City of Eureka and People of the State of California v. Floyd E. Squires, Betty J. Squires
Published: Apr. 9, 2011 | Result Date: Mar. 10, 2011 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: DR110040 Bench Decision – Prov. Appt. of Receiver
Court
Humboldt Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Krista MacNevin Jee
(Jones Mayer)
Defendant
Bradford C. Floyd
(Floyd Law Firm)
Facts
The City of Eureka and the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office sued property owners Floyd and Betty Squires, claiming that their 29 properties in the City were in violation of health and safety, housing, and municipal code regulations. The plaintiffs also alleged that defendants committed unfair business practices. The City filed an emergency ex parte petition, requesting the court to order an independent party or receiver to examine the properties to find out whether immediate action is necessary, and a complaint for injunction and appointment of a receiver to abate nuisances, substandard buildings, and unlawful business practices.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs claimed that defendants kept rental properties in unsafe, unhealthy and unlawful conditions for many years, posing an immediate threat to public health and safety. Additionally, plaintiffs claimed that 77 enforcement cases had been opened against defendants beginning in 2003, and that nearly 4,000 calls for service have been received by the City's police dept. relating to defendants' properties. Plaintiffs have alleged that defendants owe more than $400,000 in administrative citation fines and penalties relating to substandard conditions of the properties.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants rejected some of the allegations. Defendants have claimed that the conditions are exaggerated, non-existent, or the fault of the tenants.
Damages
Plaintiffs seek appointment of a receiver to abate substandard property conditions, take corrective measures with respect to the properties, and to arrest unlawful business practices alleged against defendants, as well as injunctive relief.
Result
The court initially denied plaintiff's ex parte petition for the immediate appointment of a receiver, finding that tenants of the properties would not suffer irreparable injury before a hearing could be held. During that subsequent hearing and based upon further evidence presented to the court, it found that the provisional appointment of a receiver was necessary due to the potential severity of the alleged violations at the properties.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390