Tentative Ruling on Plaintiffs' MSJ
Sprague and Rowan Trust v. Hilliard, Case No. 2018-06776
August 20, 2021, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72
1. Overview and Procedural Posture.
The parties in this case live across the street from each other in Point Loma. Plaintiffs sued for declaratory relief in 2018 when defendants erected a flagpole plaintiffs believe exceeded a height limitation contained in a restrictive covenant burdening defendant's land. Defendants cross-complained, also seeking declaratory relief and to quiet title. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Judge Whitney court granted defendants' motion and denied plaintiffs' motion. The Court of Appeal reversed. ROA 151. The court incorporates Justice O'Rourke's careful opinion filed Sept. 22, 2020 in Case No. D075779 for further background.
After the remittitur issued in January of 2021, plaintiffs challenged Judge Whitney, and the case was reassigned to Dept. 72. ROA 161-162. The case was erroneously not set for a CMC
Hearing Date
August 19, 2021
Category
Civil - Unlimited
Type
Breach of Contract/Warranty
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Tentative Ruling on Plaintiffs' MSJ
Sprague and Rowan Trust v. Hilliard, Case No. 2018-06776
August 20, 2021, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72
1. Overview and Procedural Posture.
The parties in this case live across the street from each other in Point Loma. Plaintiffs sued for declaratory relief in 2018 when defendants erected a flagpole plaintiffs believe exceeded a height limitation contained in a restrictive covenant burdening defendant's land. Defendants cross-complained, also seeking declaratory relief and to quiet title. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Judge Whitney court granted defendants' motion and denied plaintiffs' motion. The Court of Appeal reversed. ROA 151. The court incorporates Justice O'Rourke's careful opinion filed Sept. 22, 2020 in Case No. D075779 for further background.
After the remittitur issued in January of 2021, plaintiffs challenged Judge Whitney, and the case was reassigned to Dept. 72. ROA 161-162. The case was erroneously not set for a CMC