HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260310_Ex Parte Application Filed- City_City v Smith
NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CIV
I
C
A
LAW
GRO
U
P
, AP
C
J. CHRISTINE DIETRICK, SBN 206539
City Attorney, City of San Luis Obispo
MATTHEW R. SILVER, SBN 245528
MSilver@CivicaLaw.com
SEAN E. MORRISSEY, SBN 297371
SMorrissey@CivicaLaw.com
NICHOLAS GARCÉS
NGarces@CivicaLaw.com, SBN 273277
CIVICA LAW GROUP APC
4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250, PMB #782
Irvine, California 92604
Phone: 949-592-0165
Fax: 949-335-1701
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
City of San Luis Obispo, and
People of the State of California
Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Government
Code section 6103.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, EX REL, J. CHRISTINE
DIETRICK, CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO; and,
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a California
municipal corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAUREL CREEK, LP, a California Limited
Partnership;
LAUREL CREEK, II, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership;
1160 LAUREL LANE, LLC, a California limited
liability company;
PATRICK N. SMITH a/k/a PATRICK SMITH,
an individual;
SMITH AND COMPANY, A REAL ESTATE
INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, a California corporation;
PATRICK N. SMITH a/k/a PATRICK SMITH,
AS TRUSTEE OF THE PATRICK N SMITH
2004 LIVING TRUST;
Case Number: 25CV-0667
Action Filed: October 16, 2025
Judge: Hon. Tana L. Coates
Dept.: 4
PLAINTIFFS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, EX REL, J. CHRISTINE
DIETRICK, CITY ATTORNEY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO, AND CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO’S NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE
MOTION/APPLICATION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER, OR
ALTERNATIVELY, FOR AN ORDER
SHORTENING TIME
Filed concurrently with:
1. Memorandum of Points and Authorities;
2. Declaration Senior Code Enforcement
Supervisor John Mezzapesa;
3. Declaration of Supervising Building
Inspector Trevor Nelson;
4. Declaration of Fire Marshal Josh Daniel;
5. Declaration of Attorney Sean Morrissey;
6. Declaration of Proposed Receiver Griswold;
7. Request for Judicial Notice;
8. Appendix of Exhibits;
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
3/10/2026 9:29 AM
NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CIV
I
C
A
LAW
GRO
U
P
, AP
C
CPIF CALIFORNIA LLC, a California limited
liability company;
CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC, a Washington
limited liability company;
ALL WALL SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware
corporation;
AMERICAN RIVIERA BANK, a California
corporation;
ARNOLD BUILDERS, INC., a California
corporation;
B & B CONSTRUCTION CLEANUP INC., a
California corporation;
BLUE STEEL CONCRETE, LLC, a California
limited liability company;
COAST ENGINEERING & DESIGN INC., a
California corporation;
CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL
DISTRIBUTORS, INC., d/b/a CALIFORNIA
ELECTRICAL SUPPLY, a Delaware corporation;
CULBERT PLUMBING INC., F/K/A CULBERT
CONSTRUCTION AND PLUMBING, INC., a
California stock corporation;
EMPIRE ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a
California corporation;
FAMCON PIPE & SUPPLY, INC., a California
corporation;
G W SURFACES, a California corporation;
HOMER T. HAYWARD LUMBER CO., a
California corporation;
KIRK CONSTRUCTION, a California
corporation;
LC LENDERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company;
LW CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California
corporation;
MAHOGANY CONSTRUCTION, INC., a
California corporation;
NOLAN CHURCH DOING BUSINESS AS
COLORTRENDS PAINTING & DECORATING,
a California sole ownership or proprietor business;
SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation;
THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, an
Ohio corporation;
UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA) INC.,
a Delaware corporation;
US AIR CONDITIONING DISTRIBUTORS,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and,
DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.
