# FIL ED

J UL 12 2018
SUSAN M . SPRAUL, CLERK U. S. BKCY

. APP. PANEL O F T HE NI NT H CI RCUI T 

### NOT FOR PU BLICA TION

U NIT E D ST A T E S BA NK RU PT CYA PPE L L A T E PA N E L

OF T HE NINT H CIRCU IT
In re:
GO LD STRIK E HEIGHTS HO M E O W N ER S A SSO C IA TIO N,

Deb to r. DO N E. LEE,
A p pellant,

v. GA RYFA RRA R

, C hapter 7 Trustee,
A p pellee. BA P N o . EC -16-1169-Ku BH BA P N o . EC -16-1283-Ku BH (R elated) Bk. N o . 15-90811-E-7
A dv. N o . 15-09062-E

M E M ORA ND U M *

A rgued and Sub m itted o n June 21, 2018 at Sac ram ento , C alifo rnia Filed – July 12, 2018
A ppeal fro m the United States Bankruptcy C o urt

*Thi s di sposi ti on i s not appr opr i ate for publi cati on. Although i t may be ci ted for whatev er per suasiv e v alue i t may hav e, seeFed. R. App. P. 32.1, i t has no pr ecedenti al v alue, see9th Ci r . BAP Rule 8024-1.fo r the Eastern Distric t o f C alifo rnia

Ho no rab le R o nald H. Sargis, Chief Bankruptc y Judge, Presiding
A ppearanc es: A p pellant Do n E. Lee argued prose; Jo shua P. Hunsucker

o f N eum iller & Beardslee argued fo rA ppellee Gary Farrar, chapter 7 trustee

Befo r e: KU RT Z, BRA N D, and HU R SH, * * Bankruptcy Judges.
INT ROD U CT I ON A p p e l lant Do n E. Lee filed a state c o u rt c o m plaint a gainst Go ld Strike Heights A sso c iatio n (Go ld Strike 2002) and Go ld Strike H eights H o m eo wners A sso c iatio n (Go ld Strike 2 0 07), alleging that the asso c iatio ns had im pro perly fo rec lo sed o n r eal pro perty which Mr. Lee leased fro m Indi a n Village, LLC (Indian Village). A fter Go ld Strike 2 007 filed a chapter 7 1 petitio n, appellee Gary Farrar, the chapter 7 trustee (Trustee), rem o ved the c ase t o the b ankruptcy c o urt and filed a m o tio n fo r judgm ent o n the pleadings. The b ankruptcy c o u rt granted Trust e e ’ s m o tio n, finding that Mr. L ee lac ked s tanding b ec ause he failed to

* *Hon. Benj amin P. Hur sh, Chi ef Bankr uptcy Judge forthe Di str i ct of Montana, si tti ng by desi gnati on.

1 Unless specifi ed other wi se, all chapterand secti on r efer ences ar e to the Bankr uptcy Code, 11 U.S

. C. §§ 101-1532, all “Rule” r efer ences ar e to the Feder a l Rules of Bankr uptcy Pr ocedur e, and all “Ci v i l Rule” r efer ences ar e to the Feder al Rules of Ci v i l Pr ocedur e. 2allege suffic ient fac ts to sho w an injury in fac t o n any o f his c laim s, and was

attem p ting to litig a t e th e r ights o f third parties no t b efo re the c o u rt. The b ankruptcy c o u rt gav e M r . L e e thirty d ays to file a m o tio n to a m end the

c o m p laint o r dism iss the c ase witho ut prejudic e prio r to the e n t r y of the judgm ent in favo r o f T rustee. Mr. Lee did neither. A c c o rdingly, the c o urt entered judgm ent fo r Trustee o n all c laim s fo r relief alleged in the c o m plaint. Thereafter, Trustee m o ved fo r att or n e y s ’ f e e s u n d e r Ca l. C iv. C o de § 5975 which autho rizes fees to a prevailing party in a lawsuit relating to the enfo rc em ent o f r ights and int e r ests under the C o venants, Restric tio ns, and ot her do cum ents b y which a ho m eo wners asso c iatio n o perates (Go vern i n g Do cum ents). The b ankruptcy c o urt fo und tha t the gravam en o f Mr. Lee’s

c o m p laint w as t o enfo rc e G ol d S trike 2007’s Go verning Do cum ent and awarded Trustee $11, 236 in prevailing party atto rneys’ fees a gainst Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee a p peals fro m the b ankruptcy c o u r t’s o rder granting Trustee’s

