City of Stockton's receivership application by The Record

1 CURTIS R. WRIGHT, CBN 273323 AMANDA A. POPE, CBN 273307 2 RYAN C. GRIFFITH, CBN 286060 RGriffith@SilverWrightLaw.com 3 SILVER & WRIGHT LLP 3350 Shelby Street, Suite 250 4 Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 949-529-5923 5 Fax: 949-385-6428

Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Government Code section 6103.

6 Attorneys for Petitioner City of Stockton 7 8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

10 11 CITY OF STOCKTON, a California municipal corporation, 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14

Case Number: STK-CV-UMCP-2016-5206 Action Filed: May 31, 2016

15 JASWANT SINGH, an individual; GURDIAL SINGH, an individual; 16 BHOLA SINGH, an individual; GURBACHAN SINGH, an individual; 17 REDROSE SINGH, an individual; ALLIANT CREDIT UNION, INC., as successor 18 to KAIPERM FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; MUFG AMERICAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S HOLDING 19 CORPORATION, as successor to UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A.; and 20 DOES 1 through 50,

Judge: Hon. Barbara Kronlund Dept.: 42

21 22

Respondents.

EX PARTE RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

[Filed concurrently with: 1. Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 2. Declaration of Code Enforcement Officer Prutch. 3. Declaration of Combination Building Inspection Supervisor Freitas. 4. Declaration of Attorney Pope. 5. Declaration of Court Receiver Adams. 6. Request for Judicial Notice. 7. Appendix of Exhibits. 8. Proposed Receivership Order.]

23 24

Hearing Date: Time:

25 26 27 28

RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

EX PARTE RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

2 3

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to this Court’s process for Ex Parte Applications,

4 Petitioner City of Stockton (“City”) in case number STK-CV-UMCP-2016-5206 will and hereby does 5 move for an order (“Receivership Application”): 6

Declaring the parcel of real property known as 2318 South Airport Way Stockton,

7 California 95206, Assessor’s Parcel Number 169-152-01 (“Nuisance Property”) to be a public nuisance 8 in violation of State and local laws and that the violations are so extensive and of such a nature that the 9 health and safety of residents and the public is substantially endangered. 10

Appointing California Receivership Group, a California public benefit corporation,

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 through its president Court Receiver Mark Adams (“Receiver”) as the Court’s receiver over the Nuisance 12 Property pursuant to Health and Safety Code (“H&S”) section 17980.7(c). 13

Granting the Receiver the authority to manage and oversee the rehabilitation of the

14 Nuisance Property pursuant to H&S section 17980.7(c)(4) and Code of Civil Procedure section 568. 15

Authorizing the Receiver to secure funding for the receivership estate through the

16 issuance of receiver’s certificates that may be recorded as first priority liens on the Nuisance Property 17 pursuant to H&S section 17980.7(c), jurisprudence, and equity. 18

Enjoining Respondents from collecting income or rent from the Nuisance Property

19 pursuant to H&S section 17980.7(c)(3). 20

Enjoining Respondents from interfering with the Receiver in the operation of the

21 Nuisance Property pursuant to H&S section 17980.7(c)(3). 22

Enjoining Respondents from encumbering or transferring any interest in the Nuisance

23 Property pursuant to H&S section 17980.7(c)(3). 24

Enjoining Respondents from allowing or maintaining nuisances on the Nuisance

25 Property, including violations of the California Building Code (“CBC”), the Stockton Municipal Code 26 (“SMC”), and other applicable laws. 27

Authorizing the recovery of the City’s costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees out of the

28 receivership estate, to be secured as a first priority lien on the Nuisance Property the same as all other – 1 of 8 – RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

1 receiver’s certificates, as authorized by H&S sections 17980.7(c)(11) and 17980.7(d)(1), jurisprudence, 2 and equity. 3 4

This Receivership Application is made pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 3.1200 et

5 sequentes, and H&S section 17980.7(c). Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1202(c), the City 6 recites the following facts, which establish the justification for ex parte relief: 7

The H&S receivership process was specifically enacted by the State legislature to provide

8 cities with expedient enforcement measures to rehabilitate substandard housing that currently endangers 9 the health and safety of residents and the public. (Sen. Rules Com., Off. Of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d 10 reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 2799 (1987–88 Re. Sess.) as amended Aug. 29, 1988, p. 3; see Assem.

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 Com. on Housing and Community Development, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 2799 (1987–88 Re. Sess.) as 12 amended June 27, 1988, p. 3.)xpedient enforcement measures to rehabilitate substandard housing that 13 currently endangers the health and safety of residents and the public. (Sen. Rules Com., Off. Of Sen. 14 Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 2799 (1987–88 Re. Sess.) as amended Aug. 29, 15 1988, p. 3; see Assem. Com. on Housing and Community Development, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 2799 16 (1987–88 Re. Sess.) as amended June 27, 1988, p. 3.) 17

The California Supreme Court has further upheld the use of H&S receiverships “to provide

18 meaningful enforcement mechanisms in situations where the substandard condition of a residential 19 building is found to substantially endanger the health and safety of the occupants or the public.” (City 20 of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 905, 926.) In Gonzalez, the Court specifically addressed 21 that only three days advance notice is required to initiate receivership proceedings after Respondents’ 22 failure to comply with a notice to repair. (Id. at pp. 920–21.) 23

The H&S receivership process is procedurally designed to authorize relief upon a petition

24 alone. Nonetheless, this ex parte application process is being utilized in order to provide additional 25 evidence to the Court and due process to Respondents. By the date of the hearing on this Receivership 26 Application, Respondents will have been afforded well over a month to rehabilitate the dangerous 27 conditions on the Nuisance Property since service of the Legal Notice And Order To Repair Or Abate 28 (“N&O”) was issued on April 14, 2016, in addition to nearly two years of enforcement efforts that began – 2 of 8 – RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

1 on September 30, 2014. Thus, Respondents have been provided with significantly more time and notice 2 than is required by statute. 3

In addition, ex parte relief is justified in this case because the Nuisance Property contains

4 numerous substandard and extremely dangerous violations of State and local law, which substantially 5 and immediately endanger the lives of residents, including the residents of the surrounding homes. 6

First and foremost is the extremely unsafe structural elements present at the Nuisance

7 Property. Throughout the Property there is decaying material near food for sale, exposed electrical 8 wiring, unpermitted electrical wiring, substantial debris, dilapidated interior walls, dilapidated ceilings, 9 and unpermitted construction, as well as substantial criminal activity, which has included two recent 10 shootings at the Nuisance Property on May 11, 2016 and May 13, 2016, one of which resulted in

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 the death of the victim. Respondent Jaswant Singh (“Owner”) as well as Respondent Lessor Gurdial 12 Singh and Respondents Lessors Redrose Singh, Gurbachan Singh, and Bhola Singh (“Leaseholders”) 13 have allowed these dangerous conditions to remain on the Nuisance Property, but both the Owner and 14 Leaseholders appear unwilling or unable to abate the dangerous conditions. 15

Respondents Alliant Credit Union, Inc., as successor to Kaiperm Federal Credit Union

16 (“Alliant”) and MUFG America’s Holding Corporation, as successor to Union Bank of California, N.A 17 (“Lenders”) are lienholders that hold a recorded interest in the Nuisance Property. 18

At this time, the Nuisance Property has become a hotbed of criminal activity, a

19 cesspool of unsanitary conditions, and a fatally dangerous location as evidenced by the two recent 20 shootings at the Nuisance Property. Despite these deplorable conditions neither the Owner, the 21 Leaseholders, nor the Lenders have abated the dangerous conditions. Therefore, it is clear that until a 22 responsible party takes control of the Nuisance Property it will continue to deteriorate and substantially 23 endanger public health and safety, which is why these issues must be addressed immediately. 24

In addition to the substandard conditions, numerous egress routes that will be vital in the

25 event of an emergency are sealed off by debris. If there is a fire at the Nuisance Property, anyone in the 26 structures at the time, including any occupants and any responding firefighters, could very likely be 27 trapped inside and severely injured or killed. 28 – 3 of 8 – RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

Furthermore, the Nuisance Property is situated in a residential neighborhood and is located

2 near numerous residences, less than a third of a mile from Williams Brotherhood Park, and less than half 3 a mile from Van Buren Elementary School. Furthermore, conditions on the Nuisance Property are a 4 constant blight in the community that drive down property values, and create substantial criminal activity 5 as evidenced by more than 150 calls for police service to the Nuisance Property since February 20, 2015. 6 As such, the safety of the entire community is jeopardized by the Nuisance Property and extreme 7 measures to overhaul and repair the Nuisance Property must be taken immediately so that the City can 8 protect its citizens. 9

10.

In addition to fire hazards, structural hazards, and blight concerns, there are several health

10 and sanitation issues on the Nuisance Property, which have been documented by the San Joaquin County

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 Environmental Health Department. The Nuisance Property is operated a market open to the public, but 12 it is the site of decaying material near food for sale, including bottles of urine nearby food. 13

11.

The Nuisance Property is extremely unsafe, unsanitary, and the site of substantial criminal

14 activity. Conditions are so dire that immediate relief is needed. Furthermore, the conditions on the 15 Nuisance Property pose a severe risk to the life, limb, health, and safety of occupants, the surrounding 16 community, children, and the public in general, especially considering the recent murder on the Nuisance 17 Property. 18 19

This Receivership Application is made pursuant to H&S section 17980.7(c) and California Rules

20 of Court, rules 3.1175 and 3.1200 et sequentes, and on the grounds that: 21

1. The Nuisance Property contains numerous extensive, unlawful, and substandard building

22 violations, and other conditions, that pose an immediate and substantial danger to the health and safety 23 of residents, tenants, and the public. 24

2. The Nuisance Property has been the focus of code enforcement efforts since September 2014

25 and the dangerous conditions have increased significantly, which is evidenced by two recent shootings. 26 The City has attempted all feasible methods of enforcement with Respondents to no avail. At this time, 27 all efforts have proven ineffective and, despite having been given ample opportunities to comply, 28 Respondents have failed to bring the Nuisance Property into compliance with the law. â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 4 of 8 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

3. As a result, the Nuisance Property poses a severe risk of injury to occupants due to the severe

2 fire hazards, hazardous electrical wiring, unpermitted construction, unsanitary conditions and substantial 3 criminal activity. 4

4. On or around April 14, 2016, in accordance with H&S section 17980.6, the City issued

5 Respondents the N&O ordering the rehabilitation of the Nuisance Property within 30 days. Respondents 6 failed to comply with the N&O and to correct the unlawful and extremely dangerous substandard 7 building conditions on the Nuisance Property within a reasonable time. As a result of Respondents’ 8 continuous failure to rehabilitate the Nuisance Property, and to comply with the N&O, the City is entitled 9 to the relief provided under H&S section 17980.7(c). 10

5. The violations of law existing on the Nuisance Property pose an immediate and substantial

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 threat to the health and safety of residents and to the community at large. These conditions are so severe 12 that immediate action is necessary to protect any occupants of the Nuisance Property and the residents 13 of the surrounding community. Consequently, the City seeks the ex parte appointment of the Receiver 14 to ensure that the residents and the public are not further endangered by the conditions on the Nuisance 15 Property. Furthermore, the City is statutorily entitled to the immediate relief requested based upon the 16 Receivership Petition filed in this matter pursuant to H&S section 17980.7(c). 17

6. Respondents have failed to remedy the dangerous conditions. The City has diligently

18 attempted to bring the dangerous conditions into compliance by posting notices, mailing notices, issuing 19 citations, and issuing two N&O’s pursuant to H&S section 17980.6, and recording the most N&O on 20 title pursuant to H&S section 17985. At this time the City has taken every possible step to require the 21 Owner, Leaseholders, and Lenders to address the issues, but it is evident each Respondent is either 22 unable or unwilling to address the dangerous conditions, which will only continue to increase unless a 23 receiver is appointed to take control of Nuisance Property. 24 25

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 3.1202(a), 3.1203, and 3.1204, the City recites the

26 following information: 27

Respondent Jaswant Singh is represented by Judy A. Lovett, Esq. whose office is located at

28 5250 Claremont Avenue, Suite 226, California 95207. The phone number for Ms. Lovett is (209) 472– 5 of 8 – RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

1 3711, her fax number is (209) 472-3411 and her e-mail address is judyal7@sbcglobal.net. On June 22, 2 2016, the City mailed a copy of this Application to Ms. Lovett along with a cover page notice that 3 informed Ms. Lovett of the City’s proposed dates and times for the hearing. It also informed Ms. Lovett 4 of the nature of the relief sought and requested that Ms. Lovett inform this office whether she intended 5 to oppose the Application. As of the time of submitting this Application for filing, the City has not 6 received a response from Ms. Lovett indicating whether Ms. Lovett will appear and oppose the 7 Application. The City is currently negotiating a stipulation for the appointment of a receiver with Ms. 8 Lovett and does not believe she will oppose this Application. 9

The City is not aware if Respondent Gurdial Singh is represented by counsel. Mr. Singh is

10 a lessee of the Nuisance Property and his last known address is the Nuisance Property. The City is not

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 aware of his phone number, fax number or email address. On June 22, 2016, the City mailed a copy of 12 this Application to Mr. Singh along with a cover page notice that informed him of the City’s proposed 13 dates and times for the hearing. It also informed Mr. Singh of the nature of the relief sought and 14 requested that he inform this office whether he intended to oppose the Application. As of the time of 15 submitting this Application for filing, the City has not received a response from Mr. Singh indicating 16 whether he will appear and oppose the Application. 17

Respondent Redrose Singh, is represented in pro per. His address is 3011 Sofia Watm

18 Stockton, California 95212. His phone number is (290) 565-7221. The City does not know his fax 19 number or email address. On June 22, 2016, the City mailed a copy of this Application to Mr. Singh 20 along with a cover page notice that informed him of the City proposed dates and times for the hearing. 21 It also informed Mr. Singh of the nature of the relief sought and requested that he inform this office 22 whether he intended to oppose the Application. As of the time of submitting this Application for filing, 23 the City has not received a response from Mr. Singh indicating whether he will appear and oppose the 24 Application. 25

The City is not aware if Respondent Gurbachan Singh is represented by counsel. Mr. Singh

26 is a lessee of the Nuisance Property and his last known address is the Nuisance Property. The City is 27 not aware of his phone number, fax number or email address. On June 22, 2016, the City mailed a copy 28 of this Application to Mr. Singh along with a cover page notice that informed him of the City’s proposed – 6 of 8 – RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

1 dates and times for the hearing. It also informed Mr. Singh of the nature of the relief sought and 2 requested that he inform this office whether he intended to oppose the Application. As of the time of 3 submitting this Application for filing, the City has not received a response from Mr. Singh indicating 4 whether he will appear and oppose the Application. 5

The City is not aware if Respondent Bhola Singh is represented by counsel. Mr. Singh is a

6 lessee of the Nuisance Property and his last known address is the Nuisance Property. The City is not 7 aware of his phone number, fax number or email address. On June 22, 2016, the City mailed a copy of 8 this Application to Mr. Singh along with a cover page notice that informed him of the City’s proposed 9 dates and times for the hearing. It also informed Mr. Singh of the nature of the relief sought and 10 requested that he inform this office whether he intended to oppose the Application. As of the time of

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 submitting this Application for filing, the City has not received a response from Mr. Singh indicating 12 whether he will appear and oppose the Application. 13

Respondent Alliant is represented by John M. Brom, its Senior Corporate Counsel whose

14 office is located at 11545 West Touhy Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60666. Mr. Brom’s phone number is 15 (773) 462-2715 and his e-mail address is jbrom@alliantcreditunion.com. On June 22, 2016, the City 16 mailed a copy of this Application to Mr. Brom along with a cover page notice that informed him of the 17 City’s proposed dates and times for the hearing. It also informed Mr. Brom of the nature of the relief 18 sought and requested that Mr. Brom inform this office whether he intended to oppose the Application. 19 As of the time of submitting this Application for filing, the City has not received a response from Mr. 20 Brom indicating whether he will appear and oppose the Application. The City does believe Mr. Brom 21 will oppose the Application because his client has entered into a stipulation with the City for the 22 appointment of a receiver. 23

Respondent MUFG is represented by Jeff M. Byer from the law firm of Sandry Lasry Laube

24 Bryer & Valez, LLP (“SLLBV”) located at 402 West Broadway, Suite 1700 San Diego, California 25 92101. The phone number for SLLBV (619) 235-5655, the fax number is (619) 235-5648 and Jeff M. 26 Byer’s e-mail is jbyer@sllbv.com. On June 22, 2016, the City mailed a copy of this Application to Mr. 27 Byer along with a cover page notice that informed him of the City’s proposed dates and times for the 28 hearing. It also informed Mr. Byer of the nature of the relief sought and requested that Mr. Byer inform – 7 of 8 – RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

1 CURTIS R. WRIGHT, CBN 273323 AMANDA A POPE, CBN 273307 2 RYAN C. GRIFFITH, CBN 286060 RGriffith@SilverWrightLaw.com 3 SILVER & WRIGHT LLP 3350 Shelby Street, Suite 250 4 Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 949-529-5923 5 Fax: 949-385-6428

Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Government Code section 6103.

