents pursuant 26 to H&S sections 17980.7(c)(11) and 17980.7(d)(1). 27 28 – 10 of 18 – PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
1
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2
(Public Nuisance—Against All Respondents)
3
(Civil Code sections 3479, 3480, 3491, and 3494)
4
35. The City re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs as though set forth herein.
5
36. The City brings this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 526(a) and 731, and
6 Civil Code sections 3479, 3480, 3491, and 3494. 7
37. According to Civil Code section 3479, anything that is injurious to health, is indecent or
8 offensive to the senses, or is an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the 9 comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is a nuisance. 10
38. Respondents’ maintenance of the Nuisance Property in violation of numerous State and local
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
11 laws, which includes hazardous electric wiring, debris accumulation, decaying material near food for 12 sale, unpermitted construction, as well as substandard building conditions—which are unsanitary and a 13 potential fire hazard—are injurious to the public health, offensive to the senses, and interferes with the 14 public’s comfortable enjoyment of life and property. 15
39. Civil Code section 3480 defines a public nuisance as one, which affects at the same time an
16 entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the 17 annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal. 18
40. As set forth in this Petition, the numerous violations of law that currently exist on the
19 Nuisance Property pose a significant and immediate threat to the health and safety of the public, 20 occupants, and neighbors, including unpermitted construction, hazardous electrical wiring, unsanitary 21 conditions, decaying material next to food for sale, and substantial debris found throughout the Nuisance 22 Property, which presents a severe fire hazard. Therefore, the Nuisance Property constitutes a nuisance 23 and is subject to injunctive relief to prohibit continuing violations, future violations, and to cause 24 compliance with the law. 25
41. Each of the Respondents is individually liable for, and has individually contributed to,
26 permitted, or allowed, the maintenance of the aforementioned public nuisances on the Nuisance Property. 27 28 – 11 of 18 – PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
1
42. The City has attempted to gain compliance for nearly two years, but Respondents continually
2 refuse to comply with the City’s requests, and it is now clear that further notices or requests for 3 compliance from Respondents are futile. 4
43. None of the Respondents appear to have an interest in taking responsibility for the Nuisance
5 Property. The City has issued numerous notices, the NoV, and the N&O pursuant to H&S section 6 17980.6, but Respondents continue to allow conditions that violate numerous State and local laws, and 7 threaten the health, safety, and public welfare, to remain unabated on the Nuisance Property.
8
44. Unless Respondents are enjoined by the Court from maintaining or allowing the continued
9 nuisance on the Nuisance Property, the Nuisance Property will continue to threaten the health, safety, 10 and welfare of anyone occupying it, as well as, neighbors, the general public, and any invitee that
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
11 mistakenly walks into this cesspool of a store. 12
45. The City has no plain, speedy, or adequate alternative remedy at law to abate the public
13 nuisances alleged herein other than a receivership and injunctive relief, which is authorized by the Code 14 of Civil Procedure sections 526, 527, and 731. 15
46. Given the immediate harm to the health and safety of the public and the harm to the free use
16 and enjoyment of other property in the area, a temporary restraining order and preliminary and 17 permanent injunctions are necessary to prevent any further illegal conditions and activities on the 18 Nuisance Property. 19 20
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
21
(Nuisance Per Se—Against All Respondents)
22
(SMC section 108.040)
