HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260312_Ex-Parte Order Filed- City_City v Smith3/10/2026 9:29 AM
1 J.CHRISTINE DIETRICK,SBN 206539 Exempt from filing fees pursuant to
Government Code section 6103.
2 City Attorney,City of San Luis Obispo
3
4
5
MATTHEW R.SILVER,SBN 245528
MSilver@CivicaLaw.comSEANE.MORRISSEY,SBN 297371
SMorrissey@CivicaLaw.comNICHOLASGARCES
NGarces@CivicaLaw.com,SBN 273277
6 CIVICA LAW GROUP APC
4000 Barranca Parkway,Suite 250,PMB #782
7 Irvine,California 92604
Phone:949-592-0165
8 Fax:949-335-1701
9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
City of San Luis Obispo,and
10 People of the State of California
This matter is set for hearing on May
6,2026 at 9:00 a.m.in Dept.4.Any
additional briefing shall be submitted
per Code.
11
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA12
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO13
14
Case Number:25CV-0667
Action Filed:October 16,2025
Judge:Hon.Judge Tana L.Coates
Dept.:4
[PROPOSED]RECEIVERSHIP ORDER
Filed concurrently with:
1.Ex Parte Receivership Application;
2.Memorandum of Points and Authorities;
3.Declaration of Code Enforcement Supervisor
John Mezzapesa
4.Declaration of Supervising Building Official
Trevor Nelson;
5.Declaration of Fire Marshal Josh Daniel;
6.Declaration of Attorney Sean Morrissey;
7.Declaration of Proposed Receiver Singer;
8.Request for Judicial Notice;
9.Appendix of Exhibits;
10.Proof of Service.
Hearing
Date:March 12,2026
Time:8:30 a.m.
Dept:4
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,EX REL,J.CHRISTINE
16 DIETRICK,CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO;and,THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,a California
municipal corporation,
Plaintiff,
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
26 CORPORATION,a California corporation;PATRICK N.SMITH a/k/a PATRICK SMITH,AS
TRUSTEE OF THE PATRICK N SMITH 2004
LIVING TRUST;
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
[PROPOSED]RECEIVERSHIP ORDER
[PROPOSED] RECEIVERSHIP ORDER
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
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 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.
– 1 of 7 –
RECEIVERSHIP ORDER
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
RECEIVERSHIP ORDER
Plaintiff, The People of the State of California and City of San Luis Obispo’s (“City”) Ex Parte
Application for the Appointment of Receiver pursuant to Health And Safety Code section 17980.7,
subdivision (c), and related laws (“Receivership Application”), regarding 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”), in case number 25CV-0667 (“Receivership
Action”), in the Superior Court of California, County of San Luis Obispo, Department 10B located at
180 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, California 95202 (“Court”), came on for hearing before this Court.
All appearances were as noted in the Court’s record. The Court has considered all papers filed in support
of and in opposition to the Receivership Application, the argument of counsel at the hearing, and all
other matters properly before the Court.
As set forth herein and pursuant to Health and Safety Code (“HSC”) section 17980.7, subdivision
(c), the Court orders that Court Receiver Kevin A. Singer be appointed as the Court’s receiver over the
Subject Property.
A. FINDINGS OF FACT
THE COURT HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES THAT:
1. The Subject Property is substandard, constitutes a public nuisance and a nuisance per se,
and is being maintained in a manner that violates State and local laws.
2. The building, code, fire, electrical, mechanical, sanitation, health, and safety violations
on the Subject Property are so extensive and of such a nature that the health and safety of the residents,
neighbors, and the public is substantially endangered. As such, ex parte relief is proper and appropriate.
3. The City, as the local enforcement agency for the Subject Property, properly issued
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”) a Notice and Order
to Repair or Abate (“N&O”) the building violations and nuisance conditions on the Subject Property
pursuant to HSC section 17980.6.
4. The City afforded Defendant Owners a reasonable time and opportunity to rehabilitate
the Subject Property pursuant to HSC sections 17980, subdivision (a), and 17980.7.