6 Attorneys for Petitioner City of Stockton 7 8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

10 11 CITY OF STOCKTON, a California municipal corporation, 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14 15 JASWANT SINGH, an individual; GURDIAL SINGH, an individual; 16 BHOLA SINGH, an individual; GURBACHAN SINGH, an individual; 17 REDROSE SINGH, an individual; ALLIANT CREDIT UNION, INC., as successor 18 to KAIPERM FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; MUFG AMERICAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S HOLDING 19 CORPORATION, as successor to UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A.; and 20 DOES 1 through 50, 21 22

Respondents.

Case Number: STK-CV-UMCP-2016-5206 Action Filed: May 31, 2016 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION Judge: Hon. Barbara A. Kronlund Dept.: 42 [Filed concurrently with: 1. Receivership Application. 2. Declaration of Code Enforcement Officer Prutch 3. Declaration of Combination Building Inspection Supervisor Freitas 4. Declaration of Attorney Pope. 5. Declaration of Court Receiver Adams. 6. Request for Judicial Notice. 7. Appendix of Exhibits. 8. Proposed Receivership Order.]

23 24 25

Hearing Date: Time:

26 27 28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 3 I.

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................p. 1

4 II.

STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................p. 3

5 III. LEGAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................p. 6 6 7

1. The Nuisance Property Is Substandard And Substantially Endangers

The Health And Safety Of Occupants And The Public Such That The

11 SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

Dangerous Nuisance Conditions On The Nuisance Property.......................................p. 6

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

A. A Court Receiver Must Be Appointed To Abate The Unlawful And Extremely

Appointment Of A Receiver Is Necessary And Proper.....................................p. 7 2. The Court Must Give Deference To The Determination Of Public Officials That The Nuisance Property Is Substantially Dangerous .................p. 8

3. Respondents Have Been Given More Than A Reasonable Opportunity

To Correct The Substandard Nuisance Conditions On The Nuisance

Property, Yet Have Failed To Do So...................................................................p. 8

4. The City Has Complied With All Procedural Prerequisites For The

Appointment Of A Court Receiver Pursuant To H&S Section 17980.7(c)

................................................................................................................................p. 9

19 20 21

5. The Legislature Enacted The Receivership Statutes For Exactly This Situation.................................................................................................................p. 9 6. The Supreme Court Has Upheld Appointment Of A Court Receiver On

Lesser Facts .........................................................................................................p. 10

7. Other Remedies Are Inadequate Or Infeasible ...............................................p. 11

8. The Nuisance Property Is An Unlawful Business Operation And A

Receiver Should Be Appointed Pursuant to Business and Professions

Code Section 17203 .............................................................................................p. 12

27 28 -iTABLE OF CONTENTS

1 2 3 4 5 6

B. Respondents Must Be Enjoined From Interfering With The Court Receiver’s Rehabilitation Of The Nuisance Property....................................................................p. 12 C. The Court Receiver Should Be Authorized To Secure The Debts Of The Receivership Estate With First Priority Liens On The Nuisance Property ..............p. 13 1. The City Is Entitled To Recover Its Expenses, Costs, And Fees Associated With This Action Out Of The Receivership Estate .........................................p. 14

D. The Court Should Appoint California Receivership Group, a California public

benefit corporation, through its president Court Receiver Mark Adams As The

Court’s Receiver .............................................................................................................p. 14

10 IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................p. 15

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -iiTABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 3 STATUTES 4 Business and Professions Code section 17200 .....................................................................................p. 3 5 Business and Professions Code section 17201 ...................................................................................p. 12 6 Business and Professions Code section 17203 .............................................................................pp. 2, 12 7 Government Code section 38773.5.....................................................................................................p. 14 8 Government Code section 53935........................................................................................................p. 14 9 Health and Safety Code section 17980(a) .................................................................................. pp. 4-5, 9 10 Health and Safety Code section 17980(b) ..........................................................................................p. 11

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 Health and Safety Code section 17980.6..............................................................................pp. 2, 6, 9–10 12 Health and Safety Code section 17980.7..............................................................................................p. 6 13 Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(c) ................................................................... pp. 2, 6, 9, 12-14 14 Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(c)(2)...................................................................................p. 14 15 Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(c)(3)...................................................................................p. 12 16 Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(c)(4)(G) ............................................................................p. 13 17 Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(c)(11).................................................................................p. 14 18 Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(d)(1)...................................................................................p. 14 19 Health and Safety Code section 17984...............................................................................................p. 14 20 Revenue and Taxation Code section 2192.1.......................................................................................p. 14 21 22 CASES 23 Asociacion de Gente Unida por el Agua v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Bd. 24

(2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1255......................................................................................................p. 8

25 City and County of San Francisco v. Daley (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 734 ...........................................p. 11 26 City and County of San Francisco v. Jen (2005) 135 Cal. App.4th 305 .............................................p. 8 27 City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 905 ...............................................................pp. 10 28 City of Santa Paula v. Narula (2003) 114 Cal. App.4th 485 ...............................................................p. 8 – – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

1 City of Riverside v. Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670 ...............................................................p. 13 2 Harrot v. County of Kings (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1138 ..............................................................................p. 8 3 Guinnane v. San Francisco City Planning Com. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 732.....................................p. 8 4 People v. McKale (1979) 25 Cal.3d 626.............................................................................................p. 12 5 Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal. App.3d 903 ..........................................................................p. 12 6 Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. California Development Co. (1915) 171 Cal. 227 ......................................p. 13 7 Winslow v. Harold Ferguson (1944) 25 Cal.2d 274................................................................... pp. 13-14 8 Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1 .......................................p. 8 9 10 RULES

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 California Rules of Court, rule 3.1177 ...............................................................................................p. 14 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 –i– TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY’S RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

3 4 I. 5

INTRODUCTION This case involves an extremely substandard and dangerous commercial structure located on the

6 parcel of real property known as 2318 South Airport Way Stockton, California 95206, Assessor’s Parcel 7 Number 169-152-01 (“Nuisance Property”) that substantially endangers the safety of the entire 8 community. The Nuisance Property is a business, openly operating as a grocery and liquor store, which 9 presents substantial dangers to unsuspecting invitees. The deplorable conditions upon the Nuisance 10 Property include bottles of urine stored near food for sale and multiple shootings, one of which recently

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 resulted in the death of the victim. Furthermore, the structural integrity of the Nuisance Property is 12 compromised by dilapidated walls, floors, and unpermitted construction. Additionally, the Nuisance 13 Property presents a severe fire hazard, because there is unpermitted and exposed electrical wiring near 14 junk and debris. These are only a few of the dangerous conditions present at the Nuisance Property, 15 which substantially endanger public health and safety. 16

The Nuisance Property has at all times relevant to this matter been owned by Respondent Jaswant

17 Singh (“Owner”). Respondents Gurdial Singh, Bhola Singh, Gurbachan Singh, and Redrose Singh 18 (“Leaseholders”) also have a recorded interest through a lease recorded on the Nuisance Property. The 19 Owner and Leaseholders have allowed these substandard and dangerous conditions to remain on the 20 Nuisance Property, which openly operates as a business in direct violation of State and local laws. At 21 this time, Petitioner City of Stockton (“City”) has made numerous attempts to bring the Nuisance 22 Property into compliance with the law by issuing citations, posting notices, and issuing two Legal Notice 23 and Order to Repair or Abate (“N&O’s”). In spite of the City’s attempts to abate the violations at the 24 Nuisance Property, the situation continues to deteriorate as evidenced by two recent shootings on May 25 11, 2016 and May 13, 2016. 26

Respondent Alliant Credit Union, Inc., as successor to Kaiperm Federal Credit Union holds a

27 recorded interests in the Nuisance Property and has entered into a stipulation with the City for the 28 appointment of a receiver. Respondent MUFG America’s Holding Corporation, as successor to Union – 1 of 15 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1 Bank of California, N.A. also holds a recorded interest in the Nuisance Property. At this time Owner, 2 Leaseholders, and Respondent MUFG (Collectively “Respondents”) are unable to bring the Nuisance 3 Property into compliance, and without a responsible party to take control of the dangerous situation at 4 the Nuisance Property, the dangerous conditions will continue to increase. Therefore, unless a receiver 5 is appointed, the Nuisance Property will remain in a dangerous condition that endangers any occupants 6 and the community at large. 7

This Receivership Application seeks an order appointing a receiver to take possession

8 and control of the Nuisance Property in order to bring it into compliance with the law and alleviate the 9 substantial dangers to the public that threaten public safety. Health and Safety Code (“H&S”) section 10 17980.7(c) authorizes the Court to appoint a receiver over the Nuisance Property due to the lack of

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 compliance with the Legal Notice And Order To Repair Or Abate issued by the City pursuant to H&S 12 section 17980.6 over two month ago on April 14, 2016 (“Final N&O”). Additionally, the City’s code 13 enforcement efforts have been ongoing since at least September 2014. In spite of nearly two years of 14 code enforcement efforts the Nuisance Property has remained a major source of blight, hazardous 15 conditions, and crime which substantially endangers public safety. 16

The Nuisance Property at issue in this case is the very definition of substandard and dangerous.

17 The Nuisance Property is extremely unsanitary, contains numerous structural flaws, fire hazards, 18 and is a hotbed for criminal activity. These conditions immediately endanger anyone occupying 19 or neighboring the Nuisance Property. For a complete list of all 31 violations of State and local laws 20 on the Nuisance Property, the City refers the Court to the Final N&O, which is attached as Exhibit O to 21 the Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently herewith and is incorporated herein. 22

The City has inspected the Nuisance Property numerous times and verified that the violations

23 identified in the N&O persist and are worsening. Therefore, pursuant to H&S section 17980.7(c) and as 24 Business and Professions Code (“B&P”) section 17203, the City is entitled to the appointment of a court 25 receiver to bring the Nuisance Property into compliance with all applicable State and local laws. Given 26 the lack of compliance on the Nuisance Property, the appointment of a receiver is the only viable option 27 left to the City, and is necessary to protect public health and safety. 28 – 2 of 15 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1 II. 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS The Nuisance Property has an extensive history of violations of State and local laws, including

3 the H&S, the California Building Code (“CBC”), the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous 4 Buildings (“ADB”), the California Fire Code (“CFC”), the Uniform Housing Code, (“UHC”) and the 5 Stockton Municipal Code (“SMC”) (Prutch Decl., ¶ 25; Freitas Decl., ¶¶ 8–9.) Furthermore, the 6 Nuisance Property is openly operating as a business in violation of numerous laws, which is an unlawful 7 business practice as defined by B&P section 17200 et sequentes. 8

The Nuisance Property is extremely dangerous as evidenced by over 150 calls for police service

9 since February 20, 2015, including two shootings on May 11, 2016 and May 13, 2016. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 10 8) In addition to the substantial criminal activity, the Nuisance Property is extremely unsanitary as

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 evidenced by bottles of urine stored next to food for sale. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 30.) Furthermore, the 12 Nuisance Property is structurally unsound due to illegal construction, exposed electrical wiring, and 13 broken windows. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 25.) These dangerous and illegal conditions render the Nuisance 14 Property a danger to anyone near it. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 8.) Additionally, the danger to public health and 15 safety presented by the Nuisance Property is increased substantially due to its location less than a third 16 of a mile from Williams Brotherhood Park, and less than half a mile from Van Buren Elementary School. 17 (Prutch Decl., ¶ 8.) These conditions substantially endanger public health and safety, and violate 18 numerous State and local laws. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 25.) Therefore, until a receiver is appointed to take 19 control of the Nuisance Property, the dangerous conditions will remain unabated and endanger the entire 20 community. (Prutch Decl., ¶¶ 39–41.) 21

The City’s enforcement efforts against the Nuisance Property began on September 30, 2014, due

22 to junk being stored in the adjacent alley. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 7.) Thereafter, on July 28, 2015, the City re23 inspected the Nuisance Property and discovered numerous dangerous conditions and the City’s Fire 24 Department issued a Deficiency Report. (Prutch Decl., ¶¶ 10–11; RJN; Appen., Ex. B [Deficiency 25 Report], Ex. C [July Photos].) On August 19, 2015, City inspectors re-inspected the Nuisance Property 26 and observed at least 23 hazardous and unsanitary conditions on the Nuisance Property, rendering the 27 Nuisance Property extremely unsafe and a danger to anyone near it. (Prutch Decl., ¶¶ 12–13.) 28 – 3 of 15 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

The specific hazardous and unsanitary conditions at the Nuisance Property include, unpermitted

2 construction, a leaking roof, a substandard electrical system, and water damage. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 12; 3 Freitas Decl., ¶¶ 8–9.) Due to the numerous and extreme violations of law upon the Nuisance Property, 4 the City issued its first Legal Notice and Order To Repair or Abate (“Prior N&O”) on August 19, 2015. 5 (Prutch Decl., ¶ 13;RJN; Appen., Ex. D [Prior N&O].) The Prior N&O afforded Respondents the 6 maximum amount of rehabilitation time permitted pursuant to H&S section 17980(a) and ordered all 23 7 identified violations on the Nuisance Property to be corrected within 30 days (“First Compliance 8 Deadline”). (Prutch Decl., ¶ 13;) The Prior N&O specifically directed that if the First Compliance 9 Deadline was not met, the City would pursue available legal remedies, including a receivership. (Prutch 10 Decl., ¶ 13.) Respondents however, failed to bring the Nuisance Property into compliance within the

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 First Compliance Deadline. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 35.) 12

During an inspection on September 22, 2015, City inspectors observed individuals residing in

13 the Nuisance Property and issued a Notice to Vacate. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 15; RJN; Appen. Ex. E [Notice 14 to Vacate].) On October 27, 2015, the Nuisance Property remained in a substandard condition and the 15 City issued a Notice of Violation (“October NoV”.) (Prutch Decl., ¶ 16; RJN; Appen., Ex. F [October 16 NoV]. Despite the October NoV the substandard conditions remained and the City issued another NoV 17 on November 17, 2015 (“November NoV”). (Prutch Decl., ¶ 17; RJN; Appen., Ex. G [November NoV].) 18 After the November NoV was issued, Respondents obtained a building permit, but failed to schedule 19 any inspections with the City to finalize the work. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 17.) Therefore, the City re-inspected 20 the Nuisance Property on December 8, 2015 and issued another NoV due to continuing violations of law 21 (“December NoV”). (Prutch Decl., ¶ 19; RJN; Appen., Ex. I [December NoV].) 22

City inspectors re-inspected the Nuisance Property on December 17, 2015, to determine if it had

23 been brought into compliance with the Prior N&O. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 20.) The City found the same 24 substandard conditions and the City issued another NoV for Respondents’ failure to comply with the 25 Prior N&O (“December NoV”). (Prutch Decl., ¶ 20; RJN; Appen., Ex. J [Second December NoV].) 26 Despite the issuance of the December NoV, City inspectors observed that the Nuisance Property 27 remained in a substandard condition on January 5, 2016. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 21.) The City again found the 28 same substandard conditions and issued another NoV for Respondents’ failure to comply with the Prior – 4 of 15 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1 N&O (“January NoV”). (Prutch Decl., ¶ 21; RJN; Appen., Ex. K [January NoV]. Due to the dangerous 2 conditions at the Nuisance Property remaining unabated, the City to contacted the San Joaquin County 3 Health Department (“Health Department”) to document the dangerous conditions. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 22.) 4 On January 11, 2016, the Health Department and the City inspected the Nuisance Property and 5 documented numerous violations, which included a leaking ceiling, no soap in the public restroom, and 6 a leaking freezer. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 22; RJN; Appen., Ex. L [Health Report].) On February 2, 2016, the 7 City re-inspected the Nuisance Property and issued another NoV for failure to comply with the Prior 8 N&O (“February NoV”). (Prutch Decl., ¶ 23; RJN; Appen., Ex. M [February NoV], Ex. N [February 9 Photos].) 10

