Trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a receiver to cause defendant’s hotel to remediate housing code violations after judgment was entered against defendant and defendant was given 18 months in which to cure the violations on his own. The decision affirms an order appointing a receiver of defendant’s hotel to carry out housing code violation remediation after judgment was entered against defendant and after defendant had been given 18 months in which to cure the violations on his own. Defendant waived his claim of error in overruling his evidentiary objections since he did not show in his appellate brief why specific objections to particular evidence should have been sustained. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request to present live testimony at the hearing on the motion. A motion to appoint a receiver is a law and motion matter, decided based on affidavits and other evidence presented on paper unless at least three days before the hearing on the motion, a party requests and the court allows, oral testimony at the hearing. Here, defendant didn’t ask to present oral testimony before the hearing itself. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a receiver. Substantial evidence supported its finding that multiple housing code violations existed at the property and hadn’t been cured. Under Health & Safety Code 17980.7, a receiver may be appointed to correct building code violations that are extensive and of a nature to threaten the health or safety of residents or the general public, even without a showing that less invasive procedures are not available to cure the problem.
California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4 (Reardon, P.J.); February 16, 2017 (published March 7, 2017); 2017 WL 915534