9. [Proposed] Receivership Order;
10. Proof of Service.
Hearing:
Date: March 12, 2026
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: 4
Trial: None Set
– 1 of 9 –
NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CIV
I
C
A
LAW
GRO
U
P
, AP
C
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
RECEIVER, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, on March 12, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 4 of the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Luis Obispo located at 1050 Monterey Street, San
Luis Obispo, California 93408 (“Court”), in case number 25CV-0667 (“Receivership Action”), Plaintiffs
People of the State of California, and City of San Luis Obispo (collectively “People” and/or “City”) will
and hereby does apply for an order (“Receivership Application”):
1. Declaring the conditions on the parcel of real property known as 1150 Laurel Lane, San Luis
Obispo, California, 93401, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 004-962-036, 004-962-037, and 004-962-
042 (“Subject Property”) are substandard, violate State and local laws and that such violations
are so extensive and of such a nature that the health and safety of the property’s owner, residents,
neighbors, community, the public, and any occupants is substantially and imminently
endangered.
2. Appointing Kevin Singer (“Receiver”) as the Court’s receiver over the Subject Property pursuant
to Health and Safety Code (“HSC”) section 17980.7, subdivision (c).
3. Granting Receiver the authority to manage and oversee the rehabilitation of the Subject Property
pursuant to HSC section 17980.7, subdivision (c)(4), and Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”)
section 568.
4. Authorizing Receiver to secure funding for the receivership estate through the issuance of
receiver’s certificates that may be recorded as super-priority liens on the Subject Property
pursuant to HSC section 17980.7, subdivision (c), jurisprudence, and equity.
5. Finding that ex parte service requirements were properly met with regard to the record title
owners, Defendant Laurel Creek L.P. (“Defendant Laurel Creek LP”) and Defendant Laurel
Creek II, L.P. (“Defendant Laurel Creek II LP”) (collectively, “Defendant Owners” or
“Owners”).
6. Enjoining Defendants, including agents, assigns, representatives, or other authorized entities or
persons acting on their behalf including but not limited to, Defendant 1160 Laurel Lane, LLC
– 2 of 9 –
NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CIV
I
C
A
LAW
GRO
U
P
, AP
C
(“Defendant 1160 Laurel Lane LLC”), Defendant Patrick N. Smith, also known as, Patrick Smith
(“Defendant P. Smith”), and any other interested parties, from interfering with Receiver in the
operation of the Subject Property pursuant to HSC section 17980.7, subdivision (c)(3).
8. Enjoining Defendants, including agents, assigns, representatives, or other authorized entities or
persons acting on their behalf including but not limited to, Defendant 1160 Laurel Lane LLC,
Defendant P. Smith, and any interested party, from encumbering or transferring any interest in
the Subject Property pursuant to HSC section 17980.7, subdivision (c)(3).
9. Enjoining Defendants, including agents, assigns, representatives, or other authorized entities or
persons acting on their behalf including but not limited to, Defendant 1160 Laurel Lane LLC,
Defendant P. Smith, and any interested party, from allowing or maintaining nuisances on the
Subject Property, and/or violations of multiple provisions of law, including, but not limited to,
the California Health and Safety Code (“HSC”), the California Building Code (“CBC”), the
California Electrical Code (“CEC”), the California Fire Code (“CFC”), the California
Mechanical Code (“CMC”), the California Plumbing Code (“CPC”), the International Property
Maintenance Code (“IPMC”), the Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings
(“UCADB”), and the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (“SLOMC”) and other applicable laws.
10. Authorizing the recovery of the City’s costs, expenses, fees, and attorneys’ fees out of the
receivership estate, to be secured as a super-priority lien on the Subject Property the same as all
other receiver’s certificates, as authorized by HSC section 17980.7, subdivision (c)(4)(G),
(c)(11), and (d)(1), jurisprudence, and equity.
11. Alternatively, shortening the time for the City to obtain a hearing on the City’s Receivership
Application on the Court’s regularly noticed motion calendar.