The City has been documenting numerous violations at the Nuisance Property for nearly a year,

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 but it remains the site of decaying material near food for sale, hazardous electrical wiring, and substantial 12 criminal activity as evidenced by two shootings and over 150 calls for Police service to the Nuisance 13 Property since February 20, 2015. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 8; Freitas Decl., ¶ 6.) 14

Due to the numerous and extreme violations of law upon the Nuisance Property, the City issued

15 the current Legal Notice and Order To Repair or Abate (“Final N&O”) on April 14, 2016. (Prutch Decl., 16 ¶ 26; RJN; Appen., Ex. O [Final N&O].) The City again afforded Respondents the maximum amount 17 of rehabilitation time permitted pursuant to H&S section 17980(a) and ordered all 31 identified 18 violations on the Nuisance Property to be corrected within 30 days (“Final Compliance Deadline”). 19 (Prutch Decl., ¶ 26;.) The N&O specifically directed that if the Final Compliance Deadline was not met, 20 the City would pursue available legal remedies, including a receivership. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 26.) It has 21 been two months since the Final N&O was issued––and more than a year since code enforcement 22 efforts first began––and the Nuisance Property remains in the same dangerous and unsanitary 23 condition. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 35; Freitas Decl., ¶¶ 11–12.) Despite the City’s code enforcement efforts, 24 Respondents have not taken responsibility for the Nuisance Property, and it is clear Respondents will 25 not remediate the dangerous conditions upon the Nuisance Property. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 35.) On May 25, 26 2016, City inspectors re-inspected the Nuisance Property and determined that it was in the same 27 dangerous and substandard condition identified in the Final N&O. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 34; Freitas Decl., ¶¶ 28 7–8; Appen., Ex. P [May Photos].) In fact, on May 25, 2016, the City inspected the Nuisance Property – 5 of 15 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1 and issued a Notice of Violation and a Correction Notice regarding the building permit. (Prutch Decl., 2 ¶ 34; RJN; Appen., Ex. Q [Correction Notice], Ex. R [May NoV].) At this time, the continuing 3 nuisance conditions on the Nuisance Property are so severe that they pose an immediate and 4 substantial danger to the health and safety of the public and occupants. (Prutch Decl., ¶¶ 35–38.) 5 The danger to the health and safety of the public are heightened because the Nuisance Property is 6 a market open to the public and it is located near numerous residences, a park, and a school. 7 (Prutch Decl., ¶ 8.) Accordingly, the emergency appointment of a receiver to abate the substandard and 8 dangerous conditions on the Nuisance Property, pursuant to H&S section 17980.7(c), is proper and 9 necessary.

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

10 11 III.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

13 14

A Court Receiver Must Be Appointed To Abate The Unlawful And Extremely Dangerous Nuisance Conditions On The Nuisance Property

H&S section 17980.7(c) authorizes the Court to appoint a court receiver to enable the

15 rehabilitation of a substandard property if the property owner fails to comply with an order or notice to 16 repair or abate issued by a local code enforcement agency pursuant to H&S section 17980.6. 17

H&S section 17980.6 allows a local agency to issue an order or notice to a property owner to

18 repair a building if: (1) the building is maintained in violation of state housing law or any law 19 promulgated by a local agency pursuant thereto; and (2) the extent and nature of the violations are such 20 that “the health and safety of residents or the public is substantially endangered.” If the property owner 21 does not correct the conditions within a “reasonable time” after the notice or order is issued, H&S section 22 17980.7(c) authorizes the enforcement agency to seek the appointment of a receiver to oversee the 23 management, repair, and rehabilitation of the property. H&S section 17980.7 provides in pertinent part: 24

If the owner fails to comply within a reasonable time with the terms of the

order or notice pursuant to Section 17980.6 . . . [t]he enforcement agency

. . . may seek and the court may order, the appointment of a receiver for

the substandard building . . . .

28 – 6 of 15 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1. The Nuisance Property Is Substandard And Substantially Endangers The

Health And Safety Of Occupants And The Public Such That The Appointment

Of A Receiver Is Necessary And Proper

As set forth in the accompanying declarations of Code Enforcement Officer Prutch and

5 Combination Building Inspection Supervisor Freitas, the Nuisance Property is replete with extensive and 6 dangerous violations of State and local laws and poses a substantial danger to the health and safety of 7 residents and the public. (Prutch Decl., ¶¶ 29–34; Freitas Decl., ¶¶ 8–16.) In its present state, the 8 Nuisance Property is a structural fire hazard that is both unsanitary and uninhabitable, as well as a hotbed 9 of criminal activity. (Prutch Decl., ¶¶ 28–34; Freitas Decl., ¶¶ 13–16.) In order for the City to protect 10 its residents and citizens, immediate action is necessary. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 41; Freitas Decl., ¶ 17.) Thus,

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 the appointment of a court receiver is not only appropriate, but necessary to remedy the dangerous 12 violations at the Nuisance Property. 13

Immediate appointment of a court receiver by this Receivership Application is also appropriate

14 as the threat that the Nuisance Property poses to the community and anyone occupying it is immediate 15 and grave.

As previously discussed, he Nuisance Property is extremely dilapidated, debris has

16 accumulated throughout the Nuisance Property, and it is also the site of significant criminal activity. 17 (Prutch Decl., ¶¶ 25–34.) Furthermore, the dangers presented by the Nuisance Property are heightened 18 because it is a business open to the public that is in close proximity to a school and a park. (Prutch Decl., 19 ¶ 8.) 20

Given the nature and extent of the violations, it is both appropriate and imperative that a court

21 receiver be appointed immediately. The immediate appointment of a receiver is further bolstered, 22 because Respondents have been given numerous opportunities to abate the dangerous conditions, but the 23 conditions continue to worsen as evidenced by two recent shootings, one of which resulted in death. 24 Therefore, the longer the Nuisance Property is left in its current dangerous condition, the likelihood of 25 irreparable harm increases significantly. Therefore, the immediate appointment of a receiver is both 26 proper and necessary. 27 28 – 7 of 15 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1 2 3

2. The Court Must Give Deference To The Determination Of Public Officials That The Nuisance Property Is Substantially Dangerous Code Enforcement Inspector Prutch and Combination Building Inspection Supervisor Freitas

4 have resolutely determined during inspections of the Nuisance Property that it contains numerous 5 building violations that substantially endanger the health and safety of the public and residents. (Prutch 6 Decl., ¶¶ 25–31; Freitas Decl., ¶¶ 8–16.) Pursuant to established case law, and California Supreme Court 7 decisions, the Court must give deference to the determination of public officials, as they are trained and 8 certified experts on inspecting and identifying violations of State and local building code standards. 9 (See, e.g., Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1; Asociacion de 10 Gente Unida por el Agua v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Bd. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 1255, 1268; Harrot v. County of Kings (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1138, 1155; Guinnane v. San Francisco City 12 Planning Com. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 732, 738.) 13

The City’s inspectors are charged with the duty and responsibility of enforcing building standards

14 to protect the public health and safety. (City and County of San Francisco v. Jen (2005) 135 Cal. 15 App.4th. 305, 307.) Furthermore, a strong public policy exists to encourage cities to abate nuisances. 16 (City of Santa Paula v. Narula (2003) 114 Cal. App.4th. 485, 493.) The City’s inspectors are highly 17 trained experts and they have an intimate knowledge of the CBC, H&S, SMC and other applicable laws. 18 The provisions of these codes are detailed and very technical in nature. Inspectors Freitas and Prutch 19 are trained, unbiased, and in the best position to identify what constitutes an unsafe or substandard 20 building under the building and housing codes. Therefore, the Court must give deference to these public 21 inspectors’ determination that the Nuisance Property is substantially dangerous. 22

3. Respondents Have Been Given More Than A Reasonable Opportunity To

Correct The Substandard Nuisance Conditions On The Nuisance Property, Yet

Have Failed To Do So

The City issued multiple N&O’s providing Respondents the maximum amount of time

26 permissible pursuant to the law to complete the rehabilitation of the Nuisance Property. (Prutch Decl., 27 ¶ 35; Freitas Decl., ¶ 11; RJN; Appen., Ex. D [Prior N&O]; Appen Ex. O [Final N&O].) Since the Final 28 N&O was issued, Respondents have had over 60 days to remedy the numerous violations on the – 8 of 15 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1 Nuisance Property. Furthermore, Respondents have had more than a year abate the dangerous conditions 2 since the City’s code enforcement efforts began. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 35.) However, subsequent inspections 3 demonstrate that the deplorable health and safety conditions identified in each of the N&O’s still exist 4 on the Nuisance Property, and they will remain unabated until someone takes responsibility for the 5 Nuisance Property. (Prutch Decl., ¶¶ 40–41; Freitas Decl., ¶¶ 15–17.) 6

As of the date of this Receivership Application, well over 60 days have passed since the Final

7 N&O was issued on April 14, 2016, but the violations remain unabated. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 35.) It is clear 8 from the Nuisance Property’s current condition, and past enforcement efforts, that it will never be safe 9 without court intervention. Therefore, the City’s last and only remedy is the appointment of a receiver. 10

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

4. The City Has Complied With All Procedural Prerequisites For The Appointment Of A Court Receiver Pursuant To H&S Section 17980.7(c) The City has complied with all of the procedural prerequisites for the appointment of a court

13 receiver pursuant to H&S section 17980.7(c). The N&O was properly issued pursuant to H&S section 14 17980.6. The N&O afforded a reasonable time to rehabilitate the Nuisance Property pursuant to H&S 15 section 17980(a), but Respondents failed to comply. (Declaration of Attorney Amanda Pope, “Pope 16 Decl.,” ¶ 3; Appen., Ex. O [Final N&O].) Respondents’ failure to comply with the N&O, resulted in the 17 City serving all parties with a recorded interest in the Nuisance Property with three days advance notice 18 (“3-Day Notice”) of the City’s intent to file the Receiver Petition as required by H&S section 17980.7(c). 19 (Pope Decl., ¶ 4.) All Respondents were properly served with the 3 Day Notice and the Receivership 20 Petition. (Pope Decl., ¶¶ 4–11.) The City has provided more than adequate notice of the dangerous and 21 substandard conditions at the Nuisance Property, but the dangerous conditions remain. Therefore, the 22 appointment of a court receiver is both substantively and procedurally appropriate. 23 24

5. The Legislature Enacted The Receivership Statutes For Exactly This Situation The purpose of H&S 17980.6 is to protect the health and safety of residents who are endangered

25 by substandard buildings. (City and County of San Francisco v. Jen (2005) 135 Cal. App.4th. 305, 311.) 26 The health and safety of the community is a top priority and California law provides the basis for a 27 receivership when the community safety is threatened. The Legislature enacted the health and safety 28 – 9 of 15 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1 receivership statutes for this very situation, as clearly evident by the legislative intent. In City of Santa

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

2 Monica v. Gonzalez, the California Supreme Court detailed the legislative intent behind these statutes: 3

[T]he legislative history of section 17980.6 as originally enacted discloses

the Legislature's substantial concern over the “inadequate enforcement of

State Building Codes in regard to substandard housing” and its intent to

provide “new enforcement measures to rehabilitate and maintain existing

housing that currently endangers the health and safety of residents or the

public.” (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading

analysis of Sen. Bill No. 2799 (1987–1988 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug.

29, 1988, p. 3; see Assem. Com. on Housing and Community

Development, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 2799 (1987–1988 Reg. Sess.) as

amended June 27, 1988, p. 3.)

13 (City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez [“Gonzalez”] (2008) 43 Cal.4th 905, 925–26 (emphasis added).) 14

The Supreme Court reiterated that H&S section 17980.6 “serves to enhance the ability of local

15 enforcement agencies to require owners to remediate substandard housing conditions” that pose a 16 substantial danger. (Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 905, 926.) In other words, the Legislature was 17 concerned that cities were not adequately enforcing State building codes, and as such, enacted the 18 receivership statutes to “enhance” their ability to cause remediation of substandard buildings that 19 threaten community safety. 20

This is precisely the situation in this case. Here, as clearly evidenced in the declarations of Code

21 Officer Prutch and Combination Building Inspection Supervisor Freitas, and the other evidence filed 22 herewith, the Nuisance Property is a structurally unsound fire hazard, as well as a hotbed of criminal 23 activity. The Legislature, as reiterated by the Supreme Court, mandates the appointment of a court 24 receiver over substandard and substantially dangerous properties, such as the Nuisance Property. 25 26

6. The Supreme Court Has Upheld Appointment Of A Receiver On Lesser Facts In the Gonzalez case, the California Supreme Court upheld appointment of a receiver in lesser

27 circumstances. There, the City of Santa Monica had been trying to gain compliance from a property 28 owner for several years. (Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 905, 913.) The property contained violations of – 10 of 15 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1 the uniform building, fire, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical codes, and unpermitted buildings, but 2 they were less severe than as on the Nuisance Property. (Id. at p. 914–15.) Santa Monica tried various 3 compliance efforts prior to seeking a receivership. (Id. at p. 913–14.) However, since the property 4 owner refused to comply, the city was finally forced to seek a receivership, which the trial court granted. 5 (Id. at p. 914–16.) In upholding this decision, the Supreme Court referred to these violations—which 6 are less extreme than those on the Nuisance Property—to be “extremely unsafe and unsanitary 7 condition[s] that endanger its occupants and neighbors.” (Id. at p. 913.) The Supreme Court noted that, 8 with just over 30 days to comply, Santa Monica had given the property owner “more than an adequate 9 and reasonable period of time” to correct the violations and, given the owner’s failure to do so, the 10 appointment of a court receiver was warranted. (Id. at p. 928.)

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

Here, even more severe conditions exist on the Nuisance Property. As the Supreme Court agreed,

12 these violations are dangerous enough to warrant the appointment of a court receiver. The City has 13 provided an abundance of competent and qualified evidence showing not only the substandard nature of 14 the conditions on the Nuisance Property, but also that the Nuisance Property is substantially dangerous. 15 Further, the City has provided more than ample time for Respondents to rehabilitate the Nuisance 16 Property. Therefore, the appointment of a court receiver is exactly what the Legislature intended when 17 it enacted the receivership statutes, and appointment has been upheld by the California Supreme Court 18 under lesser facts. 19 20

7. Other Remedies Are Inadequate Or Infeasible Abatement through direct City rehabilitation of the Nuisance Property, which is authorized by

21 H&S section 17980(b), would be too costly for the City to bear directly. City initiated construction 22 projects are subject to a variety of standards and requirements, such as competitive bidding requirements 23 and prevailing wage policies that are not faced by private developers. The City is not in the business of 24 rehabilitating private property and simply does not have sufficient resources to manage the rehabilitation 25 of all substandard properties in the City. 26

Eminent domain is also not a viable alternative. (See City and County of San Francisco v. Daley

27 (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 734, 745.) Exercise of the City’s eminent domain powers to acquire substandard 28 private properties is time consuming and costly, both in terms of acquisition costs and legal costs. – 11 of 15 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1 Furthermore, the use of eminent domain would undercut the public policy that landlords and property 2 owners should be responsible for maintaining safe and habitable properties. For these reasons, the State 3 Legislature has expressly provided for receiverships pursuant to H&S section 17980.7(c), which is the 4 most appropriate remedy in this case. 5

8. The Nuisance Property Is An Unlawful Business Operation And A Receiver

Should Be Appointed Pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17203

The Nuisance Property openly operates as grocery store that sells food, liquor and other items to

8 invitees. Based on the N&O’s, the Nuisance Property it is undeniably operating as a business while 9 violating numerous state and local laws. (Prutch Decl., ¶ 22, Appen., Ex. O [N&O].) B&P section 10 17203 authorizes the appointment of a receiver when a person engages in any unfair competition, and

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 B&P section 17201 broadly defines person for these purposes. Courts have firmly held that refusal to 12 comply with building and local codes constitutes an unlawful business practice. (See People v. McKale 13 (1979) 25 Cal.3d 626, 632; Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 928.) In this case, the 14 Nuisance Property is violating numerous health codes, and is the site of substantial criminal activity, 15 which is proof that unfair competition is occurring. Therefore, pursuant to B&P section 17203 a receiver 16 must be appointed. 17 18 19

Respondents Must Be Enjoined From Interfering With The Court Receiver’s Rehabilitation Of The Nuisance Property

H&S section 17980.7(c)(3) provides:

If a receiver is appointed, the owner and his or her agent of the substandard

building shall be enjoined from collecting rents from the tenants,

interfering with the receiver in the operation of the substandard building,

and encumbering or transferring the substandard building or real property

upon which the building is situated.

