NELSON v. AVONDALE HOMEOWNERS ASSN.
(2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857
COUNSEL
Veronica M. Aguilar for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Hollins Schechter, Tamara M. Heathcote, and Jeffrey R. Gillette, for Defendant and Respondent.
[172 Cal.App.4th 858]
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P.J.-
Plaintiff and appellant Steven Nelson (Nelson) challenges the trial
court ruling denying Nelson's motion for a preliminary injunction.
Nelson sought the injunction to stop defendant and respondent Avondale
Homeowners Association (HOA) from preventing Nelson's
"visitors/guests/religious affiliates and patients from entering the
gates at Avondale HOA" pending the resolution of Nelson's complaint for
causes of action including discrimination and declaratory relief. As
discussed below, we find no merit to Nelson's arguments and so affirm
the trial court ruling.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On June 20, 2007, after receiving a "right to sue" letter from the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing, Nelson filed a complaint with
the superior court, naming the HOA as defendant. The complaint alleged
that Nelson is a "world renowned Homeopathic Nutritionist and religious
counselor" with a doctorate in pharmacology and a doctor of clinical
religious counseling. Nelson maintained his practice in an office in
Palm Desert. Nelson's wife died in 2004. In 2006, the complaint alleged,
Nelson became ill with Epstein Bar virus and hypothyroidism with
concomitant adrenal exhaustion. One effect of the illness was bouts of
dizziness. The complaint alleged that Nelson was restricted from driving
and "from essentially leaving his home."
At some point, Nelson relocated his religious and medical counseling
practice to his home. Nelson would see up to eight individual patients a
day for one-half hour at a time, five days a week. The complaint
alleged that Nelson did not sell products or bill the patients from his
home. The complaint further alleged that Nelson was not operating a
"'Home Business'" according to the rules and regulations of the HOA, and
he asserted that the HOA was violating his rights under the California
Fair Employment and Practices Act (FEPA), as well as the United States
and California Constitutions by preventing Nelson's visitors from
entering the HOA grounds. The complaint alleged five causes of action:
(1) disability discrimination under the FEPA; (2) religious
discrimination under the FEPA; (3) breach of contract; (4) intentional
infliction of emotional distress; and (5) declaratory relief. [172 Cal.App.4th 860]
On June 22, 2007, Nelson filed a motion for preliminary injunction. In
his supporting declaration, Nelson declared that, beginning around May
12, 2007, the HOA "prevented anyone who was coming to visit or consult
with me for religious or nutritional purposes from coming into the
Avondale gate" after concluding that Nelson was running a home business
in violation of the HOA's rules and regulations. Nelson declared that
the HOA's actions were costing him $5,000 a day.
On July 16, 2007, the HOA filed its opposition to Nelson's motion for
preliminary injunction. In a declaration in support of the opposition,
Mell Kilpatrick, a member of the HOA board of directors, declared that
Nelson had been running a business from his home since December 2005. He
also declared that Nelson had approximately 1,060 visitors and vendors
travel in and out of the HOA gates from December 2005 to December 2006,
and that Kilpatrick had personally witnessed people leaving Nelson's
home carrying small packages. Kilpatrick outlined the steps taken by the
HOA, beginning with a petition signed by 15 fn. 1
of Nelson's neighbors, presented to the HOA board of directors, stating
that Nelson was selling products from his home and asking that the
sales be stopped. On March 29, 2007, the HOA sent Nelson a violation
notice advising him of complaints that he was running a business out of
his home in violation of the HOA's rules and regulations. On April 11,
2007, the HOA sent Nelson a letter informing him of a hearing before the
HOA board of directors on April 24, 2007, regarding this matter. On
April 22, 2007, Nelson wrote a response to the violation letter
explaining the situation with his illness and his business, and asking
that he be allowed to proceed for an additional six to twelve months
until he recovered. Nelson also stated he was medically unable to appear
at the hearing.
The HOA board of directors held the hearing on April 24, 2007, and on
April 27, 2007, sent Nelson a letter informing him of its three-part
ruling. First, the board imposed a $200 enforcement assessment. Second,
the board revoked all guest passes ("except for vendors such as
landscapers, pool cleaners, housekeepers, etc.") until Nelson provided a
new permanent guest list of family and friends, stating that "Entry
will be denied to those persons seeking to purchase goods and services
from your home." Third, the board stated that, once Nelson paid the
enforcement assessment and provided a new permanent guest list, the HOA
would "provide a reasonable accommodation to permit increased pickups
and deliveries . . . so that you can service your customers by mail"
until Nelson could reopen his office. [172 Cal.App.4th 861]
Nelson filed his reply to the HOA's opposition to his motion for
preliminary injunction on July 20, 1997. In support of the opposition,
Nelson attached the declaration of Sharon Morgan. Morgan declared that
she was an employee at Nelson's business office and that all billing,
administrative work and product sales were handled from the business
office. Morgan also declared that she had lived with Nelson since
December 2006 and that Nelson required a significant amount of rest
because of his illness and "can rarely leave his home."
Nelson's motion was heard on July 27, 2007. The trial court denied the
motion, concluding that Nelson had admitted that he was seeing patients
at his home, and that constituted a home business. The court also
concluded that the HOA was not discriminating against Nelson based on
his religion or disability. At the end of the hearing, the HOA asked the
court to grant its ex parte application for issuance of an order to
show cause for a preliminary injunction against the operation of
Nelson's home-based business. The court granted the order to show cause
and set the hearing for August 31, 2007. This appeal followed on August
15, 2007.