The City’s Receivership Application is made pursuant to HSC section 17980.7, subdivision (c)
on an ex parte basis pursuant to rule 3.1202(c) of the California Rules of Court (“CRC”) because:
1. The condition of the Subject Property full of significant unpermitted and unfinished
construction is unsafe, hazardous, dangerous, unfit for occupancy, and violates State and local laws. It
poses a substantial and immediate danger based on inspections and findings referenced in the
– 3 of 9 –
NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CIV
I
C
A
LAW
GRO
U
P
, AP
C
Declarations of City’s Supervising Building Inspector, Code Enforcement Supervisor, and Fire Marshal.
These conditions are so severe that immediate action is necessary to protect any occupants and residents
of the surrounding community. Consequently, the City seeks the appointment of a court receiver to
ensure that Defendant Owners, any occupants, entrants, neighbors, first-responders in the event of an
emergency, and the public are not further endangered by the conditions of the Subject Property.
2. The Subject Property consists of large multiple parcels of approximately 8.6-acres
containing an approximately 200,000 plus square foot development project with a warehouse, storage
units, and an incomplete, unpermitted, substandard, and unsafe two-story, mixed-use structure with
approximately twelve (12) separate commercial suites located on the first floor, and partially constructed
apartment/dwelling units on the second floor, all of which contain violations of state and local laws.
There is also a long history of unpermitted and unfinished construction at the Subject Property. More
recent inspections revealed that the Subject Property’s condition and significant unpermitted and
unfinished construction remained unresolved, leading to it being identified as dangerous and to orders
prohibiting occupancy, including requiring people in Cal Fire, church, and other businesses, and
occupancies to vacate. The Subject Property is located in a densely populated area near many businesses,
parks, churches, residences, a museum, and schools, and is plagued with severe health, sanitation,
structural, and fire hazards in violation of State and local laws and other nuisance conditions detrimental
to public health and safety. Its locale and clear proximity to the public increases not only nuisance
exposure, but also is an ongoing danger to the community.
3. On September 2, 2025, the City issued a Notice and Order to Repair or Abate
(“N&O”) pursuant to HSC sections 17980 et seq., listing 274 substantially dangerous and
substandard violations of law on the Subject Property and ordering the rehabilitation of the
Subject Property within 30 days. The compliance deadline expired on October 2, 2025, more than
158 days ago. This was posted on the Subject Property, mailed to all parties with a recorded interest via
First Class Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and recorded on title. Anyone who had
an interest in complying could have contacted the City to take compliance action. However, the deadline
passed without any or full compliance. Defendant Owners are unable or unwilling and have continuously
failed to rehabilitate the Subject Property for years and comply with the N&O to abate the dangerous
– 4 of 9 –
NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CIV
I
C
A
LAW
GRO
U
P
, AP
C
conditions at the subject property.
4. Defendant Owners are unable or unwilling to and continuously failed to rehabilitate the
Subject Property and comply with the N&O following reasonable and more than patient efforts by the
City requesting Defendant Owners do so. Thus, the City is entitled to the relief provided under HSC
section 17980.7, subdivision (c).
5. The City thus filed a Verified Complaint for Nuisance Abatement and Receivership
(“Complaint”) on October 16, 2025, to initiate this Receivership Action given Defendant’s non-
compliance.
6. The City has attempted more than reasonable enforcement efforts with Defendants, but all
efforts have proven ineffective, and despite having ample opportunities and reasonable time to comply,
including the issuance of the N&O, Defendants have failed to remedy the serious conditions.
7. The City served all parties with a legal interest in the Subject Property with more than three
days’ advance notice (“3-Day Notice”) of the City’s intent to file the Complaint as required by HSC
section 17980.7, subdivision (c), satisfying the procedural prerequisite for the sought-after HSC relief.
Accordingly, because the City has satisfied all procedural requirements for the appointment of a receiver
and given the dire circumstances and threat of harm the Subject Property poses, the Court is well within
its authority to grant this Receivership Application on an ex parte basis.
8. The HSC receivership process was specifically enacted by the State legislature to provide
cities with expedient enforcement measures to rehabilitate substandard housing that currently endangers
the health and safety of residents and the public. (Sen. Rules Com., Off. Of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d
reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 2799 (1987–88 Re. Sess.) as amended Aug. 29, 1988, p. 3; see Assem.
