IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 02/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Appointment of a Receiver Pursuant to H&S Code Section 17980.7 in Department 28

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Tentative Ruling:

Petitioner City of Sacramento’s (“City”) Petition for Appointment of Receiver is ruled upon as follows.

The Petition was filed pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 17980.7(c), which specifically authorizes the Court to appoint a receiver over substandard property if the property owner has failed to comply with a notice and order issued by a local agency after having had a reasonable opportunity to do so.

The City now moves to appoint a receiver to take possession and control over the properties at issue owned by Respondent Yen Wang (“Respondent”), located in Sacramento, California, at 3737 32nd Street, APN No. 020-0015-026-0000; 800 Del Verde Circle, #4, APN No. 225-0900- 001-0024; 3117 Gardendale Road, APN No. 049-0193-001-0000; and 2650 Princeton Street, APN No. 266-0311-037- 0000, (the “Subject Properties”).

The City is requesting the Court to appoint a receiver to each of the named properties due to the Respondent being the property owner of each one, the similar violations consistent among the named subject properties, the extensive history of nuisance-causing conditions present at each property, and to promote judicial economy.

3737 32nd Street APN No. 020-0015-026-0000

This Subject Property has a history of substandard conditions dating back to September 19, 2015. The property, vacant at the time, had numerous violations that created an attractive nuisance, requiring securement. Such violations include an open roof, structural inadequacies, lack of gas or electric service, fire damage, and an inadequate plumbing system. Pictures are

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 02/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Appointment of a Receiver Pursuant to H&S Code Section 17980.7 in Department 28

attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Building Inspector William Ely, on file in this matter (“Ely Decl.”).

This subject property has been considered a dangerous building since 2015, with a preliminary letter listing all the violations sent to the Respondent on October 1, 2015. On March 25, 2016, a Notice and Order to Repair together with a Correction List was sent to the Respondent. This Notice and Order was posted on the Subject Property, as well as mailed certified and first-class mail through the United States Postal Service, in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 17980.6 and Sacramento City Code section 1.04.100.

On April 18, 2016, the City clouded title on the Subject Property due to the ongoing substandard and dangerous building conditions, see Ely Decl. Building Inspector Richard Leiker was assigned to the case in 2017 and took pictures of the Subject Property on multiple occasions, finding that no improvements had been made, locating various electrical violations, noting signs of break-ins, and no change to the conditions of the property. See exhibits to Ely Decl.

On July 19, 2021, Inspector Leiker conducted an inspection at the Subject Property. Another inspection occurred on November 1 and 15, 2021. Respondent did not respond to Inspector Leiker’s emails or phone calls until July 3, 2023. In that email, Respondent claimed that she told someone to get the permits, however none were ever pulled. Ely Decl., ¶ 5.

In July 2024, Inspector Ely received multiple complaints regarding Subject Property having no meter or electricity and Respondent still renting out the property to tenants. After another inspection, Inspector Ely found the meter was gone and the panel was destroyed. At that point, the city posted more “Dangerous Building” signs on various parts of the Subject Property. The property was secured by boarding up windows and doors and fencing around the property. Reports continued to come in of people breaking into the Subject Property. Ely Decl., ¶ 6.

On August 9, 2024, Respondent contacted Inspector Ely informing him that she paid for the permits and hired workers to complete the work. After attempting several times to connect with Respondent and her hired workers to no avail, Inspector Ely inspected the property again in October 2024 only to find improper electrical work and clear code violations still present. Ely Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.

In January 2025, property owner obtained a permit to correct the violations at Subject Property. Inspector Ely attempted to finalize the permit numerous times in January and February by inspecting the work that was completed. There was no working heater or hot water on Subject Property, despite the assertions of the property owner. The permit expired in February, and no corrective action has occurred. There have been no changes to the property, no permits to correct the violations, and currently still no power on the Subject Property due to all of the violations still in existence. Inspector Ely met with the property owner on July 24, 2025 at the property, however no permits have been pulled, and no corrective action has taken place. The property owner submitted a request for permit for temporary power in September 2025, however

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 02/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Appointment of a Receiver Pursuant to H&S Code Section 17980.7 in Department 28

it was not complete in its filing with SMUD and therefore has not been approved. Ely Decl., ¶ 7

The Respondent’s failure to comply with the Notice and Order over multiple years, as well as the significance of the violations present at the Subject Property, support the City’s determination that the violations are dangerous to the life, limb, health and/or safety of the public or building occupants. There are many current code violations present at this Subject property. (City Memorandum, 4:13-27.)