The City requests that upon the appointment of a court receiver, Respondents be enjoined from

26 committing the acts described above, as such conduct will inhibit the duties of the court receiver. 27 28 – 12 of 15 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1 2 3

The Court Receiver Should Be Authorized To Secure The Debts Of The Receivership Estate With First Priority Liens On The Nuisance Property

The City requests that the court receiver be authorized to fund the receivership estate with first

4 priority liens used to pay property management and maintenance expenses, rehabilitation costs, the 5 receiver’s fees, and the City’s costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. 6

The court receiver will borrow funds by issuing “receiver’s certificates” to project lenders. The

7 certificates will act as both promissory notes to evidence the debts, and as deeds of trust on the Nuisance 8 Property securing payment of the debts. The certificates that the court receiver will be authorized to 9 issue will be subject to further orders of this Court. H&S section 17980.7(c)(4)(G) authorizes a court 10 receiver to borrow funds to rehabilitate a receivership property and, with court approval, to secure that

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 debt with a lien on the receivership property. Case law and principles of equity further authorize the 12 equitable prioritization of the receivership liens over all pre-existing encumbrances. (See, e.g., City of 13 Riverside v. Horspool [“Horspool”] (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670; Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. California 14 Development Co. [“Title”] (1915) 171 Cal. 227.) 15

In Horspool, the Court of Appeal authorized the subordination of pre-existing liens, holding that

16 a court of equity has the power to order the sale of property free and clear of liens when ordering the sale 17 of property subject to an H&S section 17980.7(c) receivership. (Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670, 18 684.) Likewise, in Title, the California Supreme Court authorized the equitable creation of receivers’ 19 liens on receivership properties, and the equitable subordination of pre-existing mortgages to secure the 20 receivers’ liens. (Title (1915) 171 Cal. 227, 227.) 21

These two cases, on top of decades of similar cases, such as Winslow v. Harold Ferguson (1944)

22 25 Cal.2d 274, 284–85, establish the Court’s authority to allow court receivers to borrow funds secured 23 by first priority liens. Moreover, had the courts ruled otherwise, it would have made H&S section 24 17980.7(c) receiverships infeasible due to insufficient funding for court receivers and thereby led to 25 increased blight. Accordingly, the Court’s receiver should be authorized to secure the debts of the 26 receivership estate with first priority liens on the Nuisance Property. 27 28 – 13 of 15 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1. The City Is Entitled To Recover Its Expenses, Costs, And Fees Associated With

2 3

This Action Out Of The Receivership Estate Cities are statutorily entitled to recover their inspection costs, investigation costs, enforcement

4 costs, court costs, and attorneys’ fees in receivership actions. (H&S, §§ 17980.7(c)(11), 17980.7(d)(1), 5 17984.) Furthermore, in all nuisance abatement actions, cities are statutorily entitled to recover their 6 costs through special assessments that become a personal obligation of the property owner and a first 7 priority lien on the property. (Gov. Code, §§ 38773.5, 53935; Rev. & Tax. Code, § 2192.1.) 8

Similar to court receivers, cities’ efforts to inspect properties, issue correction notices and orders,

9 initiate receivership actions, and bear the costs of receivership litigation, are directly related to the 10 rehabilitation of receivership properties. Without those efforts, a court receiver would not be appointed

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 and the dangerous conditions would not be abated. Thus, the same reasoning and rationale supporting 12 the right of court receivers to record receivership debts as first priority liens also applies to the right of 13 cities to collect their expenses, costs, and fees out of the receivership estate. (See Winslow v. Harold 14 Ferguson (1944) 25 Cal.2d 274, 284–85.) Thus, it is equitable and most efficient to authorize recovery 15 of cities’ receivership action related expenses, costs, and fees directly out of the receivership estate since 16 such debts are already authorized to be secured as first priority liens on the receivership property. 17

The Court Should Appoint California Receivership Group, a California public benefit

corporation, through its president Court Receiver Mark Adams As The Court’s

Receiver

The City is entitled to nominate the person to be appointed as the Court’s receiver. (Cal. Rules

21 of Court, rule 3.1177.) The nominated court receiver must demonstrate to the Court their “capacity and 22 expertise to develop and supervise a viable financial and construction plan for the satisfactory 23 rehabilitation of the building.” (H&S, § 17980.7(c)(2).) The Court is also authorized to appoint a 24 community development corporation as the Court receiver. (H&S, § 17980.7(c)(2).) 25

The City nominates court receiver California Receivership Group, a California public benefit

26 corporation, through its president Court Receiver Mark Adams (“Receiver”), to be appointed as the 27 Court’s receiver over the Nuisance Property. As set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Mark 28 Adams filed concurrently herewith, Receiver has the necessary expertise both in managing residential – 14 of 15 – MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Government Code section 6103.

6 Attorneys for Petitioner City of Stockton 7 8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

Respondents.

Case Number: STK-CV-UMCP-2016-5206 Action Filed: May 31, 2016 DECLARATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER JOHN PRUTCH IN SUPPORT OF RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION Judge: Hon. Barbara A. Kronlund Dept.: 42 [Filed concurrently with: 1. Receivership Application. 2. Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 3. Declaration of Combination Building Inspection Supervisor Freitas. 4. Declaration of Attorney Pope. 5. Declaration of Court Receiver Adams. 6. Request for Judicial Notice. 7. Appendix of Exhibits. 8. Proposed Receivership Order.]

23 24 25

Hearing Date: Time:

26 27 28

DECLARATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTOR PRUTCH

DECLARATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER JOHN PRUTCH IN SUPPORT OF

THE CITY’S RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

3 4

I, John Prutch, declare as follows:

I am currently employed as a Senior Code Enforcement Officer with the City of Stockton

6 (“City”). I have been employed as a Code Enforcement Officer with the City at all times relevant to this 7 Declaration. I have been employed by the City of Stockton for over 15 years and I am intimately familiar 8 with building code standards. I am a certified Code Enforcement Inspector and I possess a certificate of 9 Building Code Basics & Updates. Prior to my current position, I was employed by the City of Waterford 10 for four years as a reserve Police Officer. I have also taken and completed the following classes at

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 Modesto Junior College: Uniform Building Code Non-Structural, Uniform Building Code Structural, 12 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Uniform Building Code, and Occupational 13 Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). I have personal knowledge of the following facts, and if 14 called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 15

My general responsibilities for the City include inspecting residential and commercial

16 buildings, structures, and property throughout the City, and enforcing State housing laws, the California 17 Health and Safety Code (“H&S”), the California Building Code (“CBC”), local building codes, and the 18 Stockton Municipal Code (“SMC”), along with the various building codes adopted by the City. I have 19 received training on municipal codes, code enforcement, and inspections, and I am readily familiar with 20 the SMC, the CBC, and State housing laws. 21

I am the inspector assigned to handle the case involving the parcel of real property identified

22 as 2318 South Airport Way Stockton, California 95206, Assessor’s Parcel Number 169-152-01 23 (“Nuisance Property”). I have been personally involved with the City’s code enforcement efforts 24 involving the Nuisance Property. I have reviewed the City’s records regarding the Nuisance Property 25 and I am readily familiar with them. 26

I am informed and believe that at all times relevant to this Declaration the Nuisance Property

27 was owned by Respondent Jaswant Singh (“Owner”). A true and correct copy of the Grant Deed is 28 attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A and it is incorporated herein. – 1 of 12 – DECLARATION OF CODE OFFICER PRUTCH

I am also informed and believe that Respondents Gurdial Singh, Bhola Singh, Gurbachan

2 Singh, and Redrose Singh (“Leaseholders”) have an interest in the Nuisance Property through a lease 3 recorded on the Nuisance Property. I am also informed and believe that Alliant Credit Union, Inc. as 4 successor to Kaiperm Federal Credit Union (“Alliant”) and MUFG America’s Holding Corporation, as 5 successor to Union Bank of California, N.A. (“MUFG”) (“Lenders”) have recorded interests in the 6 Nuisance Property. 7

At this time, Owner, Leaseholders, and Lenders (collectively “Respondents”) have allowed

8 the Nuisance Property to fall into a substandard and dangerous condition. 9

The Nuisance Property has been the focus of City code enforcement efforts since at least

10 September 2014. The Nuisance Property is a commercial property that operates as a public market, but

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 it has been the source of significant violations of State and local laws since at least September 2014. 12

The current dangerous conditions at the Nuisance Property include broken windows,

13 decaying material near food for sale, the accumulation of substantial debris, as well substantial criminal 14 activity as evidenced by over 150 calls for police service since February 20, 2015 and two recent 15 shootings on May 11, 2016 and May 13, 2016, one of which resulted in the death of the victim. The 16 Nuisance Property is located less than a third of a mile from Williams Brotherhood Park, less than half 17 a mile from Van Buren Elementary School, and is adjacent to several residential homes, which increased 18 the danger and blight to the community. 19

10. On July 28, 2015, I inspected the Nuisance Property and observed hazardous electrical

The Nuisance Property has been dilapidated since at least September 30, 2014.

21 wiring, substantial debris, inadequate lighting, and decaying material near food for sale. True and correct 22 copies of the photographs depicting the condition of the Nuisance Property on July 28, 2015 are attached 23 as Exhibit C to the Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this Declaration. 24

11. On July 28, 2015, the City’s Fire Department issued a Deficiency Report detailing numerous

25 violations upon the Nuisance Property. A true and correct copy of the Deficiency Report is attached as 26 Exhibit B to the Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this Declaration and it is incorporated 27 herein. 28 – 2 of 12 – DECLARATION OF CODE OFFICER PRUTCH

12. On August 19, 2015, I re-inspected the Nuisance Property and observed numerous violations

2 of health and safety, which included exposed electrical wiring, broken windows, accumulation of debris, 3 and dilapidated ceilings, all of which posed an immediate and serious risk to the health and safety of 4 occupants and the community. 5

13. Based on these violations, on August 19, 2015 the City issued a Legal Notice And Order To

6 Repair Or Abate (“Prior N&O”) ordering Respondents to correct all violations to bring the Nuisance 7 Property into complete compliance with State and local laws. Respondents were given 30 days to correct 8 all violations. A true and correct copy of the Prior N&O is attached as Exhibit D to the Appendix of 9 Exhibits filed concurrently with this Declaration and it is incorporated herein. 10

14. A copy of the Prior N&O was posted on the Nuisance Property on August 19, 2015.

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 Respondents did not comply with the N&O and it remained in a substandard and dangerous condition. 12

15. On September 22, 2015 the City was informed that the Nuisance Property was being

13 occupied as a residence, despite being a commercial property. Therefore, the City issued a Notice to 14 Vacate on September 22, 2015. A true and correct copy of the Notice to Vacate is attached as Exhibit E 15 to the Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this Declaration and it is incorporated herein. 16

16. On October 27, 2015 I re-inspected the Nuisance Property due to a recent fire, and issued a

17 Notice of Violation (“October NoV”) due to the gas meter being improperly maintained. The NoV 18 required that the violations be abated by November 8, 2015. A true and correct copy of the October 19 NoV is attached as Exhibit F to the Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this Declaration and it 20 is incorporated herein. 21

17. On November 17, 2015 I re-inspected the Nuisance Property to determine if it had been

22 brought into compliance by the November 8, 2015 deadline. During my inspection I discovered that 23 building permits had been obtained, but no inspections had been scheduled with the City to verify 24 compliance. Therefore, I issued another NoV that required the Nuisance Property to be brought into 25 compliance by November 25, 2015 (“November NoV”). A true and correct copy of the November NoV 26 is attached as Exhibit G to the Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this Declaration and it is 27 incorporated herein. 28 – 3 of 12 – DECLARATION OF CODE OFFICER PRUTCH

18. On November 23, 2015, I re-inspected the Nuisance Property. During my inspection I

2 observed that the same substandard conditions identified in the Prior N&O remained unabated. I issued 3 a NoV for Respondents’ failure to comply with the Prior N&O (“Second November NoV”). A true and 4 correct copy of the Second November NoV is attached as Exhibit H to the Appendix of Exhibits filed 5 concurrently with this Declaration and it is incorporated herein. 6

19. On December 8, 2015, I re-inspected the Nuisance Property to determine if the property had

7 been brought into compliance. During my inspection I observed that the same substandard conditions 8 identified in the Prior N&O remained unabated, which caused me to issue another NoV for failing to 9 comply with the Prior N&O (“December NoV”). A true and correct copy of the December NoV is 10 attached as Exhibit I to the Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this Declaration and it is

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 incorporated herein. 12

20. On December 17, 2015, I re-inspected the Nuisance Property to determine if the property

13 had been brought into compliance. During my inspection I observed that the same substandard 14 conditions identified in the Prior N&O remained unabated, which caused me to issue another NoV for 15 failing to comply with the Prior N&O (“Second December NoV”). A true and correct copy of the Second 16 December NoV is attached as Exhibit J to the Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this 17 Declaration and it is incorporated herein. 18

21. On January 5, 2016, I re-inspected the Nuisance Property. During my inspection I observed

19 that the same substandard conditions identified in the Prior N&O remained unabated. I issued another 20 NoV (“January NoV”). A true and correct copy of the January NoV is attached as Exhibit K to the 21 Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this Declaration and it is incorporated herein. 22

22. On January 11, 2016, I re-inspected the Nuisance Property with the San Joaquin County

23 Health Department (“Health Department”) to document the unsanitary conditions at the Nuisance 24 Property and we observed that the Nuisance Property not have soap in the bathroom, was water damaged, 25 did not have running water, and the freezer was leaking. A true and correct copy of the Health 26 Department Report is attached as Exhibit L to the Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this 27 Declaration and it is incorporated herein. 28 – 4 of 12 – DECLARATION OF CODE OFFICER PRUTCH

23. On February 2, 2016, I re-inspected the Nuisance Property to determine if it had been

2 brought into compliance with the Prior N&O. During my inspection I observed the same substandard 3 conditions identified in the Prior N&O remained unabated and I issued another NoV (“February NoV”). 4

24. During my February 2, 2016, inspection I also took photographs of the Nuisance Property

5 to document the dangerous and substandard conditions. True and correct copies of the photographs 6 depicting the condition of the Nuisance Property on February 2, 2016 are attached as Exhibit N to the 7 Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this Declaration. 8

25. During the February 2, 2016 inspection, I also observed and documented the following

9 conditions on the Nuisance Property, all of which violate the law:

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

Unsafe Dilapidated Roof. Replace the dilapidated roofing elements. The dilapidated roof

creates a hazard to occupants, and allows for water and insect intrusion that will create

further extreme health and safety dangers. (H&S, § 17920.3(b)(6); CBC, § 116.1; UHC, §

601.1; ADB, § 301(17); SMC, §§ 15.10.010, 15.28.010.)

Unsafe Dilapidated and Missing Ceiling. The interior of the structure contains severely

dilapidated and missing ceiling elements, which must be replaced. The dilapidated and

missing ceiling elements create a collapse hazard to occupants, and allows for water and

insect intrusion that will create further extreme health and safety dangers.

17920.3(b)(7); CBC, § 116.1; UHC, § 601.1, ADB, § 301(17), SMC, §§ 15.10.010,

15.24.030(b)(2)(vi), 15.24.030(b)(2)(vii), 15.28.010.)

Unsafe Dilapidated Floors.

(H&S, §

The building contains inadequate, damaged, or missing

flooring that needs to be repaired or replaced to meet building code standards to prevent

tripping and falling hazards. (H&S, § 17920.3(b)(2); CBC, § 116.1; CFC, §§ 110.1.1, 701.2;,

(3); ADB, § 302(1), (2); SMC, §§ 15.10.010, 15.24.030(b)(2)(ii), 15.28.010.)

Unsafe Dilapidated Interior Walls. Interior walls are extremely damaged. All walls need

to be repaired or replaced sufficient to building code standards, including, but not limited to,

restoration of missing or damaged baseboards, abating exposed insulation, and repainting.

(H&S, § 17920.3(b)(1); CBC, § 116.1; CFC, §§ 110.1.1, 701.2; ADB, § 302 (9), (13); SMC,

§§ 15.24.010, 15.24.030(b)(2)(iv), 15.28.010.) – 5 of 12 – DECLARATION OF CODE OFFICER PRUTCH

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

Insufficient Fire Rated Construction.