Com. on Housing and Community Development, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 2799 (1987–88 Re. Sess.) as
amended June 27, 1988, p. 3.)
9. The California Supreme Court has further upheld the use of HSC receiverships “to provide
meaningful enforcement mechanisms in situations where the substandard condition of a residential
building is found to substantially endanger the health and safety of the occupants or the public.” (City
of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 905, 926.) In Gonzalez, the Court specifically addressed
that only three days’ advance notice is required to initiate receivership proceedings after Respondents’
– 5 of 9 –
NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CIV
I
C
A
LAW
GRO
U
P
, AP
C
failure to comply with a notice to repair. (Id. at pp. 920–21.)
10. The HSC receivership process is procedurally designed to authorize relief upon a petition
alone. Nonetheless, the City files this Receivership Application to provide additional evidence to the
Court and due process to Defendants.
11. The appointment of a court receiver is justified in this case because the Subject Property
contains numerous and extensive substandard, unlawful, and extremely dangerous violations of State
and local law, the conditions of which substantially and immediately endanger the health and safety of
entrants, occupants, first responders in the event of an emergency, residents in the surrounding homes,
the community, and the public in general. The substandard conditions at the Subject Property include,
but are not limited to: red tagged/condemned property; first floor office suites, second floor,
apartment/dwelling units, and exterior structure in various states of construction with significant
unpermitted, unauthorized, and/or incomplete and unfinished work; incomplete or lacking fire safety
requirements, systems, and safeguards; and many dangerous, substandard, and hazardous conditions
posed by an unfinished and incomplete construction site, amongst other violations.
12. The community should not have to suffer the risks and dangers posed by the Subject
Property, while for instance, the City sets a hearing on its Receivership Application through a regularly
noticed motion. This is also particularly the case where, as here, Defendants have had more than three
years to fully rehabilitate the Subject Property, but Defendant Owners were unwilling or unable, and
failed to do so. As such, the safety of the entire area is jeopardized by the Subject Property and sufficient
measures to rehabilitate the Subject Property must be taken immediately so that the City can protect its
citizens, including Defendant Owners themselves, or others who may be exposed to or even harmed by
the conditions. The Subject Property is extremely unsafe, unsanitary, and uninhabitable. These
conditions require immediate relief.
13. The Subject Property contains numerous extensive, unlawful, and substandard building
violations, and other conditions, which pose an immediate and substantial danger to the health and safety
of residents, occupants, entrants, neighboring properties, and the public. Consequently, the City seeks
the appointment of a court receiver to ensure that the Defendants, any occupants, entrants, first
responders in the event of an emergency, and the public are not further endangered by the conditions of
– 6 of 9 –
NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CIV
I
C
A
LAW
GRO
U
P
, AP
C
the Subject Property.
14. Additionally, as shown by the City’s inspections and photographs from its April 2025 to
February 2026 inspections of the Subject Property, and numerous expired, unfinalized, or canceled
permits, which remain unchanged or noncompliant, the City cannot wait any longer to obtain the
abatement of code violations on the Subject Property by waiting for the City’s Receivership Application
to be heard through a regularly noticed motion or for the Defendants to finally rehabilitate the Subject
Property. The Defendant Owners were unwilling or unable to and failed to comply with the N&O and
failed to correct the unlawful and extremely dangerous substandard building conditions on the Subject
Property within a reasonable time.
15. Thus, the City is both legally and factually entitled to the relief provided under HSC section
17980.7, subdivision (c), and the community should not suffer any longer.
16. Defendant Owners are unable or unwilling to address the dangerous conditions. The City
has diligently notified Defendant Owners of the ongoing issues by posting notices, mailing notices,
issuing an N&O pursuant to HSC section 17980.6, and recording a Notice of Pendency of Nuisance
Abatement on title to the Subject Property pursuant to HSC section 17985. The City has given
Defendants every opportunity to voluntarily abate the conditions, but they have failed to do so.