m o tio n fo r judgm ent o n the pleadings (BA P N o . 16-1169) and fro m the o rder awarding atto rneys’ fees t o Trust e e ( BAP N o . 16-1283). W e A FFIRM b o th

o rders o n appeal. FA CT S A . Bac kg round Fac ts A nd A lleg ations In M r . L e e’sCom plaint Sinc e 2008, Mr. Lee has leased a m anufac tured ho m e o n a lo t in the Go ld Strike Heights Sub divisio n (Pro perty) which was o wned b y I n d i a n Village. Mr. Lee’s c o m plaint against Go ld Strike 2002 and Go ld S trike 2007 aro se fro m

3the no n-judic ial fo rec lo sure o f 31 lo ts o wned b y Indian Village, inc luding the

Pro perty leased b y Mr. Lee. The fac tual b a c kgro und as alleged in the

c o m p laint is as fo llo ws. In 2001, W estwind Develo pm ent, Inc . (W DI) b egan d evelo ping a sm all residential sub d ivisio n in C alaveras C o unty, C alifo rnia. A s part of the develo pm ent pro c ess fo r what is kno wn as the Go ld S t r ike H eights Sub d i v i sio n, a ho m eo wners asso c iatio n b y the nam e o f Go ld Strike H eights A sso c iatio n was fo rm ed; i.e., Go ld Strike 2002. By 2004, WDI was experienc ing financ ial prob lem s a n d so ld 31 lo ts lo c a ted within the sub divisio n to Indian Village which a m o unted to 63% o f the lo ts in the sub divisio n. In 2006, Indian Village d ev e l oped o ne lo t with a m anufac tured ho m e lo c ated at 145 Jasper W ay, San A ndreas, C alifo rnia, where M r. L ee resides. Indian Village did no t develo p the rem a ining 30 lo ts. In early 2007, Indian Village dec ided to fo rm a new ho m eo wners
asso c iatio n (HO A ) b ec ause Go ld Strike 2002 was suspended fo r failing to file the required fo rm s with the C alifo rnia Sec r etary o f State and pay the r equired

a n nual fees to the C alifo rnia Franchise Tax Bo ard. In M ay 2 00 7, th e n e w HO A w ith the nam e Go ld Strike Heights H o m eo wners A sso c iatio n; i.e., Go ld Strike 2007, was inc o rpo rated. Indian Village paid its m o nthly assessm ents to Go ld Strike 2 007 fo r a numb er o f years and then c eased m a king paym ents fo r vario us reasons, inc luding the alleged m ism anagem ent o f the HO A

. In March 2013, C o m munity A ssessm ent Rec o very S ervic es (C A R S), o n

4b ehalf o f Go ld Strike 2002, rec o rded a N o tic e o f Delinquent A s s e s s me n t

against each o f the 31 lo t s o wned b y Indian Vil l a g e , i n c luding M r. Lee’s Pro perty. A llegedly, Indian Village no t ified C A R S that Go ld S t r ike 2002 was a suspended c o r po r a tio n and lacked the right to c arry o ut the fo rec lo sure. In Septemb er 2014, C A R S h e l d a fo r ec lo s ure sale in which Go ld Strike 2002 b id its c laim s fo r delinquent assessm ents against e a ch l ot and thus b ec am e the putative purchaser o f all 31 lo ts o wned b y Indian Village. The next

m o nth, C A R S r ec o rded 31 do cum ents entitled C ertific ate o f Fo r ec lo sure Sale Subj ec t to Redem ptio n w ith the C alaveras C ounty Rec o rder indic ating that Go ld Strike 2002 w a s the purchaser o f each o f the 31 lo ts o wned b y Indian Village. In January 2015, C A R S r ec o rded 31 do cu m ents entitled Trustee’s Deeds U po n Sale with the C alaveras C o unty Rec o rder indic ating that Go ld Strike 2007 was the new o wner o f each o f the 31 lo ts o wned b y Indian Village. A fter the fo rec lo sure, Mr. Lee had various c o m mu nic atio ns with Mike C o o per, the p resident o f Go ld Strike 2007. Mr. Lee dem anded do cu m entatio n
as to who his new landlo rd w as. He m aintained that Go ld S t rike 2002 was a distinc t entity fro m Go ld Strike 2007. He further asserted that Go ld Strike 2002

was a suspended c o rpo ratio n and had no autho rity to fo rec lo s e o r transfer the lo ts to Go ld Strike 2007. M r. Lee c o ntended that he did no t o we rent to Go ld Strike 2007, and had never rented pro perty o wned b y Go ld Strike 2007. In a March 9, 2015 letter, Go ld S trike 2007 gave Mr. Lee 7 days fro m the rec eipt o f the letter to pay $2,645.14 o wed in ren t or i t wo uld take steps to rec o ver the

5rent, inc luding evic tio n.