3117 Gardendale Road APN No. 049-0193-001-0000

The Subject Property has a history of substandard conditions dating back to 2012. On September 6, 2016, the Subject Property was found to have sewage overflowing at the sewage cleanout and plumbing leaks inside. The property was occupied at the time. The City issued a Notice and Order immediately on the Subject Property for the sewage repair needed. Pictures of the raw sewage overflowing onto the property are attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Building Inspector William Ely, on file in this matter (“Ely Decl.”).

On September 16, 2016, a Notice and Order to Repair together with a Correction List was sent to the Respondent. This Notice and Order was posted on the Subject Property, as well as mailed certified and first-class mail through the United States Postal Service, in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 17980.6 and Sacramento City Code section 1.04.100.

On October 24, 2016, the City clouded title on the Subject Property due to the ongoing substandard and dangerous building conditions. See Exbibit C. In November 2016, the City inspected the sewer line, found the back-up problem and documented the significant overflow of sewage, to which Respondent remained unresponsive. Respondent was served and the Subject Property posted with notices of substandard status. Respondent continued to lease out the residence on the property, despite the violations, including no electrical service. The violations remained unchanged through 2017 and 2018, with posted signs being removed, cars parked at the Subject Property, junk and debris strewn about, and the dwelling continually unsecured. Exhibit E, Ely Decl.

Inspector Ely took over the case in April 2022 and conducted routine inspections of the Subject Property throughout the next couple of years and found no change to the conditions of the property. The City attempted to contact the Respondent on several occasions regarding necessary permitting still required for the Subject Property and also extended that communication to the tenant of the property. Respondent would answer some emails from city inspectors, but no phone calls. In one email, Respondent claimed no tenant lived on the subject property. Ely Decl.

7. No permits have been paid for or utilized on the Subject Property. Sacramento Fire Department eventually notified Respondent of the Subject property being declared a fire hazard due to the accumulation of tall weeds and vegetation. Ely Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 02/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Appointment of a Receiver Pursuant to H&S Code Section 17980.7 in Department 28

A Notice and Order for Code violations was sent to the Respondent on April 7, 2023 setting out the code violations found on the Subject Property, becoming final on May 7, 2023. The conditions on the Subject Property creating the code issues have not been corrected despite Code officers conducting re-inspections and discussing with the multiple tenants. A search warrant of the subject was conducted in October 2025 which found violations listed below still accurate with no movement from Respondent.

The Subject Property has remained unchanged, with no improvements or permitted work completed or finalized to remedy the violations. Respondent was properly noticed and had numerous opportunities to appear at hearings on the violations and work with the city to remedy the issues. Respondent has not done anything to clean up the Subject Property, the conditions her tenants live in, or about the problems she has created for the neighborhood around this property, as evidenced by the more recent photographs taken in October 2025 when a search warrant was executed by the Sacramento Police Department at the Subject Property. See Exhibit O.

The Respondent’s failure to comply with the Notice and Order over multiple years, as well as the significance of the violations present at the Subject Property, support the City’s determination that the violations are dangerous to the life, limb, health and/or safety of the public or building occupants. There are many current code violations present at this Subject property. (City Memorandum, 7:1-25.)

800 Del Verde Circle, #4, APN No. 225-0900-001-0024

This Subject Property has been a source of continuous unabated nuisances since at least 2021. Multiple inspections over the years have revealed numerous violations of the City code that remain unresolved to this day. The initial complaint on this property was received in October 2021 regarding a broken window. The first inspection occurred in November 2021 and found flooring in poor condition throughout, missing smoke detectors and carbon monoxide alarms, an active leak under the kitchen sink, visible mold, and inoperable and backed-up drains in several sinks, a toilet and bathtub. A Notice and Order was issued and the City clouded title on January 4, 2022. See Exhibit B.