The required fire-resistance rating of a fire-

resistance-rated construction has not been maintained. Insufficient fire rated construction

increases the likelihood of a fire starting or spreading to the building, and places occupants

and neighbors in peril. (H&S, § 17920.3(m); CFC, § 703.1; ADB, § 302(9), (16); SMC, §§

15.10.010, 15.28.010.)

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

Junk and Debris Creating Fire Hazard. The building is full of junk and debris. All junk

and debris must be cleared from the building to reduce the fire and health hazards.

Accumulation of junk and debris can serve as a harborage for vermin, which spread illness

and damage property. Excess debris also facilitates the spread of fire and places occupants

and neighbors in peril. (H&S, § 17920.3(g); CBC, § 116.1; ADB, § 302(9), (16); SMC, §§

15.24.010, 15.24.030(b)(10), 15.28.010.)

Junk and Debris Creating Insanitary Conditions. The building is full of junk and debris

in an area where food is served. All debris must be cleared from the building to reduce the

health hazards. (H&S, § 17920.3(g); CBC, § 116.1; ADB, §§ 302(9), (16); SMC, §§

8.68.030, 15.10.010, 15.28.010.)

Decaying Material Near Food For Sale. Human waste in bottles and other decaying

material is found next to food for sale. All decaying material must be removed from the

Nuisance Property to reduce health hazards. (H&S, § 17920.3(g); CBC, § 116.1; ADB, §

302(9), (16); SMC, §§ 8.68.060, 8.68.120, 15.24.010, 15.28.010.)

No Knox Box. The structure does not have a Knox box, which prevents emergency

responders from having access to the building. A Knox Box must be built and a key made

accessible for emergency responders.

15.12.010, 15.24.030(b)(16).)

(CFC, §§ 506.1, 506.2; SMC, §§ 15.10.010,

Exposed Electrical Wiring. Exposed wiring poses a significant risk of electrical shock or

fire. Abate all exposed wiring and replace missing light fixtures. Exposed wiring increases

the risk of fire starting and places the lives and property of neighboring properties in danger.

(H&S, § 17920.3(d); CBC, § 116.1; ADB, §§ 302(13), (16); SMC, §§ 15.24.030(b)(4),

15.28.030.) – 6 of 12 – DECLARATION OF CODE OFFICER PRUTCH

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

Unpermitted Electrical Wiring. The installation of unpermitted wiring poses a significant

risk of electrical shock or fire. Hire an electrician to permit wiring and bring sub-standard

electrical up to code. (H&S, § 17920.3(10); CBC, § 105.1; ADB, § 302(17); SMC, §§

15.04.250, 15.08.010, 15.24.010, 15.24.030(b)(4), 15.28.010.)

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

Missing or Exposed Electrical Switches and Outlets. Replace all missing or damaged

electrical switch and outlet covers to meet building code standards. Missing or exposed

electrical switches increases the risk of electrical shock to occupants using the switches and

outlets. (H&S, § 17920.3(a); CBC, § 116.1; ADB, § 302(13), (16); SMC, §§ 15.24.010,

15.24.030(b)(4), 15.28.030.)

m. Missing Light Fixtures. Replace all missing light fixtures and components to meet building

code standards. Exposed light fixtures increases the likelihood of an occupant being harmed

from electrical shock. (H&S, § 17920.3(a),(c); CBC, § 116.1; ADB, § 302(13); SMC, §§

15.24.010, 15.24.030(b)(4), 15.28.030.)

Inadequate Lighting. Add lights to meet building code and sanitation standards. There is

inadequate lighting at the structure, where food is offered for sale. (H&S, § 17920.3(a)(10);

CBC, § 116.1;); ADB, § 302(9); SMC, §§ 8.72.010; 15.24.010, 15.28.030.)

Illegal Construction. Remove illegally constructed shower or obtain permits for shower.

The unpermitted installation of this item is creating insanitary and substandard conditions.

(H&S, § 17920.3(i); CBC, §§ 105.1, 116.1; CPC, § 103.1; SMC, §§ 8.68.030, 15.04.250,

15.08.010, 15.16.010, 15.24.010.)

Illegal Construction. Remove illegally installed water heater or obtain permits for water

heater. The unpermitted installation of this item is creating insanitary and substandard

conditions. (H&S, § 17920.3(i); CBC, §§ 105.1, 116.1; CPC, §§ 103.1, 502.1; SMC, §§

8.68.030, 15.04.250, 15.08.010, 15.24.010.)

Illegal Construction. Remove illegally installed walk-in cooler or obtain permits for walk-

in cooler. The unpermitted installation of this item is creating insanitary and substandard

conditions. (H&S, § 17920.3(i); CBC, §§ 105.1, 116.1; CPC, § 103.1; SMC, §§ 8.68.030,

15.04.250, 15.08.010, 15.16.010, 15.24.010.) – 7 of 12 – DECLARATION OF CODE OFFICER PRUTCH

plumbing code standards, including turning hot water on, installing sink, and removing all

garbage. (CPC, § 101.7; SMC, §§ 8.68.030, 15.08.010, 15.16.010.) s.

Inadequate Sanitation. Food Areas. Increase lighting near food and acquire potable water

at the structure. Adequate lighting and potable water are necessary at places where food is

sold. (H&S, §§ 114149, 114099.7; CPC, § 101.7; SMC, §§ 8.68.030, 15.10.010, 15.16.010.)

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

Inadequate Sanitation. Bathroom. Repair and clean the bathroom to meet building and

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

Faulty Weather Protection. Repair all broken or missing windows, replace the missing

roof that currently is allowing the elements inside the building, and repaint the exterior and

interior of the building. Faulty weather protection allows moisture and heat to enter the

building, which may undermine the buildings construction and allows for the spread of mold.

(H&S, § 17920.3(g); CBC, § 116.1; ADB, §§ 302(8), (9), (13); SMC, §§ 15.08.010,

15.10.010, 15.24.030(b)(7)(ii), 15.24.030(b)(7)(iii), 15.24.030(b)(9).)

14 15

Maintain Fire Door. The fire door must be properly maintained and operational. (CFC, § 703.2; SMC, §§ 15.10.010, 15.12.010, 15.24.030(b)(13), 15.24.030(b)(16).)

Unlawful Use of Property. The Nuisance Property cannot be used as a residence. The

Nuisance Property is not designed to be a residence and occupying the Nuisance Property is

unsanitary and creates health hazards. (ADB, § 302(9); SMC, §§ 15.10.010, 15.28.010.)

w. Attractive Nuisance. The Nuisance Property has become so dilapidated and deteriorated

as to become an attractive nuisance to children with large amounts of debris. Remove debris

and address dilapidated conditions.

15.10.010, 15.24.030, 15.28.010.)

(H&S, § 17920.3(c); ADB, § 302(12); SMC §§

Deteriorated Gutters and Downspouts. Repair gutters and downspouts to prevent leaks.

The dilapidated gutters are creating unnecessary dampness, which endangers public health.

(SMC, § 15.24.030(b)(9).)

26 27 28

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).)

Deteriorated Parking lot.

The parking lot is dilapidated and needs to be properly

maintained, by repairing pot-holes, re-striping parking spaces. (SMC, §16.64.030.C.) – 8 of 12 – DECLARATION OF CODE OFFICER PRUTCH

aa. Chipping or Cracking Exterior Paint. The paint on the buildings is in such a condition as

to permit decay, cracking, peeling, and warping so as to render the building unsightly and in

a state of disrepair. Repaint the exterior so it is free from chips and cracks and remove all

graffiti. (H&S, § 17920.3(g); SMC, §§ 15.10.010, 15.24.030(b)(7)(iii).)

5 6 7

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

be stored in an enclosed location approved by the City. (SMC, § 8.04.080.) cc. Water Damage Creating Unsanitary Conditions.

Repair all leaks at the Nuisance

Property. The leaks throughout the Nuisance Property are creating unsanitary conditions,

which endangers public health and safety.

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

bb. Improper Garbage Storage. Put dumpster in enclosed location. Garbage dumpsters must

(CBC, § 116.1; SMC, §15.24.030(b)(5),

15.24.030(b)(7)(ii).)

dd. Property Creating Nuisance. Address the nuisance conditions at the building by abating

code violations. The numerous violations at the building are injurious to public health.

(H&S, 17920.3(l); SMC, § 15.24.030.)

ee. Dilapidation Caused by Improper Maintenance.

Abate the code violations at the

Nuisance Property and begin regular maintenance. Failure to adequately maintain the

Nuisance Property has caused it to become a substandard building. (H&S, 17920.3(a)(14);

CBC, § 116.1.)

26. Based on these violations, on April 14, 2016 the City issued a Legal Notice And Order To

19 Repair Or Abate (“Final N&O”) ordering Respondents to correct all discovered violations to bring the 20 Nuisance Property into complete compliance with State and local laws. Respondents were given 30 days 21 to correct all violations (“Final Compliance Deadline”). The Final N&O specifically stated that failure 22 to comply with the Final Compliance Deadline would result in the City taking further legal action to 23 remedy the excessive violations, including the appointment of a court receiver. A true and correct copy 24 of the Final N&O is attached as Exhibit O to the Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this 25 Declaration and it is incorporated herein. 26

27. A copy of the Final N&O was posted on the Nuisance Property and mailed to all interested

27 parties identified in the N&O on April 14, 2016. Respondents did not comply with the Final N&O by 28 – 9 of 12 – DECLARATION OF CODE OFFICER PRUTCH

1 the Final Compliance Deadline. The Nuisance Property remains in a substantially dangerous and 2 substandard condition for which no one has taken responsibility. 3

28. The Nuisance Property is structurally unsafe, extremely dilapidated, unsanitary and a haven

4 for criminal activity. Without a responsible Owner the Nuisance Property has fallen into disrepair, the 5 ceiling and floors have become dilapidated, and hazardous electrical wiring is located near substantial 6 debris. Additionally, the lack of control at the Nuisance Property has caused it to become a hotbed 7 of criminal activity. There have been two recent shootings at the Nuisance Property on May 11, 8 2016 and May 13, 2016, one of which resulted in the death of the victim. 9

29. In addition to being structurally dangerous, the Nuisance Property is an extremely dangerous

10 fire hazard. I identified a large amount of dangerous electrical wiring that could contribute to the spread

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 of fire. There is also debris everywhere, which would impede the escape of any occupants and easily 12 allow a fire to spread to the neighboring properties. In addition there is no Knox Box, which means first 13 responders would lack additional means of ingress and egress, which could hinder rescue efforts. 14

30. Not only is the Nuisance Property structurally unsafe and a fire hazard, but it is also

15 extremely unsanitary. Decaying material, including bottles of urine, are stored next to food offered for 16 sale. Allowing decaying material to be stored next to food for sale could easily spread disease to anyone 17 in the vicinity of the Nuisance Property. In addition, broken windows currently allow the elements to 18 enter the Nuisance Property, further rendering the structure uninhabitable. 19

31. In addition to the dangers that threaten public health and safety, the Nuisance Property is an

20 extreme eyesore that contributes to blight in the area. The Nuisance Property abuts other residential 21 properties; is within a third of a mile from Williams Brotherhood Park; and is less than half a mile from 22 Van Buren Elementary School. Neighboring residents and community members are forced to look at a 23 dilapidated and hazardous structure. The Nuisance Property is so unsightly that it negatively impacts 24 the property values of neighboring properties. 25

32. To date, the Nuisance Property remains in violation of the all of the N&O’s, including the

26 Final N&O issued pursuant to the Health and Safety Code. The Nuisance Property jeopardizes the safety 27 of the occupants and the entire neighborhood. Previous enforcement efforts have clearly shown that 28 Respondents are unable or unwilling to address the dangerous conditions. As such, extreme measures – 10 of 12 – DECLARATION OF CODE OFFICER PRUTCH

1 to overhaul and repair the Nuisance Property must be taken immediately so that all of the violations can 2 be corrected and so the City can finally protect its citizens. 3

33. I have re-inspected the Nuisance Property since the Final Compliance Deadline stated in the

4 Final N&O. Although, some debris has been cleared and the Owner applied for a building permit, he 5 has done nothing to abate the dangers upon the Nuisance Property or bring it into compliance with the 6 law. These half-hearted efforts are insufficient to abate the substantially dangerous conditions that exist 7 at the Nuisance Property. 8

34. On May 25, 2016, I re-inspected the Nuisance Property and observed that it remained in a

9 substandard condition. I issued a NoV (“May NoV”) ordering the correction of all of the violations 10 remaining on the Nuisance Property. A true and correct copy of the May NoV is attached as Exhibit R

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 to the Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this Declaration and it is incorporated herein. True 12 and correct copies of photographs dated May 25, 2016 are also collectively attached as Exhibit P to the 13 Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this Declaration. 14

35. To date, nearly a year has passed since the Prior N&O was issued and more than 60

15 days have passed since the Final N&O was issued, but the Nuisance Property remains in a 16 substandard and dangerous condition. Therefore, it is apparent that Respondents have failed to 17 correct the dangerous conditions that exist upon the Nuisance Property. 18

36. The City and community have suffered from the dangers posed by the Nuisance Property

19 for far too long. The dangers existing on the Nuisance Property threaten the safety of the entire 20 neighborhood on a daily basis and must be rectified immediately. The City has attempted to obtain 21 Respondents’ voluntary compliance with State and local laws to no avail. The City has posted and 22 mailed several notices, and even called the Health Department, but Respondents simply to refuse to bring 23 the Nuisance Property into compliance. As such, it is extremely clear that Respondents are not going 24 comply with the City’s orders or the law. 25

37. Based upon my professional experience and training as a code enforcement inspector, the

26 conditions on the Nuisance Property are so extensive and of such a nature so as to pose an immediate 27 and substantial danger to the health and safety of the public. 28 – 11 of 12 – DECLARATION OF CODE OFFICER PRUTCH

Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Government Code section 6103.

6 Attorneys for Petitioner City of Stockton 7 8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

Respondents.

Case Number: STK-CV-UMCP-2016-5206 Action Filed: May 31, 2016 DECLARATION OF COMBINATION BUILDING INSPECTION SUPERVISOR JOHN FREITAS IN SUPPORT OF RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION Judge: Hon. Barbara A. Kronlund Dept.: 42 [Filed concurrently with: 1. Receivership Application. 2. Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 3. Declaration of Code Enforcement Officer Prutch. 4. Declaration of Attorney Pope. 5. Declaration of Court Receiver Adams. 6. Request for Judicial Notice. 7. Appendix of Exhibits. 8. Proposed Receivership Order.]