– 2 of 7 –
RECEIVERSHIP ORDER
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
5. Defendant Owners, and any potential legal interest holders, have failed to comply with
the N&O and failed to rehabilitate the Subject Property within a reasonable time.
6. The City sufficiently provided Defendants with at least three days advance notice of the
filing of the Verified Complaint for Nuisance Abatement and Receivership (“Complaint”) before the
Complaint was filed on October 16, 2025, in accordance with HSC section 17980.7, subdivision (c).
7. Defendant Owners were properly served with the Summons and Complaint in this Action.
8. The nuisance conditions on the Subject Property have been ongoing and they will likely
persist unless this Court appoints a court receiver to rehabilitate the Subject Property.
9. Pursuant to HSC section 17980.7, subdivision (c), and the Court’s inherent equitable
powers, this Court has the authority to and hereby does appoint a court receiver to rehabilitate the Subject
Property.
10. Kevin A. Singer has sufficiently demonstrated the necessary capacity and expertise to
acquire funding, develop a viable rehabilitation plan, and supervise the rehabilitation of the Subject
Property.
11. The City is the prevailing party in this Receivership Action.
B. APPOINTMENT OF COURT RECEIVER
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Kevin A. Singer (“Receiver”) is appointed as
the Court’s Receiver over the Subject Property, with full powers granted to receivers under HSC section
17980.7, subdivision (c), and Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 564 et seq., subject to the further
requirements of this Order and any further orders of this Court. The Receiver shall immediately, and
before performing any further duties, (1) execute and file a receiver’s oath with this Court; and (2) file
the bond required by CCP section 567, subdivision (b), in the amount of $20,000 with this Court. Upon
filing the oath and bond as required by this Order, the Receiver is authorized to immediately borrow up
to $20,000 on behalf of the receivership estate for purposes of properly securing and taking possession
of the Subject Property and developing a plan to remedy all substandard conditions and violations of
law, including those identified in the N&O on the Subject Property, in accordance with this Order. The
Receiver shall be entitled to reimbursement of all reasonable expenses and compensation for his services
at the rates stated in the Declaration of Receiver Kevin A. Singer filed concurrently herewith, for all
– 3 of 7 –
RECEIVERSHIP ORDER
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
services related to this appointment, payable out of the receivership estate in the same manner as those
of the City, provided that the Receiver’s reasonable compensation and reimbursement shall be subject
to review and final approval by this Court at the time the Receiver presents his Final Report and Final
Accounting to this Court, which shall be accompanied by records adequately documenting the expenses
incurred and services rendered.
C. COURT RECEIVER’S POWERS
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to the powers granted in HSC section 17980.7,
subdivision (c), and CCP section 564 et seq.:
1. The Receiver shall take full and complete possession and control of the Subject Property,
including the tangible and intangible personal property located on or about the Subject Property or used
in connection with the Subject Property.
2. The Receiver shall manage the Subject Property and shall pay the operating expenses of the
Subject Property, including taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance, and other debts.
3. The Receiver shall collect all rents and income derived from the Subject Property as funds
of the receivership estate and shall use the funds of the receivership estate to pay for the costs of
operating, managing, maintaining, and rehabilitating the Subject Property.
4. The Receiver shall develop a rehabilitation plan for the Subject Property and shall obtain at
least three rehabilitation cost estimates from licensed contractors to perform the repairs necessary to
rehabilitate the Subject Property into full compliance with the N&O and all other applicable laws. The
Receiver shall submit the rehabilitation plan, the cost estimates, and his recommendations to this Court
for approval.
5. The Receiver shall rehabilitate the Subject Property in accordance with the rehabilitation
plan approved by this Court and shall bring the Subject Property into compliance with all applicable
State and local laws and the N&O, subject to final approval by the City for conformance to these laws.
6. The Receiver may enter into contracts for goods and services, and employ licensed
contractors for repairs, as necessary to rehabilitate the Subject Property.
