CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs SINGH, et al.

24CV022594: CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs SINGH, et al. 07/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. 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.

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

24CV022594: CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs SINGH, et al. 07/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 53

or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff City of Sacramento’s unopposed application for preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff filed the instant action on November 5, 2024, to abate a public nuisance. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Navdeep Singh and Maninder Kaur Singh are the owners of real property at 1800 Vinci Avenue in Sacramento (“Subject Property”). Plaintiff alleges that it has had an open and pending Code Compliance Division case regarding the Subject Property since November 22, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that the Subject Property is a 7.14 acre vacant lot where there has been a history of business activity, including major truck repair, servicing, and storage without Plaintiff’s approval.

Plaintiff also alleges that the Subject Property is the subject of ongoing Fire Code violations. Plaintiff indicates that it has issued Defendants one Notice of Alleged Violation, two preliminary letters, three Notice and Orders, five administrative penalties, and one Stop Work order based on violations of the Sacramento City Code.

Plaintiff now seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting the maintenance of the Subject Property as a nuisance in addition to mandating certain immediate corrective action.

“To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff ordinarily is required to present evidence of the irreparable injury or interim harm that it will suffer if an injunction is not issued pending an adjudication of the merits. Past California decisions further establish that, as a general matter, the question whether a preliminary injunction should be granted involves two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief." (White v.

Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554.) The greater the showing on one factor, the lesser the showing must be on the other. (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678.) “Where a governmental entity seeking to enjoin the alleged violation of an ordinance which specifically provides for injunctive relief establishes that it is reasonably probable it will prevail on the merits, a rebuttable presumption arises that the potential harm to the public outweighs the potential harm to the defendant.

If the defendant shows that it would suffer grave or irreparable harm from the issuance of the preliminary injunction, the court must examine the relative actual harms to the parties.” (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 72.)

Likelihood of Success

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022594: CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs SINGH, et al. 07/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 53

Plaintiff argues that there is ample evidence that the Subject Property constitutes a nuisance pursuant to Civil Code §§ 3479 and 3480. A public nuisance is [a]nything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use of any street ” (Civ. Code § 3479.) A “public nuisance is one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons ” (Civ. Code § 3480.) The City Attorney has the authority to bring a civil action to abate a public nuisance. (CCP § 731.)

Provisional injunctive relief is appropriate when the evidence shows that the nuisance is likely to continue. (Rosicrucian Fellowship v. Rosicrucian Non-Sectarian Church (1952) 39 Cal.2d 121, 144.) “An abatement of a nuisance is accomplished by a court of equity by means of an injunction proper and suitable to the facts of each case.” (County of Santa Clara v. Richfield (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 310.) Injunctive relief is a proper remedy for abatement. (City and County of San Francisco v. City Investment Corp. (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 1031; City and County of San Francisco v. Padilla (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 388.

The Court finds that for purposes of the instant motion only, Plaintiff has not shown a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. As seen from the very authorities cited by Plaintiff in its moving papers, provisional injunctive relief is appropriate when the evidence shows that the nuisance is likely to continue. (Rosicrucian Fellowship, supra, 39 Cal.2d at 144.)

Plaintiff provided declarations from Building Inspector Travis Boland, Code Enforcement Officer Cherie Bowen, Fire Prevention Officer Matthew Dutcher, and Zoning Investigator Kevin Colin, regarding the violations of the Sacramento City Code at the Subject Property. However, these declarations all of which were executed in February and March 2025, only discuss the condition of the Subject Property in December 2024, and January 2025. This was over six months ago. None of the declarations reflect any visits to, or inspections of the Subject Property at any time after late January 2025.

Thus, the Court has no evidence of the condition of the Subject Property reasonably near the present date. The Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff has demonstrated that a nuisance is likely to continue at the Subject Property based upon the condition of the Subject Property six months ago. This is especially true given that the preliminary injunction requested by Plaintiff would require Defendants to take affirmative action in making immediate corrections to the Subject Property. “Where . . . the preliminary injunction mandates an affirmative act that changes the status quo, we scrutinize it even more closely for abuse of discretion. ‘The judicial resistance to injunctive relief

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022594: CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs SINGH, et al. 07/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 53

increases when the attempt is made to compel the doing of affirmative acts. A preliminary mandatory injunction is rarely granted, and is subject to stricter review on appeal.’ [Citation.] As our Supreme Court noted years ago, ‘[t]he granting of a mandatory injunction pending the trial, and before the rights of the parties in the subject matter which the injunction is designed to affect have been definitely ascertained by the chancellor, is not permitted except in extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established and it appears that irreparable injury will flow from its refusal. [Citations.]’” (Davenport v. Blue Cross of California (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 435, 446; citing Board of Supervisors v. McMahon (1990) 219 Cal. App. 3d 286, 295-296 [emphasis added].)

In short, the Court simply concludes for purposes of the instant motion only and the evidence presented, that Plaintiff has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success of prevailing on its claim that the Subject Property is currently a nuisance because it is in violation of the Sacramento City Code. Again, the evidence presented to the Court relates to the condition of the Subject Property six months ago.

The motion is denied without prejudice. The Court notes that should Plaintiff refile this motion with updated evidence, Plaintiff may seek via ex parte application to advance the hearing date on the motion to occur closer in time to the date such evidence is collected if the Court’s next regularly available hearing date is substantially distant.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.