23 24 25

Hearing Date: Time:

26 27 28

DECLARATION OF COMBINATION BUILDING INSPECTION SUPERVISOR FREITAS

DECLARATION OF COMBINATION BUILDING INSPECTION SUPERVISOR JOHN

FREITAS IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY’S RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

3 4

I, John Freitas, declare as follows:

I am currently employed as a Combination Building Inspection Supervisor for the City of

6 Stockton (“City”). I have been employed as a Combination Building Inspection Supervisor for the City 7 at all times relevant to this Declaration. I have been employed by the City for more than 18 years, and I 8 have been a building inspector for 14 of those years. I was previously employed by the City as a Code 9 Enforcement Officer for four years. Prior to my employment with the City I was a local licensed 10 contractor for nearly 20 years with an electrical specialty license. During the course of my career I have

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 inspected hundreds of properties. I also receive yearly California Building Official Education Institution 12 (“CALBO”) training. My specific duties as a Combination Building Inspection Supervisor require me 13 to supervise the daily operations of the Building Inspection Department. 14

I am trained in and familiar with the California Health and Safety Code (“H&S”), the

15 California Building Standards Code (“CBSC”), the California Building Code (“CBC”), the California 16 Residential Code (“CRC”), the California Electrical Code (“CEC”), the California Plumbing Code 17 (“CPC”), the California Mechanical Code (“CMC”), the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous 18 Buildings (“ADB”), other local building codes, and the Stockton City Code (“SMC”). 19

In my capacity as a Combination Building Inspection Supervisor, I have been involved in

20 the investigation of substandard building violations and other dangerous conditions on the parcel of real 21 property located at 2318 South Airport Way, Stockton, California 95206, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 22 169-152-01 (“Nuisance Property”). If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the 23 facts herein stated. 24

I have knowledge of the City’s efforts to gain compliance with respect to the Nuisance

25 Property. I have also reviewed the City’s permit records for the Nuisance Property, and the other files 26 and records maintained by the City relating to the Nuisance Property, as discussed herein. 27

I am informed and believe that at all times relevant to this Declaration the Nuisance Property

28 was owned by Respondent Jaswant Singh (“Owner”). I am also informed and believe that Respondents – 1 of 5 – DECLARATION OF COMBINATION BUILDING INSPECTION SUPERVISOR FREITAS

1 Gurdial Singh, Bhola Singh, Gurbachan Singh, and Redrose Singh (“Leaseholders”) have an interest in 2 the Nuisance Property through a lease recorded on the Nuisance Property. I am also informed and 3 believe that Alliant Credit Union, Inc. as successor to Kaiperm Federal Credit Union (“Alliant”) and 4 MUFG America’s Holding Corporation, as successor to Union Bank of California, N.A. (“MUFG”) 5 (“Lenders”) have recorded interests in the Nuisance Property. 6

Based upon my personal experience, my review of City records and my experience with the

7 Nuisance Property, I am aware that the City has been investigating violations of law on the Nuisance 8 Property since at least September 30, 2014, and several years before that. These violations include 9 exposed electrical wiring, broken windows, accumulation of debris, all of which posed an immediate 10 and serious risk to the health and safety of occupants and the community. In addition, the ceiling on

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 the building is so dilapidated and hazardous that it has been determined by the Fire Department 12 to be in danger of collapse. 13

The Owner applied for a building permit on April 22, 2016. On May 25, 2016, I inspected

14 the Nuisance Property in response to a request from the Owner for a permit inspection. I accompanied 15 other City inspectors on that date. I observed extremely dangerous substandard building violations 16 and other illegal conditions that posed, and continue to pose, an immediate and serious risk to the 17 health and safety of the residents and the public including that plumbing, rough mechanical, rough 18 electrical and rough framing, remained unabated and therefore, the City “disapproved” this work under 19 the permit. I issued a Correction Notice. A true and correct copy of the Correction Notice is attached 20 as Exhibit Q to the Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this Declaration and it is incorporated 21 herein. Ture and correct copies of photographs accurately depicting the condition of the Nuisance 22 Property on May 25, 2016, are also attached as Exhibit P to this Declaration. 23

During the inspection, I observed the following violations of law upon the Nuisance

24 Property: 25

Exposed Electrical Wiring. Exposed wiring poses a significant risk of electrical shock or

fire. Abate all exposed wiring and replace missing light fixtures. Exposed wiring increases

the risk of fire starting and places the lives and property of neighboring properties in danger.

28 – 2 of 5 – DECLARATION OF COMBINATION BUILDING INSPECTION SUPERVISOR FREITAS

(H&S, § 17920.3(d); CBC, § 116.1; ADB, §§ 302(13), (16); SMC, §§ 15.24.030(b)(4),

15.28.030.)

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

Unpermitted Electrical Wiring. The installation of unpermitted wiring poses a significant

risk of electrical shock or fire. Hire an electrician to permit wiring and bring sub-standard

electrical up to code. (H&S, § 17920.3(10); CBC, § 105.1; ADB, § 302(17); SMC, §§

15.04.250, 15.08.010, 15.24.010, 15.24.030(b)(4), 15.28.010.)

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

Missing or Exposed Electrical Switches and Outlets. Replace all missing or damaged

electrical switch and outlet covers to meet building code standards. Missing or exposed

electrical switches increases the risk of electrical shock to occupants using the switches and

outlets. (H&S, § 17920.3(a); CBC, § 116.1; ADB, § 302(13), (16); SMC, §§ 15.24.010,

15.24.030(b)(4), 15.28.030.)

Missing Light Fixtures. Replace all missing light fixtures and components to meet building

code standards. Exposed light fixtures increases the likelihood of an occupant being harmed

from electrical shock. (H&S, § 17920.3(a),(c); CBC, § 116.1; ADB, § 302(13); SMC, §§

15.24.010, 15.24.030(b)(4), 15.28.030.)

During the inspection, the following conditions were observed by the Fire Inspector to exist

17 on the Nuisance Property, all of which violate State and local law: 18

Unsafe Dilapidated Roof. Replace the dilapidated roofing elements. The dilapidated roof

creates a hazard to occupants, and allows for water and insect intrusion that will create

further extreme health and safety dangers. (H&S, § 17920.3(b)(6); CBC, § 116.1; UHC, §

601.1; ADB, § 301(17); SMC, §§ 15.10.010, 15.28.010.)

Unsafe Dilapidated and Missing Ceiling. The interior of the structure contains severely

dilapidated and missing ceiling elements, which must be replaced. The dilapidated and

missing ceiling elements create a collapse hazard to occupants, and allows for water and

insect intrusion that will create further extreme health and safety dangers.

17920.3(b)(7); CBC, § 116.1; UHC, § 601.1, ADB, § 301(17), SMC, §§ 15.10.010,

15.24.030(b)(2)(vi), 15.24.030(b)(2)(vii), 15.28.010.)

28 – 3 of 5 – DECLARATION OF COMBINATION BUILDING INSPECTION SUPERVISOR FREITAS

(H&S, §

fire. Abate all exposed wiring and replace missing light fixtures. Exposed wiring increases

the risk of fire starting and places the lives and property of neighboring properties in danger.

(H&S, § 17920.3(d); CBC, § 116.1; ADB, §§ 302(13), (16); SMC, §§ 15.24.030(b)(4),

15.28.030.) d.

Unpermitted Electrical Wiring. The installation of unpermitted wiring poses a significant

risk of electrical shock or fire. Hire an electrician to permit wiring and bring sub-standard

electrical up to code. (H&S, § 17920.3(10); CBC, § 105.1; ADB, § 302(17); SMC, §§

15.04.250, 15.08.010, 15.24.010, 15.24.030(b)(4), 15.28.010.)

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

Exposed Electrical Wiring. Exposed wiring poses a significant risk of electrical shock or

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

Missing or Exposed Electrical Switches and Outlets. Replace all missing or damaged

electrical switch and outlet covers to meet building code standards. Missing or exposed

electrical switches increases the risk of electrical shock to occupants using the switches and

outlets. (H&S, § 17920.3(a); CBC, § 116.1; ADB, § 302(13), (16); SMC, §§ 15.24.010,

15.24.030(b)(4), 15.28.030.)

Missing Light Fixtures. Replace all missing light fixtures and components to meet building

code standards. Exposed light fixtures increases the likelihood of an occupant being harmed

from electrical shock. (H&S, § 17920.3(a),(c); CBC, § 116.1; ADB, § 302(13); SMC, §§

15.24.010, 15.24.030(b)(4), 15.28.030.)

19 I incorporated these violations on my Deficiency Report as items that needed to be corrected by the 20 Owner. A true and correct copy of the Correction Notice is attached as Exhibit Q to this Declaration 21 and it is incorporated herein. 22

10.

Based on the condition of the Nuisance Property, I believe emergency relief is needed to

23 prevent irreparable harm to those on or near the Nuisance Property. 24

11.

To date—over 60 days since the N&O was issued—the same substandard and

25 dangerous conditions remain, and Respondents have failed to abate the dangerous conditions. 26

12.

The City and community have suffered from the dangers posed by the Nuisance Property

27 for far too long. The City is being forced to spend valuable public resources to constantly inspect and 28 attempt to obtain compliance. Further, the neighbors in the area and any invitees of the business at the – 4 of 5 – DECLARATION OF COMBINATION BUILDING INSPECTION SUPERVISOR FREITAS

Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Government Code section 6103.

6 Attorneys for Petitioner City of Stockton 7 8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

Respondents.

Case Number: STK-CV-UMCP-2016-5206 Action Filed: May 31, 2016 DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY AMANDA POPE IN SUPPORT OF RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION Judge: Hon. Barbara A. Kronlund Dept.: 42 [Filed concurrently with: 1. Receivership Application. 2. Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 3. Declaration of Code Enforcement Officer Prutch. 4. Declaration of Combination Building Inspection Supervisor Freitas. 5. Declaration of Court Receiver Adams. 6. Request for Judicial Notice. 7. Appendix of Exhibits. 8. Proposed Receivership Order.]

23 24 25

Hearing Date: Time:

26 27 28

DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY POPE

DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY AMANDA POPE

IN SUPPORT OF RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

3 4

I, Amanda Pope, declare as follows:

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am an attorney with the

6 law firm of Silver & Wright LLP (“S&W”), which represents Petitioner City of Stockton (“City”) in its 7 Receivership Petition regarding the parcel of real property located at 2318 South Airport Way, Stockton, 8 California 95206, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 169-152-01 (“Nuisance Property”) in Superior Court of 9 California, County of San Joaquin, case number STK-CV-UMCP-2016-5206 (“Receivership Action”). 10

I am informed and believe that at all times relevant to this Declaration the Nuisance Property

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 has been owned and continues to be owned by Jaswant Singh (“Owner”). 12

On April 14, 2016, City Code Enforcement Officer John Prutch and Combination Building

13 Inspection Supervisor John Freitas issued the Nuisance Property a Legal Notice And Order To Repair 14 Or Abate (“Final N&O”) pursuant to Health and Safety Code (“H&S”) section 17980.6. The Final N&O 15 served by mail and posted on the Nuisance Property. On date, my office caused the Final N&O to be 16 recorded on the Nuisance Property with the County of San Joaquin. A true and correct copy of the Final 17 N&O is attached as Exhibit O to the Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this Declaration and 18 it is incorporated herein. 19

Pursuant to H&S section 17980.7(c) all Respondents in this Receivership Action were

20 required to be served with at least three days advance notice (“3-Day Notice”) of the filing of the 21 Receivership Petition. All Respondents in this matter were properly served with a 3-Day Notice on or 22 before May 25, 2016. True and correct copies of the proofs of service are attached as Exhibit B to the 23 Receivership Petition (Ct. Dkt.) 24

The Receivership Petition was then filed on May 31, 2016. (Ct. Dkt.) The Owner was

25 personally served with the Receivership Petition on June 6, 2016. (Ct. Dkt.) The Owner is represented 26 by attorney Judy A. Lovett, Esq., whose office is located at 5250 Claremont Avenue, Suite 226, 27 California 95207. The phone number for Ms. Lovett is (209) 472-3711, her fax number is (209) 47228 – 1 of 3 – DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY POPE

1 3411 and her e-mail address is judyal7@sbcglobal.net. My office is currently negotiating a stipulation 2 for the appointment of a receiver with Ms. Lovett. 3

Respondent Redrose Singh was personally served with the Receivership Petition on June 3,

4 2016 and filed an answer in Pro-Per on June 10, 2016. (Ct. Dkt.) Mr. Singh was previously represented 5 by Douglas Srulowitz, Esq, but on June 15, 2016, Mr. Srulowitz informed my office that he no longer 6 represents Redrose Singh in this Receivership Action. Mr. Singh is now represented in pro per. His 7 address is 3011 Sofia Way Stockton, California 95212. His phone number is (290) 565-7221. The City 8 does not know his fax number or email address. 9

Respondent Alliant Credit Union, Inc. as successor to Kaiperm Federal Credit Union

10 (“Alliant”) was personally served on June 2, 2016. (Ct. Dkt.) Respondent Alliant is represented by John

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 M. Brom, its Senior Corporate Counsel whose office is located at 11545 West Touhy Avenue, Chicago, 12 Illinois 60666.

Mr. Brom’s phone number is (773) 462-2715 and his email address is

13 jbrom@alliancecreditunion.com. Alliant has stipulated to the appointment of a receiver. The stipulation 14 will be filed with this Court. 15

Respondent MUFG America’s Holding Corporation, as successor to Union Bank of

16 California, N.A. (“MUFG”) was personally served on June 1, 2016 and filed an Answer on June 20, 17 2016. (Ct. Dkt.) MUFG is represented by Jeff M. Byer from the law firm of Sandry Lasry Laube Bryer 18 & Valez, LLP (“SLLBV”) located at 402 West Broadway, Suite 1700 San Diego, California 92101. The 19 phone number for SLLBV (619) 235-5655, the fax number is (619) 235-5648 and Mr. Byer’s e-mail is 20 jbyer@sllbv.com. 21

Respondent Gurdial Singh was served with the Receivership Petition by substitute service

22 on June 3, 2016, and has not filed a response or contacted the City. (Ct. Dkt.) The City is not aware if 23 Mr. Singh is represented by counsel. Mr. Singh is a lessee of the Nuisance Property and his last known 24 address is the Nuisance Property. The City is not aware of his phone number, fax number or email 25 address. 26

10. Respondent Gurbachan Singh was served with the Receivership Petition by substitute

27 service on June 3, 2016, and has not filed a response or contacted the City. (Ct. Dkt.) The City is not 28 aware if Mr. Singh is represented by counsel. Mr. Singh is a lessee of the Nuisance Property and his last – 2 of 3 – DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY POPE

Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Government Code section 6103.

6 Attorneys for Petitioner City of Stockton 7 8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

Respondents.

Case Number: STK-CV-UMCP-2016-5206 Action Filed: May 31, 2016 DECLARATION OF COURT RECEIVER MARK ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION Judge: Hon. Barbara A. Kronlund Dept.: 42 [Filed concurrently with: 1. Receivership Application. 2. Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 3. Declaration of Code Enforcement Officer Prutch. 4. Declaration of Combination Building Inspection Supervisor Freitas. 5. Declaration of Attorney Pope. 6. Request for Judicial Notice. 7. Appendix of Exhibits. 8. Proposed Receivership Order.]

23 24 25

Hearing Date: Time:

26 27 28

DECLARATION OF COURT RECEIVER ADAMS

DECLARATION OF COURT RECEIVER MARK ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF

THE CITY’S RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

3 4

I, Mark Adams, declare as follows:

1. I am the President of the California Receivership Group, a California public benefit

6 corporation (“CRG”), a company with vast experience in Health and Safety Code (“H&S”) based 7 receiverships. I am submitting this Declaration in regards to the City of Stockton’s (“City”) Application 8 the Appointment of a Receiver and for Other Relief (“Receivership Application”) for the parcel of real 9 property located at 2318 South Airport Way, Stockton, California 95206, Assessor’s Parcel Number 10 169-152-001. (“Nuisance Property”).

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

2. As President of the CRG, I believe I am the most experienced health and safety receiver

12 operating in California and I have substantial experience serving as a court appointed receiver over 13 substandard Nuisance Properties. I have been appointed as a receiver by 72 Superior Court Judges and 14 one United States District Court Judge. As a receiver, I have overseen the rehabilitation of 125 different 15 substandard properties, including apartment buildings, single-family dwellings, single room 16 occupancies, and various other dilapidated properties. A copy of my curriculum vitae, along with a 17 synopsis of my professional experience as a receiver, is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 1 and is 18 herein. 19

3. California Receivership Group, a California Public Benefit Corporation, is a community

20 development corporation within the meaning of H&S section 17980.7(c)(2) and therefore eligible for 21 this nomination. Our team members are billed out at various rates and it is our practice to have the 22 receivership’s activities worked on by the most inexpensive member of our team who also has the 23 requisite knowledge and experience to accomplish a professional result. A rate sheet for all of our team 24 members is attached as Exhibit 2 to this Declaration and it is incorporated herein. Our monthly 25 accountings show all billed time by line item and broken out by team member. 26

4. I am familiar with the Nuisance Property and, in my professional opinion, the appointment

27 of a receiver over the Nuisance Property is appropriate in order to bring the Nuisance Property back into 28 – 1 of 2 – DECLARATION OF COURT RECEIVER ADAMS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EXHIBIT 1

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

COURT RECEIVER MARK ADAMS

CURRICULUM VITAE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT 1 – COURT RECEIVER CURRICULUM VITAE

MARK S. ADAMS ATTORNEY AT LAW 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3010 Santa Monica, CA 90405 madams@calreceivers.com (310) 471-8181 Fax (310) 471-8180 RECEIVERSHIP EXPERIENCE Appointed by 87 different Superior Court judges and one United States District Court judge in 23 different counties as health and safety receiver on 139 different dilapidated properties, including apartment buildings, single family dwellings, various â&#x20AC;&#x153;pack ratâ&#x20AC;? properties, and a 267-pad mobile home park housing over 3,000 migrant farmworkers near Thermal, CA. Nominated as receiver by attorneys for Los Angeles County, Alhambra, San Fernando, Westminster, West Covina, Rolling Hills Estates, La Habra, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, Costa Mesa, Highland, Palos Verdes Estates, Crescent City, Rancho Palos Verdes, Buena Park, Norco, Santa Clarita, Fullerton, Rialto, Chula Vista, Whittier, Hawthorne, Eureka, Oroville, Glendale, Santa Ana (on nomination of the Orange County District Attorney and in a separate case by the City Attorney), Brea, Anaheim, Arroyo Grande, Gardena, Palm Desert, Needles, San Juan Capistrano, Mariposa County, Fontana, Newport Beach, Pomona, Dana Point, Davis, Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Los Banos, La Mirada, Mammoth Lakes, Thousand Oaks, Vista, Ridgecrest, El Centro, Merced, Tustin, Paradise, Stockton, Newark, Oakland, Chino, Montebello, Compton, Rancho Mirage, Indio, Walnut, Coachella, Exeter, Paso Robles, Porterville, El Cerrito, and Healdsburg. Considered to be the most experienced health and safety receiver working in California. Innovative approach includes arranging first-of-its-kind receivership certificate financing, hiring contractors and cleanup crews, managing properties ranging from single family residences to large apartment buildings. In various projects, has arranged for the removal of 1,100 tons (2.4 million pounds) of debris from one 5-acre site (including $170,000 in recycling revenue); provided relocation assistance for tenants; cleaned out an apartment building overrun by a drug dealer and a prostitute; and recovered $120,000 from mortgage a fraud perpetrator on behalf of a 75-year-old previous owner.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE CALIFORNIA RECEIVERSHIP GROUP, PBC PRESIDENT, 1999-2015 Specializes in real estate, real estate finance, and litigation for appointment of slum housing receivers under Health and Safety Code Section 17980.7, see above.