7. The Receiver shall apply for permits and other governmental approvals as necessary to
undertake and complete the rehabilitation of the Subject Property.
– 4 of 7 –
RECEIVERSHIP ORDER
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
8. The City is entitled to recover all its reasonable and actual costs including, but not limited
to, its inspection costs, investigation costs, enforcement costs, attorney fees or costs, court costs,
litigation costs, staff costs, unpaid fines, and all other costs, expenses, and fees related to this
Receivership Action or the Subject Property, which shall be reimbursed to the City by the Receiver upon
submittal of a request from the City, and which shall be paid out of the Receiver’s super-priority
receivership certificate recorded against the Subject Property pursuant to HSC section 17980.7,
subdivision (c)(4)(G), (c)(11), and (d)(1), Winslow v. Ferguson (1944) 25 Cal.2d 274, City of Sierra
Madre v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 648, and Hozz v. Vargas (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d
539, 543. HSC section 17980.7, subdivision (c)(4)(G), expressly authorizes a court receiver, subject to
the Court’s approval, to secure “any moneys owed to the enforcement agency. . . with a lien on the real
property upon which the substandard building is located.” (HSC, § 17980.7, subd. (c)(4)(G).) Further,
under well-established legal authority, the Court has broad equitable powers to order the reimbursement
of the City’s cost recovery in the same priority as a court receiver’s and as part of the receiver’s first-
priority liens. (Winslow, 25 Cal. 2d at pp. 284–85 [“the expense incurred by a litigant for legal services
in causing the appointment of a receiver is as much an expense of administrator as the charge of the
receiver’s counsel and should have priority to the same extent.”]; see also City of Santa Paula v. Narula
(2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 485, 493 [“There is a strong public policy to encourage cities to abate nuisances
and provide attorney fees to help defray the costs of such actions … It would frustrate code enforcement
efforts and reward noncompliance if the City had to bear the fees it incurred as result of [respondents]
recalcitrance.”]; City of Sierra Madre, 32 Cal.App.5th at pp. 658–661 [court has very broad equitable
powers in receivership actions even if action is not expressly authorized or provided in statute] and [no
substantial prejudice to prior lienholders resulting from super-priority status since property value
reduced by nuisances] and [lienholder’s “contention that it should remain the senior lienholder and
benefit from the increased property value provided by the remediation while bearing none of the cost is
simply untenable”.]; City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 905 [trial courts are vested
with broad powers to authorize receivers to take actions not authorized by statute if justified by the
totality of the relevant circumstances]; City of Norco v. Mugar (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th at 799-800 [HSC
section 17980.7(c)(11) includes award of attorney’s fees in a receivership action.) The court also has
– 5 of 7 –
RECEIVERSHIP ORDER
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
statutory authority to reimburse the City in the same priority as the court receiver pursuant to CCP section
568. (CCP, § 568 [“The receiver has, under the control of the Court, power to … do such acts as
respecting the property as the Court may authorize”].)
9. The Receiver may borrow funds as necessary to pay for the rehabilitation of the Subject
Property and to pay the costs and debts of the receivership estate. All funds borrowed by the Receiver
on behalf of the receivership estate shall be entitled to become super-priority liens against the Subject
Property superseding all other interests subject to this Order. The Receiver may issue and record the
Receiver’s Certificates of Indebtedness (“Certificates”) to evidence and secure the debts of the
receivership estate and cover the costs of taking possession of, securing, stabilizing, insuring, assessing,
and cleaning the Subject Property, enlisting contractors, consultants, and design professionals to inspect
the Subject Property and the initial fees and costs of managing the Subject Property and administrating
the receivership estate. The debt evidenced by the Certificates shall be due and payable upon completion
of the Receiver’s duties hereunder with respect to the rehabilitation of the Subject Property. If the
Certificates cannot be immediately satisfied when they become due, the Receiver may apply to this Court
to sell the Subject Property free and clear of all subordinate liens and encumbrances pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure section 568.5. As authorized by HSC section 17980.7, the Receiver may also record at
the County Recorder’s office a super-priority lien, which is a first lien on the Subject Property superior
to any preexisting private liens and encumbrances, for any monies owed to the Receiver for the costs of
operating the receivership, including the Receiver’s fees and costs advanced or expended by the Receiver
for the purposes authorized by this Order or subsequent orders issued in this Receivership Action.