DISCUSSION
[1] "In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the trial
court considers two related factors: (1) the likelihood that the
plaintiff will prevail on the merits of its case at trial, and (2) the
interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction
is denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer
if the court grants a preliminary injunction. [Citation.] . . . [¶] The
determination whether to grant a preliminary injunction generally rests
in the sound discretion of the trial court. [Citation.] 'Discretion is
abused when a court exceeds the bounds of reason or contravenes
uncontradicted evidence. [Citation.]' [Citation.] [¶] . . . [¶] We
reverse an order denying a preliminary injunction only if the trial
court has abused its discretion in ruling on both factors. [Citation.]" (14859 Moorpark Homeowner's Assn. v. VRT Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1396, 1402-1403, italics added.)
[2] Nelson's arguments on appeal as to the likelihood that he will
prevail on the merits of the case at trial are for the most part easily
dispatched. This is in part because they are without merit, and in part
because they are not well made according to the established standards of
appellate practice. [172 Cal.App.4th 862]
First, Nelson argues that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA) prohibits discrimination in all aspects of housing based on
disability, medical condition and religion. He further states that the
HOA was on notice of his disability through his letter dated April 22,
2007, but refused to meaningfully accommodate him, not to mention that
Nelson received a "right to sue" letter from the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing. A discussion of the legal authorities
establishing that the HOA was required to accommodate Nelson, and
specifying what the HOA was required to do, would have been helpful
here, along with some demonstration that the HOA is a covered entity and
its actions here are reviewable under the FEHA. Absent this, we decline
to address the issue. (See Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.)
Second, Nelson argues that the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code § 51)
prohibits discrimination regarding disability, medical condition, and
religion, and that the HOA is a "'business establishment'" within the
meaning of this provision. This may be a true statement of the law, but
it is not a cogent legal argument, with relevant citations to the
record, establishing that the trial court abused its discretion when it
found Nelson had not established a probability of success on the merits,
at least as to whether the HOA violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act. We
also likewise decline to address this issue.
[3] Third, Nelson argues that, under Civil Code section 53, which
prohibits restrictive covenants on the use of property based on
disability or religion, the HOA's rules and regulations are void and
unenforceable because they have a disparate impact on Nelson and his
guests. Appellate briefs must provide argument and legal authority for
the positions taken. "When an appellant fails to raise a point, or
asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations
to authority, we treat the point as waived. [Citations.]" (Badie v. Bank of America ( 1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779,
784-785.) Again, Nelson has failed to provide more than a brief
recitation of his argument on this issue, and so we decline to address
it.
Fourth, Nelson argues that the HOA's failure to enforce its rules and
regulations from December 2005 to April 2007 constitutes a waiver.
Again, Nelson makes only this blanket statement, with no citation to
authority or discussion of the authority as it applies to the facts of
this case, and so this point is waived. [172 Cal.App.4th 863]
Fifth, Nelson argues he is not engaged in a "'home business'" under the
rules and regulations, and thus the HOA acted "arbitrarily and
capriciously" when it fined him and restricted his visitors to those on
his permanent guest list, even after Nelson "placed Respondents on
notice of his disability and religious practices." We disagree. As the
trial court stated in its minute order denying the preliminary
injunction, Nelson has admitted that he runs a business out of his home.
In his letter to the HOA on April 22, 2007, Nelson stated, "The
continuity of my business and my livelihood are at stake. Thus, I
respectfully request that I be allowed to continue to work from my home .
. . ." Nelson alleged in his complaint that he would see up to eight
people for "religious and medical counseling" a day, five days per week,
which was the same practice in which he was engaged at his business
office. Nelson also alleged in his declaration in support of the motion
for preliminary injunction that he loses $5,000 a day when he is not
seeing patients. In addition, Nelson's business violated section 7(a)(4)
of the rules and regulations ["Pedestrian and vehicular traffic will be
limited to that normally associated with residential districts"] in
that he admitted he had up to eight visitors a day, five times a week.
Finally, in violation of section 7(a) of the rules and regulations ["The
conduct of a home occupation requires both the approval of the City of
Palm Desert and the approval of the Association"], Nelson did not seek
permission from either the City of Palm Desert or the HOA until after he
received the notice of violation in April 2007. Thus, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Nelson could not
establish a probability of success on the merits because he was running a
home business in direct violation of the rules and regulations.
Sixth, Nelson argues that the HOA illegally has refused to provide him
with a "meaningful reasonable accommodation" under the Federal Fair
Housing Amendments Act. (42 U.S.C.S. § 3601 et seq.) We could find no
reference to this federal housing non-discrimination law in Nelson's
written or oral arguments below. Because Nelson did not make this
argument in the trial court, it is waived on appeal. (See Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180, 184-185, fn. 1.)
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that
Nelson had not established a probability of success on the merits.
Further, we need not consider Nelson's arguments on the potential for
irreparable injury because, as set forth above, an appellant seeking
reversal of an order denying a preliminary injunction must establish
that the trial court has abused its discretion in ruling on both
factors. For these reasons, we conclude that Nelson has not carried his
burden to establish that the trial court abused its discretion when it
denied his motion for preliminary injunction. [172 Cal.App.4th 864]
DISPOSITION
The trial court's ruling denying Nelson's motion for preliminary
injunction is affirmed. The HOA shall recover from Nelson its costs on
appeal.
Gaut, J., and Miller, J., concurred.
FN 1. Listed on the petition are 19 individuals from 15 addresses.