Tenants were reported as living at the Subject Property. Reinspection in May of 2022 found more broken windows, several leaks, damage to a door, mold under the kitchen sink, significant garbage, junk, and debris on the floor.

On August 23, 2022, Respondent’s husband, Chang Wang, applied for permits to complete the needed work on the property. The permits were issued and were subsequently mailed to Respondent. On February 23, 2023, said permits expired as there was no final approval

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 02/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Appointment of a Receiver Pursuant to H&S Code Section 17980.7 in Department 28

requested. Respondent did not attempt to obtain a replacement permit for the work that still needed to be completed. Through 2023, the property continued to be occupied with no attempts to bring the property back into compliance. All attempts by the City to contact Respondent, to include phone calls, emails, property visits, were unsuccessful. Building Inspector Ludwig Morada was assigned to this property; see Morada Declaration ¶¶ 4-5.

In October 2023, the occupant of Subject Property contacted the City regarding another plumbing leak. The leak was verified and was coming from a tub valve, which as a result of the leak was causing damage to the ceiling of a unit underneath Subject Property. According to the occupant, Respondent told the tenant of the unit below the Subject Property that she would have the valve repaired. Respondent was unable to get a repair person into Subject Property. Respondent claimed the tenant refused entry. Building Inspector Morada spoke to Respondent. Respondent stated she was going to evict the tenant. After that contact, there was no response from Respondent for months, and no applications for permits. Tenant remained at the Subject Property. Morada Decl. ¶¶ 4-7.

Despite numerous attempts from the city to contact the Respondent and work with her on the code violations present at her property, through 2024 and 2025, the Subject Property remains in the same condition described above. Respondent remains unresponsive and the Subject Property is still being occupied with violations ongoing, rendering the building sub-standard and/or dangerous due to various deficiencies. There are many current code violations present at this Subject property. (City Memorandum, 9:13-24.)

2650 Princeton Street, APN No. 266-0311-037-0000

This Subject Property is owned by Respondent and has been inspected multiple times since 2018. Those inspections resulted in a number of violations that remain unresolved to this day. Similar to the other listed Subject Properties, the City has had a very difficult time getting the Respondent to address the violations on this property. Therefore, the fees and fines that have accumulated over the years are significant.

The initial housing inspection in June 2018 revealed a leaky kitchen sink, a kitchen faucet with a hole on the deck, a broken toilet, a bathroom faucet with no handle, several electrical violations in the bathroom, no smoke alarms, broken windows, non-functioning heat, holes in the exterior walls of the dwelling, a broken door, siding falling off the home, fire damage to the garage, nonpermitted buildings in the backyard, and non-operating vehicles in the backyard. Building Inspector Matthew Sartain’s (Sartain’s) Declaration, Exhibit A.

A preliminary letter of the violations was sent to Respondent in July of 2018. By the end of that month, the City recorded a cloud on the title of the Subject Property and a Notice and Order to Repair was posted and sent to the Respondent. Sartain Dec., Exhibit B.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 02/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Appointment of a Receiver Pursuant to H&S Code Section 17980.7 in Department 28

In January 2018, Respondent sent a summons for an unlawful detainer eviction action to the tenants living on the Subject Property. The City waited until January 2019 to follow-up with Respondent regarding improvements to the property. None had been made, and administrative penalties began. In May 2019, no progress was made on Subject Property, so the City sent Respondent a Notice of Intent to Abate Abandoned/Inoperable Vehicles. Reinspection continued through August 2019 when the Subject Property was posted as a dangerous building due to boarded windows and a water leak at the main line. Sartain Dec. ¶ 5.

The Subject Property remained in the same condition throughout 2021 and 2022. In April 2022, Building Inspector Richard Leiker (BI Leiker) made contact with Respondent. Respondent claimed to be trying to evict the tenants, however BI Leiker could find no evidence of any court hearings, past or future.

In September 2022, the Subject Property was reported to have occupants living inside, despite it being a dangerous building. The City has continued to monitor the Subject Property through present day, with no corrections and no communication from the property owner. The following conditions remain until present day, October 2025: garbage, junk, debris strewn about, multiple inoperable vehicles parked on unimproved surfaces, evidence of occupants, water leak, and broken windows. Sartain Decl. ¶¶ 8-10. There are many current code violations present at this Subject Property. (City Memorandum, 11:8 – 12:13.)

Opposition

Respondent has filed multiple oppositions, and claims to have made some repairs. Respondent also claims to have instituted unlawful detainer cases to evict squatters, but provides no case numbers or evidence supporting this claim.

Analysis

Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(c) authorizes the Court to appoint receiver to oversee the rehabilitation of substandard properties if the property owner fails to comply with a Notice of Order issued by a local code enforcement agency. The enforcement agency is authorized to seek, by court petition, the appointment of a receiver to “assume control over the property and remediate the violations or take other appropriate action”. (H&S Code § 17980.6 and 1780.7(c).) The appointment of a receiver is also authorized under equitable principles.

Here, based upon the conditions found on the Subject Properties, the Subject Properties have been designated as dangerous and substandard and constitutes a nuisance per se. The appointment of a receiver is warranted in order prevent harm and damage to the community. (Whitley v. Bradley (1910) 13 Cal.App. 720, 725; Code Civ. Proc. § 564(b)(1).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 02/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Appointment of a Receiver Pursuant to H&S Code Section 17980.7 in Department 28

Respondent has been given ample opportunity over many years to rectify the problems, but has failed to do so.

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(c)(4), the Court appoints a receiver to oversee rehabilitation of the Subject Properties and grants the receiver the following powers and duties:

1) To take full and complete control of the Subject Properties; 2) To manage the Subject Property and pay operating expenses including insurance, utilities, general maintenance and debt secured by the Properties; 3) To secure a cost estimate and construction plan from a licensed contractor and enter into contracts necessary to repair the conditions cited in the Notice to Abate; 4) To enter into contracts and employ a licensed contractor as necessary to correct the cited conditions; 5) To collect rents and income from the Subject Properties, and use those funds pay for the rehabilitation work; 6) To borrow funds to pay for the rehabilitation work, relocation benefits, and secure the debt recorded first position lien on the Subject Properties amounts borrowed; 7) To relocate the occupants of the Subject Properties in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(d), if necessary.

After the receiver takes possession of the Subject Properties and has an opportunity to inspect it, the receiver will develop a definitive rehabilitation plan and budget. This plan and budget will be submitted to the Court by the receiver for the Court’s approval prior to the start of the rehabilitation. (See H&S Code § 17980.7(c)(4)(F).)

Upon the appointment of a receiver, any person or business entity is enjoined from 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, as such conduct will clearly prohibit the receiver from performing his functions. (H&S Code § 17980.7(c)(3).)

California courts allow receivers to borrow funds by issuing receiver’s certificates. (See Title Insurance and Trust Co. v. Cal Development Co. (1915) 171 Cal. 227, 231; see also City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 905, 930; City of Riverside v. Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670, 683-85.) A receiver’s certificate becomes a first lien on the property with priority over all other preexisting liens if the court so authorizes. (Title Insurance v. Cal Development Co., supra, 171 Cal. 227 at 231.)

The receiver is authorized funds to finance costs incurred during the receivership, including property management and maintenance expenses, relocation benefits, rehabilitation costs, and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 02/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Appointment of a Receiver Pursuant to H&S Code Section 17980.7 in Department 28

the receiver’s fees pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(c)(4)(G).

The City nominates Housing Group Fund Corporation, a California corporation (HGF), as the City's Receiver-nominee, and its president and chief executive officer, Colin C. Hammett, as the receiver-nominee's representative, to act as receiver over the Subject Properties. HGF and Mr. Hammett have longstanding expertise and a record of successfully rehabilitating and managing distressed residential properties in the Sacramento area, and they are well-qualified to perform the duties of a receiver in this case. (See Hammett Declaration, page 2, ¶¶ 2-7.) HGF and Mr. Hammett have successfully rehabilitated over five-hundred residential properties over the last two decades, while HGF has served as court-appointed receiver pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.7 on nine cases since 2015.

The City’s motion is hereby GRANTED and Colin Hammett of the Housing Fund Group, to serve as receiver and to take action to immediately stabilize and ultimately rehabilitate the Subject Properties.

Since the City is a public entity, it is not required to post any bond. However, the receiver shall promptly post a bond in the amount of $10,000.

This minute order is effective immediately.