O n March 20, 2015, M r. Lee filed the instant lawsuit a gainst Go ld Strike 2002 and Go ld Strike 2007 in the C alifo rnia Superio r C o u rt. H e alleged three

c auses o f ac t io n in the c o m plaint. Mr. Lee’s first c a use o f a c tio n fo r dec larato ry relief was b ased o n his allegatio n s th a t ( 1 ) Go ld Strike 2002 and Go ld Strike 2007 were separate and distinc t entities that were no t m erged; (2) Go ld Strike 2002 was a suspended C alifo rnia c o rpo rati o n that c o uld no t exerc ise its

c o r po rate rights and pow e r s a n d thus w as b arred fro m c o nc luding the no njudic ial fo rec lo sure o f the 31 lo ts o wed b y Indian V illage; and (3) Go ld Strike 2002 c o uld no t legally transfer its interest in Mr. Lee’s Pro perty to Go ld Strike 2007. 2 Acco rdingly, Mr. Lee requested the c o urt to d eterm ine the rightful

o wner o f the Pro perty. Mr. Lee’s sec o nd c ause o f ac tio n fo r negligent inflic tio n o f em o tio nal distress alleged that under federal law and C alifo rnia law, any new o wner o f pro perties ac quired b y w ay o f a fo rec lo sure had to pro vide no less than ninety (90) days no tic e b efo r e term inating any tenant residency. Mr. Lee a lleged that the president o f Go ld Strike 2007, Mr. C o o p er, and ano ther of fic er, Paul

2 On the same date, Indi an Vi llage also fi led a lawsuit agai nst Gold S tr i ke 2002 and 2007, and other s. Indi an Vi llage sought the i denti c al declar ator y r eli ef as Mr . Lee, and alleged causes of acti on forwr ongful for eclosur e and sought to qui et ti tle. Tr ustee also r emov ed thi s case to the bankr uptcy cour t. After two moti ons forsummary j udgment and a tr i al, the bankr uptcy cour t found in fav orof Tr ustee and qui eted ti tle to the 31 lots i n fav or of Gold S tr i ke 2007 and i ts successorbankr uptcy estate. Indi an Vi llage appealed thi s r uling to the di str i ct cour t wher e i t i s appar ently sti l l pending. 6Q uent, threatened to im m ediately evic t Mr. Lee if he did no t pay them the

rent dem anded. Mr. Lee m aintained that he suffered “ sub stantial em o tio nal distress and anguish” when f a ce d w ith this unreaso nab le and unlawful dem and fro m the b o ard m emb ers. M r. L ee’s a llegatio ns in the third c ause o f

ac tio n fo r intentio nal inflic tio n o f em o tio nal distress were sim ilar. In his prayer fo r relief, Mr. Lee s o ught a d ec laratio n o f vario us fac ts which wo uld essentially render the fo re cl os ur e o f the lo t s invalid and m ake Indian Village the o wner o f the lo ts and Mr. L ee’s l a n d l or d. He also so ught

c o m p ensato ry and punitive dam ages. B. Gold Strike 2007’sBankruptcy A fter Go ld S t r i k e 2007 filed its chapter 7 petitio n, Trustee rem o ved Mr. Lee’s state c o urt a c tio n to the b ankruptcy c o urt. Trustee filed a m o tio n fo r judgm ent o n the pleadings, asserting that Mr. Lee did no t have standing to
challenge the no n-judic ial fo rec lo sure s a l e b e ca u s e he was a t enant and had

no o wnership interest in the Pro perty. Trustee further argued that Mr. Lee had

no b asis fo r any c laim a gainst the b ankruptcy estate (as the suc c esso r to Go ld Strike 2007 against who msuch c laim s wo uld b e asserted). Mr. Lee respo nded, asserting that Trustee m isstated the sub stanc e o f his

c laim s. Mr. Lee c o ntend e d th a t th e “gist” o f his c o m p laint was fo r the c o urt to dec lare which party was c o rrec t as to s e v e r al “c o ntro versial landlo r d-tenant issues.” He a rgued that his ac tio n was b ase d on h i s c laim s that Go ld Strike 2002 and Go ld Strike 2007 were separate and distinc t entities. A c c o rdingly, the