10. The Receiver may temporarily relocate any occupants of the Subject Property as necessary
to effectuate the rehabilitation of the Subject Property.
11. The Receiver shall prepare and serve monthly reports on all parties and file them with the
Court, identifying: the total amount of rent and income received from the Subject Property; the nature
and amount of any expenditures by the receivership estate; and the progress of the rehabilitation of the
Subject Property. This report shall include a running total of the expenditures incurred for the
receivership estate, including costs and the Court Receiver’s and his staff’s time. All such reports when
filed with the Court must include a proof of service reflecting service upon the parties as noted in this
– 6 of 7 –
RECEIVERSHIP ORDER
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
paragraph.
12. The Receiver shall not be terminated before the Receiver is entitled to be discharged. Upon
motion by the Receiver, he shall be discharged when all violations of law are abated and a complete
accounting of all costs and repairs have been accepted by this Court.
13. The Receiver may apply on an ex parte basis to this Court for further powers, instructions,
or orders as necessary to enable him to perform his duties and to effectuate the rehabilitation of the
Subject Property.
D. MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:
1. During the pendency of the receivership, the Subject Property shall not be used or occupied
in violation of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (“SLOMC”) or State laws.
2. Defendants shall immediately surrender possession and control of the Subject Property to the
Receiver.
3. Defendants shall immediately surrender all keys and instruments necessary for complete
access to all areas of the Subject Property to the Receiver.
4. Defendants shall surrender all books and records regarding the Subject Property to the
Receiver upon request.
5. Defendants shall advise the Receiver as to the nature and extent of all policies of insurance
applicable to the Subject Property.
6. Defendants shall immediately forward all income, rents, and bills received that are related
the Subject Property to the Receiver.
7. Defendants shall cooperate with the Receiver in Receiver’s management and rehabilitation
of the Subject Property.
E. PROHIBITORY INJUNCTIONS
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to HSC section 17980.7, subdivision (b)(1) and
(c)(3), Defendants, and their agents, attorneys, employees, managers, partners, assignees, successors,
representatives, and all persons acting under or with concert with Defendant are hereby enjoined during
the duration of the receivership from:
– 7 of 7 –
RECEIVERSHIP ORDER
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
1. Demanding, collecting, receiving, or diverting any rents, profits, or income from the Subject
Property.
2. Interfering with the Receiver’s operation and rehabilitation of the Subject Property.
3. Encumbering, mortgaging, likening, renting, selling or transferring the Subject Property or
any interest in it.
4. Canceling, reducing, or modifying any existing policies of insurance applicable to the Subject
Property.
5. Entering upon the Subject Property or into any structure located on the Subject Property
without first having received the Receiver’s written consent.
6. Removing any furniture, fixture, or item of personal property from the Subject Property
without first having obtained the Receiver’s written consent.
7. Claiming any deductions with respect to State taxes for interest, taxes, expenses,
depreciation, or amortization paid or incurred with respect to the Subject Property throughout the
duration of the receivership.
8. During the pendency of the receivership, the Subject Property shall not be used or occupied
in violation of the SLOMC or State laws.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that should any lawful order issued by the Receiver
under the authority granted herein, be refused, that the Receiver is authorized to enlist the assistance of
any duly authorized peace officer(s) and further that such peace officer(s) are authorized to employ all
reasonable necessary measures to secure cooperation and compliance with any lawful order issued by
the Receiver, including but not limited to, the use of forced entry onto/into the Subject Property should
consent to enter be refused.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: _________________________ ___________________________________
HON. TANA L. COATES
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT