MEADOWVIEWFORUM.COM
JUDICIAL REVIEW
(Court File Below and Available For Download)
HEARING DATE: MAY 25, 2022; 8:00 AM, Department S101
LOCATION: Southwest Justice Center, Small Claims Court
30755-D Auld Road, Murrieta, CA. 92563
ZOOM LINK: To be provided by Clerk of Court
DOCUMENTS: See PDF's Below (Complete Transparency)
♦ Pleading filed with Court
♦ Declaration filed with Court
♦ 1st Responsive mailer distributed by Attorney
♦ 2nd Responsive mailer distributed by Board
♦ Reply distributed by Plaintiffs/Coalition Reps
On behalf of the Coalition of concerned residents, we have sought Judicial Review for non-compliance with State law by the Board of Directors for Meadowview, and its Management company First Residential, in corporate governance of the Meadowview Community Association No. 1. The venue for judicial review is in the Small Claims Court, per the Davis-Stirling Act. Please review the documents attached below, which reflect the actual Request for Judicial Review filed in the Small Claims Court of the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thereafter, please see Association Counsel's representation to the membership--by email, and mail distribution to the members--as the result of that filing for Judicial Review. Pursuant to Civ. Code §6150, there is no requirement or obligation to report civil actions filed against the Board, nor has it been a practice up until now.
The Request of the Judicial Officer: "This is a request for Judicial Review of MV governing actions not in compliance with state legislature and AB laws on multiple occasions, which subject the membership to liability, fines, and violations by the state. MV is a corporate entity. The forum for Judicial Review, per Davis-Stirling Act (“Act”) and state law, is via a Small Claims filing to obtain access to a Judge for this review. That is, this is the most immediate way the Act has provided to have a judicial officer review and protect the corporation from harm. The conclusion that other avenues were not pursued prior is completely incorrect. When the membership receives a letter from a lawyer saying “lawsuit” and “trial” it is intended to invoke fear, anger, alienation, and perceived monetary consequences—which appears to be designed to enrage the membership, alienate/punish the Plaintiffs from the membership, and not address its concerns. Under the same leadership, the membership never disclosed to the community by email blast, social media or by U.S. Mail, other members who have sued the Board over the years, including something as monumental as the embezzlement of a substantial amount of funds by a former HOA manager. In fact, when asked, they declared “executive privilege” and claimed “sensitivity” to those involved. Despite the two letters the Board has now decided to send out by email blast and U.S. Mail disclosing a “lawsuit” and “trial”, the author failed to state that three of four members of the corporation reached out and met multiple times with the now Board President and a Director-at-Large over the course of almost three months and many hours trying to communicate members’ concerns, issues for compliance/correction with the bylaws and state law, members’ stated fears of retaliation by the HOA office and Board for speaking up at meetings, and transparency in communications—in whole or in part—with clear, accurate, and anti-inflammatory language. All of this time was spent to resolve outstanding concerns by too many members, and to bring the community together after the vote of no-confidence from the “Proposed Rules and Regulations”. Despite those civil and amicable meetings in the office, in homes, the meadow, and even a restaurant over a meal together, the Board/director used those good faith concerns and statements and not only disregarded them, but in the February open meeting used what was said to launch an offensive and attack on those issues and members statements, proceeding full steam forward without change. We see this again, with lack of disclosure of the actual declaration being distributed, and with the proactive attempt to demonize certain members who bravely put their names in public record, by the choice to distribute and even “bolded” the font of the Plaintiffs’ names, while not providing the underlying document which answers the questions you have. As with any lack of resolution, a request to a mediator—in this case, per Davis-Stirling: a judicial officer--is unfortunately necessary. This is not a lawsuit “against the membership”, as is projected with inflammatory words and distribution of a letter by an attorney providing a summary and not the legal declaration that would explain it. It is a request by a shareholder of the corporation—as an example—to review the policies, actions, and inactions of the corporation’s management so that future harm will not come to the corporation or shareholders, and that state law processes and policies for the corporation are strictly adhered to. When we explained to a Board member (who showed up at the petition booths set up in the neighborhood to seek relief from Proposed Rules and Regulations) the membership’s exposure to state fines for non-compliance, his response was “go ahead and fine us” and “where do I pay” as well as “who do I pay the $500 to?” as he held out his hands as if to pay the fine. This flippant attitude should be concerning to all of us when a Board member has this mindset. Thus, it is of great consequence to us all."
See all court documents below, with download capability.