7no n-judici a l f o rec lo sure which was initiated and c o nc luded b y Go ld Strike

2002, a suspended C a lifo rnia c o rpo ratio n, was unlawful. Go ld S t r ike 2002 also h a d n o autho rity to transfer its interest in Mr. Lee’s P ro perty to Go ld Strike 2007. Mr. Lee c o nc luded that Go ld Strike 2007 was no t the true o wner o f the pro perty and thus had no right to e v i ct h i m. H e argued that any r ents he

o wed sho uld b e paid to the c redito r having a deed o f t rust against the Pro perty. Finally, Mr. Lee stated that if n e c essary, he c o uld am end the

c o m p laint to estab lish standing. O n M ay 26, 2016, the b ankruptcy c o u rt enter e d ju d gm ent in favo r o f Trustee o n all c laim s in th e comp l a i nt and against M r. Lee. In granting the relief, the b ankruptcy c o urt fo und that Mr. Lee lac ked st anding b ec ause he f a i l e d to allege suffic ient fac ts to sho w an injury in fac t o n any o f his c laims and was attem pting to litigate the rights o f third parties no t b efo re the c o urt. The b ankrup t cy c o urt expressly o rdered that Mr. Lee c o u ld elec t to file a stipulatio n o r ex parte m o t io n (if a stipulatio n c o uld no t b e r eached) to dism iss this adversary pro c eeding. A dditio nally, the c o u rt affo rded Mr. Lee the

o ppo rtunity to file a m o tio n fo r leave to file an am ended c o m plaint. Mr. Lee failed to file either a stipulatio n o r an ex p arte m o t io n t o dism iss, o r a m o tio n fo r leave to file an am ended c o m plaint. Trustee filed a tim ely m o tio n fo r atto rneys’ fees and c os t s under C ivil Rule 54, as inc o rpo rated b y Rule 7054. The m o tio n was b a s e d on C al. C iv. Cod e § 5 9 75 which autho r izes fees to the prevailing party in an ac tio n to

8enfo rc e the go verning do cum ents o f an HO A

. Trustee alleged that Mr. Lee’s

a ctio n was to enfo r c e the Go verning Do cum ents a s s ho wn b y vario u s allegatio ns in the c o m plaint and the prayer fo r r e l i e f

. Trustee argued that Mr. Lee p u t at issue whether Go ld S t r ike 2007 was the o wner o f the pro perty and whether the fo rec lo sure s a l e had b een pro p erly c o nduc ted. Trustee requested $11,236 in atto rneys’ fees as the prevailing party. Mr. L ee o ppo sed, c o ntending that the b ankruptcy c o urt had fo und that he lac ked s t anding to set aside a no n-judic ial fo rec lo sure b ec ause he had no interest in the Pro perty. Mr. Lee argued that lac k o f standin g w a s th e so le gro und fo r the d ism issal o f the dec larato ry relief c ause o f ac tio n and there was
no m entio n o f any attem pt b y him to enfo r c e G o verning D o cum ents o f any HO A

. In a Mem o randum O pinio n A nd Dec isio n issued after the heari n g o n the m atter, the b ankruptcy c o urt fo und that b ased o n num ero us a llegatio ns in M r . Lee’s c o m plaint, he asserted a c laim to “enfo rc e the Go verning Do cum ents” and thus C al. C iv. C o de § 59 75 applied. The c o u rt fo und Trustee’s request fo r fees in the a m o u nt o f $ 11,326 reaso nab le and g r a n ted Trustee’s m o tio n. Mr. L ee filed a tim ely appe a l fro m the b ankruptcy c o urt’s o rder granting Trustee’s m o tio n fo r j udgm ent o n the pleadings and fro m the o rder awarding Trustee prevailing party fees under C al. C iv. C o d e § 5975.

9JU RISD ICT ION

The b ankruptcy c o urt had jurisdic t io n pursuant to 28 U .S.C

. §§ 1 334 and 157(b )(2)(A ) and (O ). W e have jurisdic tio n under 28 U .S.C . § 158. ISSU E S Whether the b ankruptcy c o urt erred in granting Trustee’s m o tio n fo r judgm ent o n the pleadings; and Whether the b ankruptcy c o urt erred in granting Trustee’s m otio n fo r atto rneys’ fees under C al. C iv. C o de § 5975. ST A ND A RD S OF RE V IE W W e r eview de no vo whether the b ankruptcy c o urt erred when it granted Trustee judgm ent o n the pleadings

. L y o n v. Cha se Ba nk U S A, N .A. , 656 F.3d 877, 883 (9th C ir. 2011). W e review the fac tual det e r m in a ti o n s un d e r l y ing an award o f atto rneys’ fees fo r c lear erro r, and the legal p rem ises a b ankruptcy c ou r t u s e s t o determ ine an award de no vo . Ferla nd v. Co nra d C redit Co rp., 244 F

. 3d 1145, 1147-1148 (9th C ir. 2 001). The b ank r u p t cy c o u rt’s interpretatio n and applic atio n o f a s t a t e statute go verning the award o f atto rneys’ fees is also reviewed de no vo . K

o na Enters. v. Esta te o

f Bishop , 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th C ir. 2000). If we c o nc lude that th e b a nkruptcy c o urt applied the pro per legal princ iples and did no t c learly err in any fac tu al determ inatio n, then we review the award o f atto rneys’ fees fo r an ab use of d isc retio n. Fe rla nd, 244 F.3d at

101147-1148. A b ankruptcy c o urt ab uses its disc retio n if it applies an inc o rr e c t

legal s tandard o r m isapplies the c o rrec t legal standard, o r if its fac tual findings are illo gic a l, im plausib le o r u nsuppo rted b y evidenc e in the rec o rd. Tra fficscho o l.co m, Inc. v. Edriver Inc. , 653 F.3d 820, 832 (9th Cir. 2011). D ISCU SSION A . T he bankruptcy c ourt did not e rr i n gr anting T rus tee’s m otion for judg m ent on the pleading s . 1. L eg al Standard: Civ il Rule 1 2(c ) M otion For Judgm ent On T he Pleading s Ru le 7012, which inc o rpo rates C ivil Rule 1 2(c ), pro vides: “A fter the pleadings are c lo sed— b ut early eno ugh no t to delay trial— a p arty m ay m o ve f or j u d g ment o n the pleadings.” The standard go verning a C ivil Rule 12( c)

m o tio n fo r judgm ent o n the p l e a d ings is func tio nally identic al to that go verning a Rule 12(b )(6) m o tio n. United S ta tes ex rel. Ca ffa so v . Gen. Dyna m ics C 4 S ys., Inc. , 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n. 4 (9th C ir. 201 1 ) ; Dw or ki n v. Hustler Maga z i ne, Inc. , 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th C ir. 1989). Fo r a c o m plaint to withstand

a C ivil Rule 12(c ) m o t io n fo r judgm ent o n the pleadings, it must c o ntain m o re detail than “b are asser t i on s ” that a re “no thing m o re than a fo rmulaic

rec itatio n o f the elem ents” required fo r th e cl ai m. Ashcro ft v . Iqba l, 556 U .S. 662, 681 (2009). C o u rts must draw upo n their “ experienc e and c o m m o n sense” when evaluating the spec ific c o ntext o f the c o m p laint to determ ine whether it c o ntains the nec essary detail tostate a plausib le c laimfo r relief. Id. at 679.

11When evaluating a C ivil Rule 1 2 ( c) mo tio n, the c o urt must c o nstrue

fac tual a llegatio ns in a c o m p laint in the light m o st favo rab le to the no nm o ving party. F lem i ng v. Picka rd, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th C ir. 2009). “‘A judgm ent o n the pleadings is pro perly granted when, taking all the allegatio ns in the pleadings

as true, [a] party is entit l e d t o judgm ent as a m atter o f law.’” Lyo n , 656 F.3d at 883; H a l R o a ch S tudio s, Inc. v. R i cha r d Fe i n er & Co . , Inc. , 896 F.2d 1 542, 1550 (9th C ir. 1989). A ltho ugh C ivil Ru le 12(c ) d o es no t m entio n leave to am end, c o urts have the disc r etio n in a p pro p r iate c ases to grant a C ivil Ru le 12( c) m o tio n with leave to am end, o r t o s im ply grant dism issal o f the ac t io n instead o f entry o f judgm ent
. Cag l e v. C & S W ho lesa le Gro cers Inc. , 505 B.R

. 5 3 4, 538 (E.D. C al. 2014). 2. Cons titutional and Prudential Standing To invo ke the jurisdic tio n o f the federal c o urts, a plaintiff must estab lish “the irreduc ib le c o nstitution a l mi nim um o f standing,” c o nsisting o f three elem ents: injury in fac t, c a usatio n, and a likeliho o d that a favo rab le dec isio n
w i l l r edress the p laintiff's a lleged injury. Lo p ez v. Ca nda ele, 6 30 F.3d 775, 7 8 5 (9th C ir. 2010) (c iting Luja n v. D efenders o f W i ldlife , 5 04 U .S. 555, 560–61 (1992)). The injury in fac t eleme n t i s met if it is sho wn that there has b een “‘an i n v a s i o n o f a legally pro tec ted interest which is (a) c o nc rete an d particu larized, and (b ) ac tual o r im m inent, no t c o njec tural o rhypo thetic al.’” Id. The c ausatio n elem ent requires a sho wing o f “a c ausal c o nnec tio n b etween

12the injury and the c o nduc t c o m plained o f,” m eaning that “the injury has to b e

fairly trac e[ab le] to the challenged ac t io n o f the defendant, and no t th[e] result [o f] the independen t a ct i on o f so m e third party no t b efo re the c o urt.” Id. Under the third elem ent, “ it must b e likely, as o ppo sed to m erely speculative, that the injury will b e redressed b y a favo rab le dec isio n.” Id. In additio n to satisfying c o nstitutio nal standing, a pl a intiff must also sat i s fy p rudential standing princ iples. Prudential standing requires that “ a plaintiff

. . . assert its o wn lega l r i g h t s a n d

. . . no t assert the legal rights o f

o thers.” V

e al v . A m. Hom e Mo rtg. S ervicing, Inc. (In re V ea l) , 450 B.R

. 897, 907 (9th C ir. BA P 2011). 3. A nalys is M r. Le e ’s Firs t C aus e Of Ac t ion For D e c lara t ory Re lie f : Dec larato ry relief is an equitab le rem edy distinc tive in that it allo ws adjudic a tio n o f rights and ob ligatio ns o n disputes regardless o f whether c laim s fo r dam ages o r injunc tio n have arisen. S ee 2 8 U .S .C

. § 2201. The c o urt “m ay dec lare the rights and o ther le g a l r e l a t io ns o f any interested party seeking such a dec laratio n, whether o r no t further relief is o rc o uld b e so ught.” Id. Mr. Lee’s dec larato ry r elief c ause o f ac tio n asked the b ankruptcy c o urt to dec lare who the r ightful o wner o f his Pro perty w as as b etween Go ld Strike 2002, Go ld S trike 2007, and Indi a n Vi l l a g e . He alleged that: (1) Go ld Strike 2002 and Go ld Strike 2007 were separate and d i s t i n ct entities; (2) the no njudic ial fo rec lo sure was initia t e d a nd c o nc luded b y Go ld Strike 2002, a

13suspended c o rpo ratio n, which c o u ld no t lawfully fo rec lo se o n Indian Village;

a n d (3) Go ld Strike 2002 c o uld no t lawfully transfer its interest in Mr. Lee’ s Pro perty to Go ld Strike 2007. In his prayer fo r relief, M r. L ee so u g h t a dec laratio n that Go ld Strike 2002/2007 c o uld no t exerc ise its c o rpo rate rights and po wers and thus was b arred fro m first initiating and then c o nc luding the

no n-judic ial fo rec lo sure. A s th e b ankruptcy c o urt fo und, these allegatio ns c o nstituted a challenge to the validity o f the no n-judic ial fo rec lo sure sale. A s a result o f the alleged

wro ngful fo r ec lo sure, Mr. Lee so ught to have the b ankruptcy c o urt dec lare the rights o f parti e s n ot b efo re the c o urt, i.e., Indian Village. N o where in this

c ause o f a c tio n do es Mr. Lee alle g e a n i n j u ry in fac t that c o nstitutes an invasio n o f a legal l y p r ot e c ted interest as t o him

. Under C alifo rnia law, the general rule is that o nly parties with an interest i n a lo an secured b y real pro perty o r in the u nderlying pro perty m ay attem pt to set aside a no n-judic ial fo rec lo sure. Ba nk o

f Am

. Lea sing Capita l LLC v. 3 Ar c h Tr

. Se rvs. Inc. , 180 C al.A pp. 4th 1 090, 1103 (2009). A s a tenant, M r. Lee do es no t have an interest in the lo an o r in the underlying Pro perty. A c c o rdingly, he do es no t have standing to questio n the validity o f the no n-judic ial fo rec lo sure. Further, a ltho ugh Mr. Lee asserted in his respo nse to Trustee’s m o tio n that he had an o ptio n fro m a thi r d party to purchase the Pro perty fro m that party, that also is no t suffic ient to give him standing. A c o ntrac t c o nferring an
o ptio n to purchase is an irrevo c ab le and c o ntinuing o ffer to sell, and c o nveys

14no interest in land to the o ptio nee, b ut vests in him o nly a right in perso nam

to b uy at his elec tio n. W a rner Bro s . P ictures v. B ro del, 31 C al.2d 755, 772 (1948). Finally, ab sent an interest in the Pro perty, Mr. Lee do es no t have standing to ask the c o urt to quiet title in the Pro p erty. Ch a o F u, Inc. v. Chen , 206 C al.A pp. 4th 48, 58-59 (2012). In the end, Mr. L ee c anno t sho w that he was perso nally injured. Instead, he was asserting the rights and c laim s o f Indian V illage which was no t a party to the litigatio n. The general pro hib itio n against a llo wing litigants to enfo rc e rights o f thi r d p arties exists fo r two reaso ns: First, c o u rts sho uld shy away fro m adjudic ating rights unnec essarily, spec ific ally b ec a use the purpo rted ho lders o f tho se rights m ay cho o se no t to enfo rc e them “ or w ill b e ab le to enjo y them regardless o f whether the in-c o urt litigant is suc c essful or n o t.” S ingleto n v. W

ulff , 428 U .S. 106, 113–14 (1976). Sec o nd, perm itting p arties to assert the rights of third parties will frustrate the c o urt’s effo rts t o pro perly determ ine issues as “c o urts depend o n effec t ive a dvo c a cy” and “third parties them s elves usually [are] the b est pro p o nents o f their o wn rights.” Id. There

was thus go o d reaso n fo r the b ankruptcy c o urt to c o nc lude th a t M r . Lee lac ked standing o n this c ause o f ac tio n. M r. Le e ’s Se c ond C aus e OfAc tion for N e glige nt Inflic t

ion of Emotional D is tre s s : Under C alifo rnia law, negligent inflic tio n o f em o tio nal d istress is a fo rm o f the to rt o f negligenc e, to which the elem ents o f d uty, b reach o f duty,

c ausatio n, and dam ages apply. Huggins v . L on g s Dr u g S to res Ca l., Inc. , 6 C al.

154th 124, 129 (1993)

. A right to rec o ver fo r em o t i on al d istress as a “direc t

vic tim ” arises fro m the b reach o f a duty that is assum ed b y the defendant o r im po sed o n the d efendant as a m atter o f law, or th at arises o u t o f the defendant’s preexisting relatio nship w ith the plaintiff. Burgess v. S uper. C t. , 2 C al. 4th 1065, 10 7 2 (1991). W ith rare exc eptio ns, a b r each o f the duty must threaten physic al injury, no t sim ply dam age to pro perty o r financ ial interests. Po tter v. F iresto ne Tire & R ubber Co . , 6 C a l.4th 965, 985 (1992). The “ser i ou s em o tio nal distress” required fo r negligent inflic tio n o f

em o tio nal distress is func tio nally the sam e as the “severe em o tio nal distress” required fo r intentio nal inflic tio n o f em o tio nal distress. W o ng v. Ta i Jing, 189 C al.A pp. 4th 1 3 54, 1378 (2010). The C alifo rnia Suprem e C o urt has set a “high b a r ” fo r what c an c o nstitute severe em o tio nal distress. Hughes v. Pa ir , 4 6 C al.4th 1035, 1051 (2009). Severe em o t io nal distress m eans em o tio nal distress

o f such sub stantial o r enduring quality that no reaso nab le perso n in c ivilized

so c iety sho u ld b e expec ted to endure it. W o ng, 189 C a l.A p p.4th at 1376. The allegatio ns in Mr. Lee’s c o m p l a int under this c ause o f ac tio n are
no thing m o re than b are assertio ns and legal c o nc lusio ns wi th out fac tual allegatio ns t o suppo rt them

