Document for OLUFEMI OGUNTOLU VS NINA C MONTOYA

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                epen,
                                                                                                     fy;oun    D
                                                                                                  Une, of;      OFC,
                                                                                    4, er    ocy              Ang, mia
                                                                               gy            ei
                                                                                            sanity      lve Mee
Olufemi Oguntolu v. Nina Montoya,     et al.,        ‘Fentattre decision on appli                               rsc,
BC 722093                                            preliminary injunction: denied””rp,
                                                                                                                       Deny


       Plaintiff Olufemi Oguntolu (“Oguntolu”) applies for a preliminary injunction enjoining
Defendant Nina Montoya (“Montoya”) from restricting Oguntolu’s access to the common areas of
the jointly-held property located at 3242-3244 Ingledale Terrace, Los Angeles, California
(“Ingledale Property” or “Property”) by way of locks or barriers that cannot be easily and readily
removed or opened.
        The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and renders
the following tentative decision.

       A. Statement of the Case
       1. Complaint
        Plaintiff Oguntolu commenced this proceeding on September 19, 2018, alleging causes of
action for unlawful ejectment and ouster. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows.
        Oguntolu and Montoya jointly own a single parcel ofreal property, the Ingledale Property.
Both hold title to the property as joint tenants. Oguntolu has been in continuous possession of the
property since January 2008.
        In July 2018, Oguntolu discovered that Montoya had unlawfully installed a lock on the
front gate to the front yard which, inter alia, denied Oguntolu access to her front and side yards
and to her gas and water utilities for the home which she currently resides.         Because of this lock,
Oguntolu met and conferred with Montoya about removing the lock and/or supplying Oguntolu
with the combination code. Montoya refused. Montoya’s refusal to allow Oguntolu unfettered
access/entry to her own front/side yards and/or utilities has resulted in an improper ejectment and
ouster in violation of Oguntolu’s rights as a joint tenant.

        2. Course of Proceedings
         On September 20, 2018, the court granted Oguntolu’s ex parte application for a temporary
restraining order (“TRO”) and order to show re: preliminary injunction (“OSC”). The court
ordered the parties to meet and confer in an attempt to avoid the OSC hearing and to show the
results of the meet and confer in their briefs.
         Montoya’s counsel accepted service of the Summons, Complaint, and moving papers. A
proof of service on file shows that the TRO/OSC was served by mail on Montoya’s counsel on
September 22, 2018.

        B. Applicable Law
        An injunction is a writ or order requiring a person to refrain from a particular act; it may
be granted by the court in which the action is brought, or by a judge thereof; and when granted by

         ' Montoya was instructed to file her opposition on October 3, 2018, but instead filed the
brief on October 4, 2018. As it did not impede Oguntolu from filing a reply, the court has exercised
its discretion to consider the late-filed brief.