23
42. The City re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs as through set forth herein.
24
43. The City brings this action pursuant to SMC section 108.040(a) which permits the City to
25 enforce any violation of the SMC by seeking injunctive relief, among other remedies. 26
44. Government Code section 38771 authorizes cities to declare by ordinance what constitutes
27 a nuisance. Any violation of SMC section 8.36.040 constitutes a public nuisance. (SMC, § 1.36.020.) 28 – 12 of 18 – PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
1
45. When a City’s municipal code declares certain conditions to be a nuisance, those conditions
2 are a nuisance per se and no proof is required beyond the existence of the condition itself. (City of Costa 3 Mesa v. Soffer (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 378, 382.) 4
46. SMC section 8.36.040, among other sections, enumerates specific conditions on real
5 property which constitute a nuisance per se. 6
47. The City has adopted the CBC, the CFC, the CPC, the UHC, and the ADB pursuant to Title
7 15 of the SMC. Thus, pursuant to SMC section 1.36.020, any violation of these adopted codes constitutes
8 a nuisance per se. 9
48. Respondents have allowed, maintained, and caused violations of the SMC, the CBC, the
10 CFC, the CPC, the UHC, and the ADB, which are nuisances per se, to occur on the Nuisance Property
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
11 for nearly two years. These violations are fully detailed in the NoV and N&O that are attached to this 12 Petition as Exhibits A and B and are incorporated herein. 13
49. Respondents continue to allow nuisances per se to persist on the Nuisance Property and,
14 unless enjoined from continuing the nuisance activity, will continue to allow the nuisances to persist, 15 including continuing unpermitted construction. Therefore, a temporary restraining order and preliminary 16 and permanent injunctions issued by this Court are necessary to prevent the continuation of these and 17 other public nuisances on the Nuisance Property. 18 19
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20
(Unlawful Business Practices—Against All Respondents)
21
(Business and Professions Code section 17203)
22
50. The City re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs as though set forth herein.
23
51. Business and Professions Code (“B&P”) section 17200 et sequentes (“Unfair Competition
24 Law”) provides that unfair competition includes “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or 25 practice.” An unlawful business activity includes “anything that can properly be called a business 26 practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.” (People v. McKale (1979) 25 Cal.3d 626, 632; 27 Olszewski v. Scripps Health (2003) 30 Cal.4th 798, 827.) 28 – 13 of 18 – PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
1
52. A failure and refusal to comply with building and local codes constitutes an unlawful
2 business practice. (See People v. McKale (1979) 25 Cal.3d 626, 632; Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 3 Cal.App.3d 903, 928.) 4
53. “Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposed to engage in unfair competition may
5 be enjoined” and that the court may make any order necessary to prevent unfair competition, “including 6 the appointment of a receiver.” (B&P, § 17203.) 7
54. Person includes “natural persons, corporations, firms, partnerships, joint stock companies,
8 associations and other organizations of persons.” (B&P, § 17201.) Respondents, therefore, are included 9 in the definition of “person” under the Unfair Competition Law. 10
55. The remedies provided by the Unfair Competition Law are cumulative to the other remedies
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
11 sought and are not exclusive of any penalties available under all other laws of this State. (B&P, § 17205.) 12
56. B&P section 17203 authorizes the City to bring an action for relief pursuant to the Unfair
13 Competition Law, and this section exempts the City from any other standing requirements. 14
57. At all times relevant to this Petition, Respondents have operated and had a legal interest in
15 the substandard and substantially dangerous structure on the Nuisance Property, which is operated as 16 public market as defined by SMC section 8.76.010. 17
58. For nearly two years, Respondents have maintained, allowed, and operated the Nuisance
18 Property as a public market, in a manner which violates the H&S, the CBSC, the CBC, the CFC, the 19 CPC, the UHC, the ADB, and the SMC. 20
59. By allowing the violations alleged above to exist on the Nuisance Property, and operating it
21 as a public market, Respondents have engaged in unlawful business practices constituting unfair 22 competition within the meaning of the Unfair Competition Law. 23
60. Each of the Respondents are responsible for conducting, maintaining, and directly or
24 indirectly permitting the practice of unfair competition in violation of the Unfair Competition Law. 25
61. These violations render each Respondent subject to the remedies provided in B&P section
26 17203. 27
62. In addition, the Court has the authority to make any order necessary to prevent the unfair
28 competition practice. B&P section 17203 specifically provides for the appointment of a receiver and for – 14 of 18 – PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
1 injunctive relief. This provides yet another basis to issue injunctive relief and to appoint a receiver over 2 the Nuisance Property. 3 4
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
5
WHEREFORE, the City prays for judgment against Respondents as follows:
6
1. For the Court to find and declare that the Nuisance Property contains violations of the H&S,
7 the CBSC, the CBC, the CFC, the CPC, the UHC, the ADB, and the SMC.
8
2. For the Court to find and declare that the Nuisance Property is a public nuisance.
9
3. For the Court to find and declare that the Nuisance Property is a nuisance per se.
10
4. For the Court to find and declare that the Nuisance Property contains violations that are so
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
11 extensive and of such a nature that the health and safety of residents and the public is substantially 12 endangered. 13
5. For the Court to find and declare that Respondents were properly issued the NoV and the
14 N&O in accordance with H&S section 17980.6. 15
6. For the Court to find and declare that Respondents failed to correct the substantially
16 dangerous conditions on the Nuisance Property despite having been afforded an adequate and reasonable 17 opportunity to do so. 18
7. For the Court to appoint a receiver to take possession and control of the Nuisance Property,
19 as requested herein, pursuant to H&S section 17980.7(c). 20
8. For the Court to appoint a receiver to take possession and control of the Nuisance Property,
21 as requested herein, pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure. 22
9. For the Court to appoint a receiver to take possession and control of the Nuisance Property,
23 as requested herein, pursuant to the Civil Code. 24
10. For the Court to appoint a receiver to take possession and control of the Nuisance Property,
25 as requested herein, pursuant to B&P section 17203. 26
11. For the Court to appoint a receiver to take possession and control of the Nuisance Property,
27 as requested herein, pursuant to the Court’s inherent equitable powers. 28 – 15 of 18 – PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
1
12. For the Court to grant the receiver the authority to do all of the following, pursuant to H&S
2 sections 17980 et sequentes and 17980.7, Code of Civil Procedure sections 564 through 570, and the 3 Court’s inherent equitable powers: 4
12.1. Take full and complete control of the Nuisance Property.
5
12.2. Manage the Nuisance Property and pay the expenses of the operation of the
6
Nuisance Property, including taxes, insurance, utilities, general maintenance, and
7
debt secured by an interest in the Nuisance Property.
8
12.3. Secure a cost estimate and construction plan from licensed contractors for the
9
repairs necessary to correct all building and code violations on the Nuisance
10
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
11 12 13 14
Property. 12.4. Enter into contracts and employ licensed contractors as necessary to correct the conditions on the Nuisance Property, to include demolition or repair. 12.5. Exercise the powers granted to receivers under Code of Civil Procedure section 568.
15
12.6. Collect all rents and income from the Nuisance Property, and to use all rents and
16
income to pay for the cost of the rehabilitation and repair of the Nuisance Property.
17
12.7. Borrow all funds necessary to pay for repairs to correct all conditions on the
18
Nuisance Property.
19
12.8. Secure all borrowed funds, costs, expenses, and fees associated with the
20
rehabilitation of the Nuisance Property with first-priority liens against the
21
Nuisance Property, superior to any and all pre-existing liens.
22
12.9. Borrow funds to pay the City its reasonable costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees
23
out of the receivership estate, and to secure those funds against the Nuisance
24
Property with first-priority liens the same as all other borrowed funds, as provided
25
by H&S sections 17980 et sequentes and 17980.7, subdivisions (c)(11) and (d)(1).
26
12.10. Borrow funds to pay the City its reasonable and actual enforcement costs
27
including, but not limited to, inspection costs, investigation costs, enforcement
28
costs, and all costs of prosecution out of the receivership estate, and to secure those – 16 of 18 – PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
1
funds against the Nuisance Property with first-priority liens the same as all other
2
borrowed funds, as provided by H&S sections 17980 et sequentes and
3
17980.7(d)(1).
4
13. For the Court to enjoin Respondents from collecting rents or income from the Nuisance
5 Property, from interfering with the receiver in the operation and rehabilitation of the Nuisance Property, 6 and from encumbering or transferring any interest in the Nuisance Property, as required by H&S section 7 17980.7(c)(3).
8
14. For the Court to order Respondents not to claim any deduction with respect to State taxes for
9 interest, taxes, expenses, depreciation, or amortization paid or incurred with respect to the Nuisance 10 Property for taxable year 2015 and during the pendency of this action, pursuant to H&S section
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
11 17980.7(b)(1). 12
15. For the Court to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent
13 injunctions pursuant to the SMC, the Civil Code, and the B&P prohibiting Respondents from 14 maintaining or allowing any public nuisances on the Nuisance Property or in the City, requiring 15 Respondents to abate all violations of law on the Nuisance Property, and prohibiting Respondents from 16 continuing to cause, permit, or allow unlawful business practices which constitute unfair competition. 17
16. For the Court to order Respondents to pay all of the City’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and
18 court costs, pursuant to H&S section 17980.7(c)(11) and SMC section 1.08.040. 19
17. For the Court to order Respondents to pay all reasonable and actual costs of the City, such as
20 inspection costs, investigation costs, enforcement costs, prosecution costs, and attorneys’ fees and costs, 21 pursuant to H&S section 17980.7(d)(1) and SMC section 1.24.040. 22
18. For the Court to order any unpaid amounts owed pursuant to this Action to be secured as a
23 special assessment against the Nuisance Property, pursuant to Government Code section 38773.5. 24
19. For the Court to retain jurisdiction over the Nuisance Property for the statutory period
25 following discharge of the receiver pursuant to H&S section 17980.7(c)(10). 26
20. For any other relief as the Court may deem proper or necessary.
27 28 – 17 of 18 – PETITION FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RECEIVERSHIP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10
EXHIBIT A
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
11 12
LEGAL NOTICE AND ORDER TO REPAIR OR ABATE
13
DATED AUGUST 19, 2015
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT A – NoV
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10
EXHIBIT B
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
11 12
LEGAL NOTICE AND ORDER TO REPAIR OR ABATE
13
DATED APRIL 14, 2016
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT B – N&O
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10
EXHIBIT C
SILVER & WRIGHT LLP
IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO
11 12
3 DAY NOTICE
13
PROOFS OF SERVICE
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT C – 3 DAY NOTICE PROOFS OF SERVICE
Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Packet
The person who files a civil lawsuit (plaintiff) must include the ADR Information Packet with the complaint when serving the defendant. Cross complainants must serve the ADR Information Packet on any new parties named to the action. The Court strongly encourages the parties to use some form of ADR before proceeding to trial. You may choose ADR by: *Indicating your preference on Case Management Statement form CM-110; *Filing the Stipulation and Order to Participate in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) local court form Sup Crt 441; or *Agree to ADR at your initial Case Management Conference. Questions? Call (209) 992-5693 and ask for the ADR Clerk, email at adr@sjcourts.org or visit the court website at www.sjcourts.org
What is Alternative Dispute Resolution? Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is the general term applied to a wide variety of dispute resolution processes which are alternatives to lawsuits. Trained impartial persons, called ‘neutrals’, resolve disputes or help parties resolve disputes without having to go to court. The most common forms of ADR are mediation and arbitration. There are several other types of ADR such as case evaluation, conciliations, settlement conferences, fact finding, mini-trials and summary jury trials. It is important to find the type or types of ADR that are most likely to resolve your dispute.
What are the Advantages of using ADR?
Faster – Litigation can take years to complete but ADR usually takes weeks or months.
Cheaper – Parties can save on attorney’s fees and litigation costs.
More control and flexibility – Parties choose the ADR process appropriate for their case.
Cooperative and less stressful – In mediation, parties cooperate to find a mutually agreeable resolution. Preserve Relationships – A mediator can help you effectively communicate your interests and point of view to the other side. This is an important benefit when you want to preserve a relationship.
ADR Information Packet (7/15)
What is the Disadvantage of using ADR?
You may go to court anyway – If you cannot resolve your dispute using ADR, you may still have to spend time and money resolving your lawsuit through the courts. Cost – The neutral may charge a fee for their services. Timelines – Lawsuits must be brought within specified periods of time, known as statutes of limitation. Parties must be careful not to let a statute of limitations run out while a dispute is in and ADR process.
What ADR options are available?
Mediation – The Civil Mediation Program is a voluntary court-connected program designed to deliver high-quality affordable mediation services to attorneys and litigants in all general civil cases. Mediation gives litigants a voice in settlement decisions and thereby allows them to play a more direct role in managing the outcome of their own case. The Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin, is pleased to offer this important and valuable option for resolution of litigation. Mediation is an informal, confidential, flexible and non-binding process which a neutral person (mediator) helps the parties to understand the interest of everyone involved, and their practical and legal choices. The mediator does not decide the dispute, but helps the parties communicate so they can try to settle the dispute themselves. Mediation leaves control of the outcome with the parties. Mediators are experienced attorneys who have completed a Court-approved formal mediation training program. A copy of the Civil Mediation Program Panelist is available on the court website at www.sjcourts.org See Local Rule 3-123 for additional Civil Mediation Program information.
Arbitration – A neutral person (arbitrator) hears arguments and evidence from each side and makes a decision (award) to resolve the dispute. Arbitration normally is more informal and much speedier and less expensive than a lawsuit. Judicial Arbitration Program (non-binding): The judge can refer a case or the parties can agree to use judicial arbitration. The parties select an arbitrator from a list provided by the court. If the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, one will be assigned by the court. The arbitrator must send the decision (award of the arbitrator) to the court. The parties have the right to reject the award and proceed to trial. See Local Rule 3-122 for additional Judicial Arbitration information. Private Arbitration (binding and non-binding): Occurs when parties involved in a dispute either agree or are contractually obligated. This option takes place outside of the courts and is normally binding meaning the arbitrator’s decision is final.
Additional Information regarding San Joaquin County Superior Court’s ADR programs is available on the Court’s website at www.sjcourts.org ADR Information Packet (7/15)
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): COURT USE ONLY
TELEPHONE NO.: EMAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name):
FAX NO.:
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN LODI Branch 315 W. Elm St. Lodi, CA 95240
MANTECA Branch 315 E. Center St. Manteca, CA 95336
TRACY Branch th 475 E. 10 St. Tracy, CA 95376
STOCKTON Branch 222 E. Weber Ave. Stockton, CA 95202
Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): CASE NUMBER:
Defendant(s)/Respondent(s): .
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) Pursuant to California Rules of Court §3.726 the parties stipulate that all claims pursuant in this action shall be submitted to (select one): Voluntary Mediation
Other (specify): _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________
Non-Binding Judicial Arbitration CCP 1141.12 Binding Arbitration (private)
Case Type: __________________________________________ Is the Neutral you selected listed on the Court’s Panel of Mediators?
Yes
No
Neutral’s name and telephone number: ____________________________________/(_______)__________________ Date/Time of ADR Session: ____________/________a.m./p.m.
Location of ADR Session:_____________________
Identify by name ALL individuals (litigants and attorneys) who will attend the ADR session: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Attorneys signing on behalf of their client(s) have been given the authority to stipulate to ADR. Original signatures required.
_____________________________________________
______________________________________
Type or print name of Party without attorney Plaintiff/Petitioner Defendant/Respondent
(Signature) Attorney or Party without attorney
Attorney for
_____________________________________________
______________________________________
Type or print name of Party without attorney Plaintiff/Petitioner Defendant/Respondent
(Signature) Attorney or Party without attorney
Attorney for
_____________________________________________
______________________________________
Type or print name of Party without attorney Plaintiff/Petitioner Defendant/Respondent
(Signature) Attorney or Party without attorney
Attorney for
_____________________________________________
______________________________________
Type or print name of Party without attorney Plaintiff/Petitioner Defendant/Respondent
(Signature) Attorney or Party without attorney
Attorney for
IT IS SO ORDERED: Dated:________________
_________________________________________________ Judge of the Superior Court
An ADR Review Hearing is scheduled for __________________at __________a.m/p.m. in Dept. No. ________. In the event that the case is resolved and a dismissal-entire action, a notice of settlement or judgment is on file 5 days before the hearing, the ADR Hearing will be dropped and all appearances will be excused. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) Sup Crt 441 (6/09)