17. Pursuant to CRC rule 3.1202(a), the City recites the following contact information for the
parties:
a. Defendant Laurel Creek LP. Their last known addresses are 505 Bath Street, Santa Barbara,
California 93101; c/o 1160 Laurel Lane, LLC, 505 Bath Street, Santa Barbara, California
93101; c/o Capital Corporate Services, Inc., 455 Mall 217, Sacramento, California 95814;
and through their attorneys Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP, Attn: Robert A. Curtis,
Kevin D. Gamarnik, Jordan A. Liebman, 15 W. Carrillo Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101;
Phone#: 805-962-9495, and emails: rcurtis@foleybezek.com,
kgamarnik@foleybezek.com, and liebman@foleybezek.com.
b. Defendants Laurel Creek II LP. Their last known addresses are 505 Bath Street, Santa
Barbara, California 93101; c/o 1160 Laurel Lane, LLC, 505 Bath Street, Santa Barbara,
California 93101; c/o Capital Corporate Services, Inc., 455 Mall 217, Sacramento,
– 7 of 9 –
NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CIV
I
C
A
LAW
GRO
U
P
, AP
C
California 95814; and through their attorneys Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP, Attn:
Robert A. Curtis, Kevin D. Gamarnik, Jordan A. Liebman, 15 W. Carrillo Street, Santa
Barbara, CA 93101; Phone#: 805-962-9495, and emails: rcurtis@foleybezek.com,
kgamarnik@foleybezek.com, and liebman@foleybezek.com.
c. Defendant 1160 Laurel Lane LLC. Its last known address is c/o Patrick N. Smith 505 Bath
Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101; and through their attorneys Foley Bezek Behle &
Curtis, LLP, Attn: Robert A. Curtis, Kevin D. Gamarnik, Jordan A. Liebman, 15 W.
Carrillo Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101; Phone#: 805-962-9495, and emails:
rcurtis@foleybezek.com, kgamarnik@foleybezek.com, and liebman@foleybezek.com.
d. Patrick N. Smith a/k/a Patrick Smith. His last known address is 505 Bath Street, Santa
Barbara, California 93101; and through his attorneys Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP,
Attn: Robert A. Curtis, Kevin D. Gamarnik, Jordan A. Liebman, 15 W. Carrillo Street,
Santa Barbara, CA 93101; Phone#: 805-962-9495, and emails: rcurtis@foleybezek.com,
kgamarnik@foleybezek.com, and liebman@foleybezek.com.
e. Patrick N. Smith, as trustee of the Patrick N. Smith 2004 Living Trust. His last known
address is 505 Bath Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101; and through his attorneys
Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP, Attn: Robert A. Curtis, Kevin D. Gamarnik, Jordan A.
Liebman, 15 W. Carrillo Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101; Phone#: 805-962-9495, and
emails: rcurtis@foleybezek.com, kgamarnik@foleybezek.com, and
liebman@foleybezek.com.
f. Smith and Company, A Real estate Investment Development Corporation. Its last known
address is c/o Patrick N. Smith 505 Bath Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101; and
through their attorneys Price, Postel & Parma LLP, Attn: Todd A. Amspoker, Christopher
E. Haskell, and Jeff F. Tchakarov, 200 East. Carrillo Street, Fourth Floor, Santa Barbara,
CA 93101; Phone#: 805-962-0011, and emails: taa@ppplaw.com, ceh@ppplaw.com, and
jft@ppplaw.com.
g. CPIF California LLC. Its last known address is through their attorneys at Duane Morris
LLP, Attn: Meagen E. Leary and Marcus O. Colabianchi, Spear Tower, One Market Plaza,
– 8 of 9 –
NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CIV
I
C
A
LAW
GRO
U
P
, AP
C
Suite 2200, San Francisco, CA 94105-1127, Phone#: 415-957-3000, and emails:
MELeary@duanemorris.com, MColabianchi@duanemorris.com.
