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. 10/28/2025 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 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.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

24CV022594: CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs SINGH, et al. 10/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 53

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff City of Sacramento’s unopposed motion for preliminary injunction is granted.

Plaintiff filed the instant action to abate a public nuisance. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Navdeep Singh and Maninder Kaur Saini 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 at 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. 10/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 53

City 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.) The Court is well aware that '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.) California courts have consistently approved injunctive relief as 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.

City’s evidence shows that the Subject Property remains in violation of City Code §§ 8.04.100(A), 8.04.100(E), 10.44.010, 10.44.020, 15.156.020 regarding storing trash, junk, debris, inoperable vehicles, and maintaining an improper existing fence, unpermitted structures, and grading. (Bowen Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, 10; Boland Decl. ¶ 8.) The Subject Property is also the subject of ongoing City Fire Code violations involving unpermitted operations, unpermitted construction, multiple hazardous material, combustible storage under high voltage power lines, fire extinguishers, extension cords, junk and debris, high vegetation, and combustible storage near property lines. (Dutcher Decl. ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff issued and served a Notice and Order to Remove, Repair or Cease Illegal Use in December 2022. (Colin Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendants were issued a Correction Notice and Stop Work Order on May 28, 2024. And a Notice and Order to Clean, Remove, Repair and/or Cease a Public Nuisance. (Dutcher Decl. ¶ 8; Bowen Decl. ¶ 8.) The Notices and Orders were not appealed by Defendants. A City Code enforcement officer found the Subject Property remained in violation on September 8, 2025, and a City Zoning Investigator found the Subject Property remained in violation on September 9, 2025. (Mata Decl. ¶ 10; Colin Decl. ¶ 21.)

Once a governmental entity establishes that it will probably succeed at trial, a presumption should arise that public harm will result if an injunction does not issue.

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. 10/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 53

However, some consideration must be given to the harm likely to be suffered by the defendant where that harm is alleged to be grave or irreparable. IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal. 3d 63, 72.

Here, the evidence presented in connection with the instant motion demonstrates that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on its public nuisance claims. The evidence shows that Defendants are currently maintaining the Subject Property in violation of City Codes regarding junk, debris, trash, inoperable vehicles, improper structures, improper operations, and more. The evidence shows that the Subject Property has been the subject of numerous enforcement activities over the years and that Defendants continue to fail to remedy the violations.

Indeed, given the evidence presented in connection with the motion shows that the Subject Property is in violation of the City Code related to substandard buildings, the evidence shows that the Subject Property is a nuisance per se. City Code § 8.04.100 declares that every subsection in the section is a public nuisance, including subdivision (A) dealing with the storage of junk, debris and abandoned vehicles which the Subject Property was found to have violated. “[A] nuisance per se arises when a legislative body with appropriate jurisdiction, in the exercise of the police power, expressly declares a particular object or substance, activity or circumstance, to be a nuisance [T]o rephrase the rule, to be considered a nuisance per se the object, substance, activity or circumstance at issue must be expressly declared to be a nuisance by its very existence by some applicable law.” (City of Claremont v.

Kruse (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1163.) “[W]here the law expressly declares something to be a nuisance, then no inquiry beyond its existence need be made.Nuisances per se are so regarded because no proof is required, beyond the actual fact of their existence, to establish the nuisance.” (Id. [citations omitted] [emphasis in original].)

Balancing of Harms

As discussed above, where, as here, 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. (IT Corp., supra, 35 Cal.3d 72.) City demonstrated it was reasonably probable it will prevail on the merits and Defendants have not opposed the motion and therefore presented no argument to rebut the presumption that the harm to the public outwieghs the potential harm to Defendants.

No opposition to the motion was filed. A party’s failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

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. 10/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 53

The motion is granted.

In so ruling the Court would note that a preliminary injunction is merely a provisional or auxiliary remedy to preserve the status quo until final judgment. (See Kendall v. Foulks (1919) 180 Cal. 171, 173.) The order granting preliminary injunction is not a determination of the ultimate right to a permanent injunction; it is, as noted, based on a showing that it is desirable to maintain the status quo pending a determination of the merits. (See Continental Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 528; State Bd. of Barber Examiners v. Star (1970) 8 Cal. App.3d 736, 739, 740, [trial judge's purported ruling on constitutional question at hearing on preliminary injunction was not binding on court at trial]).

City is not required to post a bond. (CCP § 529(b)(3).)

The Court will sign the proposed order but will strike paragraph 3(a) of the proposed order. That paragraph sates that Defendants are required to “[A]bide by all laws and manage the Subject Property in a manner that enhances the peace and quiet of the surrounding neighborhood.” This language is impermissibly vague and could arguably encompass a wide range of unspecified conduct. A “court may not issue a broad injunction to simply obey the law, thereby subjecting a person to contempt proceedings for committing at any time in the future some new violation unrelated to the original allegations.” (City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 416.)