PRINCIPAL, CIVITAS HOUSING CO. SENIOR V.P., DE MIRANDA MANAGEMENT 1997-1999 Responsible for affordable housing management activities for a professional property management firm which managed 4,400 apartment units in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Worked with various clients in arranging bank financing for real estate projects. Co-founded and helped administer the Blue Ribbon Citizens Committee on Slum Housing, the catalyst for the City of Los Angeles’ substantially expanded slum housing inspection program. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIRECTOR, LOS ANGELES DIVISION, 1995-1998 Managed Los Angeles operations for this nonprofit housing developer. FANNIE MAE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 1992-1995 Responsible for congressional relations in the nine western states. ATTORNEY/CONSULTANT 1988-1992 Corporate and housing finance work for clients such as the California Housing Finance Agency and Great Western Bank. CALLIE MAE, INC. PRESIDENT, 1982-1987 Founded and managed a mortgage banking company which sold over $500 million in home mortgage loans to California public pension funds and other institutional investors. GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH CONSULTANT, 1978-1981 Worked in the policy development arm of the Governor’s office. BALL, HUNT, HART, BROWN AND BAERWITZ ATTORNEY, 1976-1978 Associate in the litigation department. EDUCATION GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER – J.D. 1975 LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY – B.A. 1972

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

9 10

EXHIBIT 2

CALIFORNIA RECEIVERSHIP GROUP RATE LIST

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT 2 – CRG RATE SHEET

Exhibit B California Receivership Group, PBC Employee Rates

First Name

Last Name

Title

Billing Rate

Andrew

Adams

General Counsel/Receiver

$250

Mark

Adams

President/Receiver

$350

Lyna

Chon

Counsel/Receiver

$250

Erica

Connelly

Assistant Director of Operations

$125

Matthew

Connelly

Construction Consultant

$100

Eddie

Gao

Receivership Coordinator

$125

Red

Griswold

Receiver/Southern Calif. Division

$300

Dan

Hall

Field Agent, Coachella Valley

$100

Tyler

Huxtable

Paralegal

$150

Gerard

Keena

Receiver/ Northern Calif. Division

$250

Lou

Laurenti

Director of Security Services

$150

J.B.

Mathers

Field Agent, Northern California

$200

Margie

Stewart

Professional Organizer

$75

Marcia

Wehde

Vice President of Operations

$150

Elizabeth

Weinstein

Controller

$125

Pierce

Harper

Asst. Dir. of Operations (No. Cal. Division)

$125

Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Government Code section 6103.

6 Attorneys for Petitioner City of Stockton 7 8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

Respondents.

Case Number: STK-CV-UMCP-2016-5206 Action Filed: May 31, 2016 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION Judge: Dept.: [Filed concurrently with: 1. Receivership Application. 2. Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 3. Declaration of Code Enforcement Officer Prutch. 4. Declaration of Combination Building Inspection Supervisor Freitas. 5. Declaration of Attorney Pope. 6. Declaration of Court Receiver Adams. 7. Appendix of Exhibits. 8. Proposed Receivership Order.]

23 24 25

Hearing Date: Time:

26 27 28

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY’S RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

3 4

Petitioner City of Stockton (“City”) hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice of the

5 following in support of its Receivership Application: 6

The Grant Deed for the parcel of real property located at 2318 South Airport Way Stockton,

7 California 95206, Assessor’s Parcel Number 169-152-01 (“Nuisance Property”) dated March 2, 2004 8 and recorded in the County of San Joaquin (“Grant Deed”). The City bases this request on Evidence 9 Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530, and 1600. Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(c), the Court 10 has the authority to take judicial notice of the Grant Deed because it is maintained as an official record

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 with the County of San Joaquin. (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 265 12 [court may take judicial notice of a document's recordation, the date the document was recorded and 13 executed, the parties to the transaction reflected in a recorded document, and the document's legally 14 operative language]; Cooke v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 401, 416 [records of a county are properly 15 noticed under Evidence Code section 452(c) because counties are legal subdivisions of the State.].) A 16 true and correct copy of the Grant Deed is attached as Exhibit A to the Appendix of Exhibits filed 17 concurrently with this Request For Judicial Notice (“RJN”) and it is incorporated herein. 18

The Fire Inspection Report (“Deficiency Report”) issued on July 28, 2015. The City bases

19 this request on Evidence Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530, and 1600. The City bases this request 20 on Evidence Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530, and 1600. Pursuant to Evidence Code section 21 452(c), the Court has the authority to take judicial notice of the Deficiency Report because it is 22 maintained as an official record with the City of Stockton. (Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (1976) 57 23 Cal.App.3d 613, 612; Cooke v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 401, 416 [records of a city are properly 24 noticed under Evidence Code section 452(c) because cities are legal subdivisions of the State.].) A True 25 and correct copy of the Deficiency Report is attached as Exhibit B to the Appendix of Exhibits filed 26 concurrently with this RJN and it is incorporated herein. 27

The Legal Notice and Order to Repair or Abate for the Nuisance Property dated August 19,

28 2015 (“Prior N&O”). The City bases this request on Evidence Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530, – 1 of 6 – REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

1 and 1600. The City bases this request on Evidence Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530, and 1600. 2 Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(c), the Court has the authority to take judicial notice of the Prior 3 N&O because it is maintained as an official record with the City of Stockton. (Eldridge v. City of Palo 4 Alto (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 613, 612; Cooke v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 401, 416 [records of a 5 city are properly noticed under Evidence Code section 452(c) because cities are legal subdivisions of the 6 State.].) A True and correct copy of the Prior N&O is attached as Exhibit D to the Appendix of Exhibits 7 filed concurrently with this RJN and it is incorporated herein. 8

The Notice to Vacate dated September 22, 2015 (“Notice to Vacate”). The City bases this

9 request on Evidence Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530, and 1600. The City bases this request on 10 Evidence Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530, and 1600. Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(c),

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 the Court has the authority to take judicial notice of the NOV because it is maintained as an official 12 record with the City of Stockton. (Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 613, 612; Cooke 13 v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 401, 416 [records of a city are properly noticed under Evidence Code 14 section 452(c) because cities are legal subdivisions of the State.].) A True and correct copy of the NOV 15 is attached as Exhibit E to the Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this RJN and it is 16 incorporated herein. 17

The Notice of Violation dated October 27, 2015 (“October NoV”). The City bases this

18 request on Evidence Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530, and 1600. Pursuant to Evidence Code 19 section 452(c), the Court has the authority to take judicial notice of the October NoV because it is 20 maintained as an official record with the City of Stockton. (Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (1976) 57 21 Cal.App.3d 613, 612; Cooke v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 401, 416 [records of a city are properly 22 noticed under Evidence Code section 452(c) because cities are legal subdivisions of the State.].) A True 23 and correct copy of the October NoV is attached as Exhibit F to the Appendix of Exhibits filed 24 concurrently with this RJN and it is incorporated herein. 25

The Notice of Violation dated November 17, 2015 (“November NoV”). The City bases this

26 request on Evidence Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530, and 1600. Pursuant to Evidence Code 27 section 452(c), the Court has the authority to take judicial notice of the October NoV because it is 28 maintained as an official record with the City of Stockton. (Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (1976) 57 – 2 of 6 – REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

1 Cal.App.3d 613, 612; Cooke v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 401, 416 [records of a city are properly 2 noticed under Evidence Code section 452(c) because cities are legal subdivisions of the State.].) A True 3 and correct copy of the November NoV is attached as Exhibit G to the Appendix of Exhibits filed 4 concurrently with this RJN and it is incorporated herein. 5

The Notice of Violation dated November 23, 2015 (“Second November NoV”). The City

6 bases this request on Evidence Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530, and 1600. Pursuant to Evidence 7 Code section 452(c), the Court has the authority to take judicial notice of the October NoV because it is 8 maintained as an official record with the City of Stockton. (Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (1976) 57 9 Cal.App.3d 613, 612; Cooke v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 401, 416 [records of a city are properly 10 noticed under Evidence Code section 452(c) because cities are legal subdivisions of the State.].) A True

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 and correct copy of the Second November NoV is attached as Exhibit H to the Appendix of Exhibits 12 filed concurrently with this RJN and it is incorporated herein. 13

The Notice of Violation dated December 8, 2015 (“December NoV”). The City bases this

14 request on Evidence Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530, and 1600. Pursuant to Evidence Code 15 section 452(c), the Court has the authority to take judicial notice of the December NoV because it is 16 maintained as an official record with the City of Stockton. (Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (1976) 57 17 Cal.App.3d 613, 612; Cooke v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 401, 416 [records of a city are properly 18 noticed under Evidence Code section 452(c) because cities are legal subdivisions of the State.].) A True 19 and correct copy of the December NoV is attached as Exhibit I to the Appendix of Exhibits filed 20 concurrently with this RJN and is incorporated herein. 21

The Notice of Violation dated December 17, 2015 (“Second December NoV”.) The City

22 bases this request on Evidence Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530, and 1600. Pursuant to Evidence 23 Code section 452(c), the Court has the authority to take judicial notice of the December NoV–N&O 24 because it is maintained as an official record with the City of Stockton. (Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto 25 (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 613, 612; Cooke v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 401, 416 [records of a city are 26 properly noticed under Evidence Code section 452(c) because cities are legal subdivisions of the State.].) 27 A True and correct copy of the Second December NoV is attached as Exhibit J to the Appendix of 28 Exhibits filed concurrently with this RJN and it is incorporated herein. – 3 of 6 – REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

10. The Notice of Violation dated January 5, 2016 (“January NoV”.) The City bases this

2 request on Evidence Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530, and 1600. Pursuant to Evidence Code 3 section 452(c), the Court has the authority to take judicial notice of the January NoV–N&O because it is 4 maintained as an official record with the City of Stockton. (Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (1976) 57 5 Cal.App.3d 613, 612; Cooke v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 401, 416 [records of a city are properly 6 noticed under Evidence Code section 452(c) because cities are legal subdivisions of the State.].) A True 7 and correct copy of the January NoV is attached as Exhibit K to the Appendix of Exhibits filed 8 concurrently with this RJN and it is incorporated herein. 9

11. The San Joaquin County Health Department Inspection Report dated January 11, 2016

10 (“Health Report”.) The City bases this request on Evidence Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530,

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 and 1600. Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(c), the Court has the authority to take judicial notice 12 of the Health Report because it is maintained as an official record with the County of San Joaquin. 13 (Cooke v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 401, 416 [records of a county are properly noticed under 14 Evidence Code section 452(c) because counties are legal subdivisions of the State.].) A true and correct 15 copy of the Health Report is attached as Exhibit L to the Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with 16 this RJN and it is incorporated herein. 17

12. The Notice of Violation dated February 2, 2016 (“February NoV”.) The City bases this

18 request on Evidence Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530, and 1600. Pursuant to Evidence Code 19 section 452(c), the Court has the authority to take judicial notice of the February NoV–N&O because it 20 is maintained as an official record with the City of Stockton. (Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (1976) 57 21 Cal.App.3d 613, 612; Cooke v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 401, 416 [records of a city are properly 22 noticed under Evidence Code section 452(c) because cities are legal subdivisions of the State.].) A True 23 and correct copy of the February NoV is attached as Exhibit M to the Appendix of Exhibits filed 24 concurrently with this RJN and it is incorporated herein. 25

13. The Legal Notice and Order to Repair or Abate for the Nuisance Property dated April 14,

26 2016 and recorded in the County of San Joaquin as document number 2016-044483 on April 20, 2016 27 (“Final N&O”). The City bases this request on Evidence Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530, and 28 1600. Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(c), the Court has the authority to take judicial notice of – 4 of 6 – REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

1 the Final N&O because it is maintained as an official record with the County of San Bernardino. 2 (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 265 [court may take judicial notice 3 of a document's recordation, the date the document was recorded and executed, the parties to the 4 transaction reflected in a recorded document, and the document's legally operative language]; Cooke v. 5 Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 401, 416 [records of a county are properly noticed under Evidence Code 6 section 452(c) because counties are legal subdivisions of the State.].) A true and correct copy of the 7 Final N&O is attached as Exhibit O to the Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this RJN and it 8 is incorporated herein. 9

14. The Correction Notice dated May 25, 2016 (“Correction Notice”). The City bases this

10 request on Evidence Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530, and 1600. Pursuant to Evidence Code

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 section 452(c), the Court has the authority to take judicial notice of the Correction Notice because it is 12 maintained as an official record with the City of Stockton. (Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (1976) 57 13 Cal.App.3d 613, 612; Cooke v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 401, 416 [records of a city are properly 14 noticed under Evidence Code section 452(c) because cities are legal subdivisions of the State.].) A True 15 and correct copy of the Correction Notice is attached as Exhibit Q to the Appendix of Exhibits filed 16 concurrently with this RJN and it is incorporated herein. 17

15. The Notice of Violation dated May 25, 2016 (“May NoV”). The City bases this request on

18 Evidence Code sections 452(c), 452(h), 453, 1530, and 1600. Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(c), 19 the Court has the authority to take judicial notice of the May NoV because it is maintained as an official 20 record with the City of Stockton. (Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 613, 612; Cooke 21 v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 401, 416 [records of a city are properly noticed under Evidence Code 22 section 452(c) because cities are legal subdivisions of the State.].) A True and correct copy of the May 23 NoV is attached as Exhibit R to the Appendix of Exhibits filed concurrently with this RJN and it is 24 incorporated herein. 25 26 27 28 – 5 of 6 – REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Government Code section 6103.

6 Attorneys for Petitioner City of Stockton 7 8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

10 11 CITY OF STOCKTON, a California municipal corporation, 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14

Case Number: STK-CV-UMCP-2016-5206 Action Filed: May 31, 2016

Judge: Hon. Barbara A. Kronlund Dept.: 42

21 22

Respondents.

APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

[Filed concurrently with: 1. Receivership Application. 2. Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 3. Declaration of Code Enforcement Officer Prutch. 4. Declaration of Combination Building Inspection Supervisor Freitas. 5. Declaration of Attorney Pope. 6. Declaration of Court Receiver Adams. 7. Request for Judicial Notice. 8. Proposed Receivership Order.]

23 24

Hearing Date: Time:

25 26 27 28

APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS

IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY’S RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION

3 4

6 7

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

Fire Inspection Report dated July 28, 2015 (“Deficiency

Prutch Decl.; RJN.

Photographs of the Nuisance Property dated July 28, 2015 (“July

Prutch Decl.; RJN.

Photos”). D

12 13

RJN.

Report”).

10 11

Grant Deed for the Nuisance Property dated March 2, 2004

Foundation

(“Grant Deed”).

8 9

Description

Legal Notice And Order To Repair Or Abate for the Nuisance

Prutch Decl.; RJN.

Property dated August 19, 2015 (“Prior N&O”). E

Notice to Vacate dated September 22, 2015 (“Notice to

Prutch Decl.; RJN.

Vacate”).

Notice of Violation dated October 27, 2015 (“October NoV”).

Prutch Decl.; RJN.

Notice of Violation dated November 17, 2015 (“November

Prutch Decl.; RJN.

17 18

NoV”). H

19 20

Prutch Decl.; RJN.

November NoV”). I

21 22

Notice of Violation dated November 23, 2015 (“Second

Notice of Violation dated December 8, 2015 (“December

Prutch Decl. RJN

NoV”). J

Notice of Violation dated December 17, 2015 (“Second

Prutch Decl.; RJN

December NoV”).

Notice of Violation dated January 5, 2016 (“January NoV”).

Prutch Decl.; RJN

San Joaquin County Health Department Report dated January

Prutch Decl.; RJN.

26 27

11, 2016 (“Health Report”). M

Notice of Violation dated February 2, 2016 (“February NoV”).

28 – 1 of 2 – APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS

Prutch Decl.; RJN.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EXHIBIT A

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

GRANT DEED

DATED MARCH 2, 2004

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT A – GRANT DEED

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EXHIBIT B

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

DEFICIENCY REPORT

DATED JULY 28, 2015

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT B – DEFICIENCY REPORT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

9 10

EXHIBIT C

PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE NUISANCE PROPERTY

DATED JULY 28, 2015

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT C – JULY PHOTOS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EXHIBIT D

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

PRIOR LEGAL NOTICE AND ORDER TO REPAIR OR ABATE

DATED AUGUST 19, 2015

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT D – PRIOR N&O

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EXHIBIT E

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

NOTICE TO VACATE

DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 2015

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT E – NOTICE TO VACATE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EXHIBIT F

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

DATED OCTOBER 27, 2015

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT F – OCTOBER NOV

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EXHIBIT G

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

DATED NOVEMBER 17, 2015

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT G – NOVEMBER NOV

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EXHIBIT H

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

DATED NOVEMBER 23, 2015

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT H – SECOND NOVEMBER NOV

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EXHIBIT I

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

DATED DECEMBER 8, 2015

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT I – DECEMBER NOV

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

9 10

EXHIBIT J

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

DATED DECEMBER 17, 2015

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT J – SECOND DECEMBER NOV

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EXHIBIT K

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

DATED JANUARY 5, 2016

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT K – JANUARY NOV

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EXHIBIT L

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT REPORT

DATED JANUARY 11, 2016

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT L – HEALTH REPORT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EXHIBIT M

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2016

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT M – FEBRUARY NOV

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EXHIBIT N

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERTY

DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2016

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT N – FEBRUARY PHOTOS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

EXHIBIT O

13 14 15

FINAL LEGAL NOTICE AND ORDER TO REPAIR OR ABATE DATED APRIL 14, 2016

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT O – FINAL N&O

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

EXHIBIT P

12 13 14

PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERTY DATED MAY 25, 2016

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT P – MAY PHOTOS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EXHIBIT Q

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

CORRECTION NOTICE

DATED MAY 25, 2016

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT Q– CORRECTION NOTICE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EXHIBIT R

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

DATED MAY 25, 2016

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – EXHIBIT R – MAY NOV

Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Government Code section 6103.

6 Attorneys for Petitioner City of Stockton 7 8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

10 11 CITY OF STOCKTON, a California municipal corporation, 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14

Case Number: STK-CV-UMCP-2016-5206 Action Filed: May 31, 2016

Judge: Hon. Barbara A. Kronlund Dept.: 42

Respondents.

21 . 22

[PROPOSED] RECEIVERSHIP ORDER

23 24

Hearing Date: Time:

25 26 27 28

RECEIVERSHIP ORDER

2 3

Petitioner City of Stockton’s (“City”) Receivership Application regarding the parcel of real

4 property known as 2318 South Airport Way, Stockton, California 95206, Assessor’s Parcel Number 1695 152-01 (“Nuisance Property”) in case number STK-CV-UMCP-2016-5206 (“Action”) in the Superior 6 Court of California, County of San Joaquin, Department 42 (“Court”), came on for hearing before this 7 Court. All appearances were as noted in the Court’s record. The Court has considered all papers filed 8 in support of and in opposition to the Receivership Application, the argument of counsel at the hearing, 9 and all other matters properly before the Court. 10 A. FINDINGS OF FACT

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

THE COURT HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES THAT:

The Nuisance Property is substandard, constitutes a public nuisance, and is being maintained

14 in a manner that violates State and local laws. 15

The building violations on the Nuisance Property are so extensive and of such a nature that

16 the health and safety of the residents and the public is substantially endangered. 17

The City, as the local enforcement agency for the Nuisance Property, properly issued

18 Respondents an order or notice to repair or abate the building violations and nuisance conditions on the 19 Nuisance Property (“N&O”) pursuant to Health and Safety Code (“H&S”) section 17980.6. 20

The City afforded Respondents a reasonable time to rehabilitate the Nuisance Property

21 pursuant to H&S sections 17980(a) and 17980.7. 22

Respondents, and any potential legal interest holders, have failed to comply with the N&O

23 and failed to rehabilitate the Nuisance Property within a reasonable time. 24

The City’s service of the 3-Day Notices, Summons and Receivership Petition on

25 Respondents having been previously reviewed by this Court were sufficient. 26

The nuisance conditions on the Nuisance Property have been ongoing and will persist unless

27 this Court appoints a receiver to rehabilitate the Nuisance Property. 28 – 1 of 5 – RECEIVERSHIP ORDER

Pursuant to the Court’s inherent powers, H&S section 17980.7(c), Business and Professions

2 Code (“B&P”) sections 17203 and 17204; and California Rules of Court, rules 3.1175 and 3.1200 et 3 sequentes, this Court has the authority to appoint a court receiver ex parte to rehabilitate the Nuisance 4 Property. 5

California Receivership Group, a California public benefit corporation, through its president

6 Mark Adams has sufficiently demonstrated the necessary capacity and expertise to acquire funding, 7 develop a viable rehabilitation plan, and supervise the rehabilitation of the Nuisance Property. 8

10. The City is the prevailing party in this Action.

9 10

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

B. APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that California Receivership Group, a California

12 public benefit corporation, through its president Court Receiver Mark Adams (“Receiver”) is appointed 13 as the Court’s receiver over the Nuisance Property, with full powers granted to court receivers under 14 H&S section 17980.7(c), B&P section 17203, and Code of Civil Procedure section 564 et sequentes, 15 subject to the further requirements of this Receivership Order and any further orders of this Court. 16 Receiver shall immediately, and before performing any duties: (1) execute and file a receiver’s oath with 17 this Court; and (2) file the bond required by Code of Civil Procedure section 567(b) in the amount of 18 $10,000 with this Court. Upon filing the oath and bond as required by this Receivership Order, Receiver 19 is authorized to immediately borrow up to $30,000 on behalf of the receivership estate for purposes of 20 securing the Nuisance Property and developing a viable rehabilitation plan for the Nuisance Property in 21 accordance with this Receivership Order. Receiver shall be entitled to reimbursement of all expenses 22 incurred in this matter and compensation for Receiver’s services at the rates stated in the Declaration of 23 Mark Adams, filed concurrently with the Receivership Application for all services related to this 24 appointment, payable monthly out of the receivership estate, provided that Receiver’s compensation and 25 reimbursement shall be subject to review and final approval by this Court at the time Receiver presents 26 Receiver’s final accounting to this Court, which shall be accompanied by records adequately 27 documenting the expenses incurred and services rendered. 28 – 2 of 5 – RECEIVERSHIP ORDER

1 2 3

C. RECEIVER’S POWERS IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to the powers granted pursuant to H&S section

4 17980.7(c); B&P section 17203; and Code of Civil Procedure section 564 et sequentes: 5

Receiver shall take full and complete possession and control of the Nuisance Property,

6 including the tangible and intangible personal property located on or about the Nuisance Property or 7 used in connection with the Nuisance Property. 8

Receiver shall manage the Nuisance Property and shall pay the operating expenses of the

9 Nuisance Property, including taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance, and other debts. 10

Receiver shall collect all rents and income derived from the Nuisance Property as funds of

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 the receivership estate and shall use the funds of the receivership estate to pay for the costs of operating, 12 managing, maintaining, and rehabilitating the Nuisance Property. 13

Receiver shall develop a rehabilitation plan for the Nuisance Property and shall obtain cost

14 estimates from licensed contractors to perform the repairs necessary to rehabilitate the Nuisance 15 Property. Receiver shall submit the rehabilitation plan, the cost estimates, and his recommendations to 16 this Court for approval. 17

Receiver shall rehabilitate the Nuisance Property in accordance with the rehabilitation plan

18 approved by this Court and shall bring the Nuisance Property into compliance with all applicable State 19 and local laws. 20

Receiver may enter into contracts for goods and services, and employ licensed contractors

21 for repairs, as necessary to rehabilitate the Nuisance Property. 22

Receiver shall apply for permits and other governmental approvals as necessary to undertake

23 and complete the rehabilitation of the Nuisance Property. 24

Receiver shall reimburse the City out of the receivership estate for all of the City’s

25 reasonable inspection costs, investigation costs, enforcement costs, court costs, administrative fines, and 26 attorney’s fees incurred related to this Action. The City shall be entitled to submit demands upon the 27 receivership estate for recovery of these reasonable costs, expenses, and fees, which shall be paid by 28 Receiver. – 3 of 5 – RECEIVERSHIP ORDER

Receiver may borrow funds as necessary to pay for the rehabilitation of the Nuisance

2 Property and to pay the costs and debts of the receivership estate. All funds borrowed by Receiver on 3 behalf of the receivership estate shall be entitled to become first-priority liens against the Nuisance 4 Property superseding all other interests subject to this Receivership Order. Receiver may issue and 5 record Receiver’s Certificates of Indebtedness (“Certificates”) to evidence and secure the debts of the 6 receivership estate. The debt evidenced by the Certificates shall be due and payable upon completion of 7 Receiver’s duties hereunder with respect to the rehabilitation of the Nuisance Property. If the Certificates 8 cannot be immediately satisfied when they become due, Receiver may apply to this Court to sell the 9 Nuisance Property free and clear of all subordinate liens and encumbrances pursuant to Code of Civil 10 Procedure section 568.5.

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

10. Receiver may temporarily relocate the occupants of the Nuisance Property as necessary to

12 effectuate the rehabilitation of the Nuisance Property. 13

11. Receiver shall prepare and serve monthly reports on all parties identifying: the total amount

14 of rent and income received from the Nuisance Property; the nature and amount of any expenditures by 15 the receivership estate; and the progress of the rehabilitation of the Nuisance Property. 16

12. Receiver may apply to this Court for further powers, instructions, or orders as necessary to

17 enable him to perform his duties and to effectuate the rehabilitation of the Nuisance Property. 18 19

D. MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

During the pendency of the receivership, the Nuisance Property shall not be used or occupied

22 in violation of the Stockton Municipal Code (“SMC”) or State laws. 23

Respondents shall immediately surrender possession and control of the Nuisance Property

24 to Receiver. 25

Respondents shall immediately surrender all keys and instruments necessary for complete

26 access to all areas of the Nuisance Property to Receiver. 27

Respondents shall surrender all books and records relating to the Nuisance Property to

28 Receiver upon request. – 4 of 5 – RECEIVERSHIP ORDER

Respondents shall advise Receiver as to the nature and extent of all policies of insurance

2 applicable to the Nuisance Property. 3

Respondents shall immediately forward all income, rents, and bills received that are related

4 the Nuisance Property to Receiver. 5

Respondents shall cooperate with Receiver in Receiver’s management and rehabilitation of

6 the Nuisance Property. 7 8 9

E. PROHIBITORY INJUNCTIONS IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Respondents and any of Respondents’ agents are hereby

10 enjoined during the duration of the receivership from:

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

Demanding, collecting, receiving, or diverting any rents, profits, or income from the

12 Nuisance Property. 13

Interfering with Receiver in Receiver’s operation and rehabilitation of the Nuisance

14 Property. 15

Transferring or encumbering any interests in the Nuisance Property.

Canceling, reducing, or modifying any existing policies of insurance applicable to the

17 Nuisance Property. 18 19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Respondents, and any of Respondents’ agents, shall not

20 claim any deductions with respect to State taxes for interest, taxes, expenses, depreciation, or 21 amortization paid or incurred with respect to the Nuisance Property throughout the duration of the 22 receivership. 23 24 Dated: _________________________ 25

___________________________________ JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

26 27 28 – 5 of 5 – RECEIVERSHIP ORDER

Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Government Code section 6103.

6 Attorneys for Petitioner City of Stockton 7 8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

10 11 CITY OF STOCKTON, a California municipal corporation, 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14

Case Number: STK-CV-UMCP-2016-5206 Action Filed: May 31, 2016

Judge: Hon. Barbara A. Kronlund Dept.: 42

21 22

Respondents.

PROOF OF SERVICE OF RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION PACKET

23 24 25

Hearing Date: Time:

26 27 28

PROOF OF SERVICE

1 2

PROOF OF SERVICE At the time of this service I was over 18 years of age and I was not a party to this action. My

3 business address is 3350 Shelby Street, Suite 250, Ontario, California 91764. On the date specified 4 below, I served the following documents (“Documents”): 5

EX PARTE RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION;

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY’S

7 8

RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION; 3.

9 10

SUPPORT OF THE CITY’S RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION; 4.

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12

DECLARATION OF COURT RECEIVER MARK ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY’S RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION;

17 18

DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY AMANDA POPE IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY’S RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION;

15 16

DECLARATION OF COMBINATION BUILDING INSPECTION SUPERVISOR JOHN FREITAS IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY’S RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION;

13 14

DECLARATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER JOHN PRUTCH IN

REQUEST

FOR

JUDICIAL

NOTICE

SUPPORT

THE

CITY’S

RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION; 8.

APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY’S RECEIVERSHIP APPLICATION; and

The Documents were served on the following persons (“Persons”):

PROPOSED RECEIVERSHIP ORDER.

22 Judy A. Lovett, Esq. Attorney for Jaswant Singh 23 5250 Claremont Avenue, Suite 226 Stockton, CA 95207 24 Gurdial Singh 25 2318 South Airport Way Stockton, California 95206 26 Gurbachan Singh 27 2318 South Airport Way Stockton, California 95206 28

Redrose SinghAttorney for Redrose Singh 3011 Sofia Way Stockton, California 95212 Bhola Singh 2318 South Airport Way Stockton, California 95206

– 1 of 3 – PROOF OF SERVICE

1 John M. Brom, Esq. 2 Senior Corporate Counsel Attorney Alliant Credit Union, Inc., as 3 successor to Kaiperm Federal Credit Union 11545 West Touhy Avenue 4 Chicago, Illinois 60666

Jeff M. Byer Sandry Lasry Labue Bryer & Valdez LLP Attorneys for MUFG America’s Holding Corporation, as successor to Union Bank of California, N.A. 402 West Broadway, Suite 1700 San Diego, California 92101

5 6 7 8

The Documents were delivered by:

☐ United States Mail. I served the Documents by enclosing a true copy in a sealed envelope

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

10 addressed to the Persons at the addresses identified above and depositing the envelope in the United 11 States mail with the postage fully prepaid in the county where I reside or am employed. 12

☐ Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested. I served the Documents by enclosing a

13 true copy in a sealed envelope addressed to the Persons at the addresses identified above and depositing 14 the envelope with the United States Post Office with the postage fully prepaid as certified mail with 15 return receipt requested in the county where I reside or am employed. ☒ Overnight or Next Day Delivery. I served the Documents by enclosing a true copy in a 16 17 sealed envelope addressed to the Persons at the addresses identified above and depositing the envelope 18 for collection with a reputable overnight or next business day delivery carrier. 19

☐ Facsimile. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by facsimile, I faxed the

20 Documents to the Persons at the fax numbers identified above. No error was reported by the fax machine 21 and I did not receive any indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 22

☐ Email. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by email, I emailed the

23 Documents to the Persons at the email addresses identified above. I did not receive any indication that 24 the email transmission was unsuccessful. 25 26 27 28 – 2 of 3 – PROOF OF SERVICE

1 2

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is

3 true and correct. 4 5 Dated: _____, 2016

______________________________

Jennifer Ibarra

7 8 9 10

SILVER & WRIGHT LLP

IRVINE | INLAND EMPIRE | BAY AREA | SACRAMENTO

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 – 3 of 3 – PROOF OF SERVICE