h. CPIF Laurel Creek, LLC. Its last known address is through their attorneys at Duane Morris
LLP, Attn: Meagen E. Leary and Marcus O. Colabianchi, Spear Tower, One Market Plaza,
Suite 2200, San Francisco, CA 94105-1127, Phone#: 415-957-3000, and emails:
MELeary@duanemorris.com, MColabianchi@duanemorris.com.
i. Arnold Builders, Inc. Its last known address is 1239 11st Los Osos, CA 93402-1330, and
through its attorneys at The Bailey Law Firm, Attn: Jonas Bailey and Tom Nanney, 1405
Garden Street, Suite 2, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone#: 805-232-4577, and email
jbailey@jonasbailey.com, tnanney@jonasbailey.com.
j. B&B Construction Cleanup Inc. Its last known address is 2290 Hutton Rd., Nipomo, CA
93444-9448, and through its attorneys at Twitchell and Rice, LLP, Attn: Vincent T.
Martinez, 215 North Lincoln Street, P.O. Box 520, Santa Maria, CA 93456, Phone#: 805-
925-2611, and email vmartinez@twitchellandrice.com, llimone@twitchellandrice.com.
k. Homer T. Hayward Lumber Co. Its last known address is through its attorneys at Noland,
Hamerly, Etienne & Hoss, Attn: Heidi A. Quinn and Anne K. Secker, 333 Salinas Street,
P.O. Box 2510, Salinas, CA 93902-2510, Phone#: 831-424-1414, and email:
HQuinn@nheh.com, ASecker@nheh.com.
l. LC Lenders, LLC. Default was entered against LC Lenders, LLC on 1/15/2026. Thereafter,
a stipulation to set aside default was filed, which the Court granted 2/9/2026, and LC
Lenders, LLC later answered on 02/10/2026. As such its last known address is c/o Patrick
N. Smith 505 Bath Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101; and through their attorneys
Price, Postel & Parma LLP, Attn: Todd A. Amspoker, Christopher E. Haskell, and Jeff F.
Tchakarov, 200 East. Carrillo Street, Fourth Floor, Santa Barbara, CA 93101; Phone#: 805-
962-0011, and emails: taa@ppplaw.com, ceh@ppplaw.com, and jft@ppplaw.com.
m. Nolan Church doing business as Colortrends Painting and Decorating. His last known
address is 200 S. Dolliver St Spc 1, Pismo Beach, CA 93449-4947 and through his attorneys
at Law Offices of Stephen G. Geihs, Attn: Stephen G. Geihs, 314 Pomeroy Avenue, Post
Ci
v
i
c
a
LA
W
Gr
o
u
p
,
AP
C
17
19
Office Box 155,Pismo Beach,CA 93448,Phone#:805-773-4601,and email
winlawpb@aol.com.
n.Defendants Unknown/Doe Defendants are fictitious individuals,so the People and the City
1
2
3
do not have contact information for Defendants Unknown//Doe Defendants.4
5
18.While the City merits the herein requested ex parte relief given its showing in the
7 concurrently filed Declarations of the irreparable harm and immediate danger to the community that will
8 occur without immediate court intervention,in the alternative,should the Court not take immediate
9 action today,the City requests a shortened notice period for a subsequent hearing on the City's request
10 for the appointment of a court receiver and related relief.Given the City's need for expedited relief,the
11 City asks the Court for a hearing on the soonest date the Court has available.
This Receivership Application is based on the concurrently filed Memorandum of Points and
13 Authorities,Declaration of Supervising Building Inspector Trevor Nelson,Declaration of Code
14 Enforcement Supervisor John Mezzapesa,Declaration of Attorney Sean E.Morrissey,Declaration of
15 Proposed Court Receiver Kevin Singer,Request for Judicial Notice,Appendix of Exhibits,Proposed
16 Receivership Order,all exhibits,the documents and evidence on file in this Action,and such further
6
12
evidence and arguments as may be presented to the Court in this matter.
18
Dated:March 9,2026 CIVICA LAW GROUP,APC
20 t
21
By:
22
SEAN MORRISSEY
NICHOLAS ARCES23
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
24
25
26
27
28
-9 of9--
NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER