That

That v. Alders Maintenance Ass'n

Good Law
142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 458·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 708·206 Cal. App. 4th 1419·2012 WL 2161475
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 15, 2012No. G044799California3,640 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Moore, J.

Plaintiff Dinh Ton That disagreed with the results of a recall election conducted by his homeowners association. He first brought a small claims action, then a writ of mandate, and then the instant action, asserting violations of association rules and the relevant statutory scheme. Defendant Alders Maintenance Association demurred to his complaint, arguing the statute of limitations had run on his first cause of action. The court sustained the demurrer. Plaintiff amended his complaint, adding a second cause of action under Business and Professions Code section 17200. Defendant again demurred, arguing a number of reasons why such a claim could not be maintained. The court sustained the second demurrer without leave to amend. *1422 The court also awarded defendant attorney fees of approximately $15,000. Plaintiff argues this should be reversed because the relevant statute does not specify that prevailing associations are entitled to attorney fees.

In the unpublished portion of this decision, we agree with defendant that the one-year statute of limitations bars plaintiff’s first cause of action. In the published portion, we agree with defendant that in the present context,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.