. Mr. Lee has no t pled that any defendant in this

ac tio n o wes him a d uty o f any kind. In his o ppo sitio n filings, M r. Lee pro vides

no further a rgum ent regardi n g a n y p urpo rted duty o w ed to him b y the defendants. Even if there were such a duty, which he did no t allege, Mr. Lee’s

c o m p laint c o nta i n e d no allegatio ns that he was at risk o f physic al harm

.
16Where there is no ac c o m panying perso nal, physic al injury, the plaintiff must

sho w that the em o tio nal distress was “serio us.” Won g, 189 C al.A pp.4th at 1376. Mr. L ee do es no t allege any fac ts that s ho w the type o f severe em o tio nal distre s s r e q

uired fo r negligent inflic tio n o f em o tio nal distress, instead m aking the b are allegatio n that he has suffered “sub stantial em o tio nal d i s t ress and anguish .” T his c o nc luso ry statem ent is insuffic ient to raise a right to relief ab o ve the spec u lative level. Mr. Lee a ttached c o rrespo ndenc e b etween Mr. C o o per and him self to his c o m plaint. But no ne o f this c o rre s p on denc e dem o nstrates em o tio nal turm o il o r the so rt o f o utrageo us c o nduc t nec essary fo r this kind o f c laim

. In the end, M r . L e e failed to estab lish the nec essary injury in fac t fo r standing. Even if Mr. Lee had estab lished the requi r e ments fo r standing,

c o nstruing the c o m plaint in a m anner m o st favo r ab le t o M r . L ee, his b are assertio ns do no t state a c ause o f ac tio n fo r n e g l i g ent inflic tio n o f em o tio nal distres s . A c c o r d in g l y, th e b ank ru p t cy c o u r t p r o p erly granted Trustee’s m o tio n fo r judgm ent o n the pleadings o n this c a use o f ac tio n. M r. Le e ’s Third C aus e Of

Ac tion For Inte ntional Inflic tion of Emotional D is tre ss : Under C alifo rnia law, the elem ents o f the to rt o f intentio nal inflic tio n o f em o tio nal distress a re: (1) extrem e and o utrageo us c o nduc t b y the defendant w i th th e intentio n o f c ausing, o r rec kless disregard o f the prob ab ility o f c ausing, em o tio nal distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe
o r extrem e em o t io nal distress; and (3) actual and pro xim ate c ausatio n o f the

17em o tio nal distress b y the d e f e ndant’s o utrageo us c o nduc t. Christensen v.

S uper. C t. , 54 C a l. 3d 868, 903 (1991). The b ankruptcy c o u rt p ro perly no ted that Mr. Lee’s c ause o f ac tio n fo r intentio nal inflic tio n o f m en t a l distress suffers fro m the sam e defec t as his

c laim fo r negligent inflic t io n o f em o tio nal d istress. He did no t plead any fac ts that m ay c o nstitute “severe em o tio nal distress.” Mo reo ver, neither Mr. Lee’s

c o r respo ndenc e with M r. C o o per no r his respo nse to Trustee’s m o tio n sho w any fac t s which dem o nstrate c o nduc t s o extrem e as to ex ce e d all b o unds o f that usually to lerated in a c ivilized c o m munity. Bo th s evere o r e x trem e em o t io n distress and o utrageo us c o nduc t are elem ents required fo r an intentio na l i n flic tio n o f em o tio nal distress c laim

. Bo th tho se elem ents are no t m et here. Le ave to Ame nd : A ltho ugh C ivil Rule 12(c ) do es no t m entio n leave to

am end, c o urts have the disc retio n in appro priate c ases to grant a C ivil Rule 12(c ) m o tio n with leave to a m end. Here, the b ankruptcy c o urt gave Mr. Lee

am ple tim e and o p p o rtunity to dism iss his c o m plaint witho ut prejudic e o r to file a m o tio n fo r leave to am end his c o m plaint prio r to entry o f j u dgm ent fo r Truste e. He did neither. A c c o rdingly, the b ankruptcy c o urt did no t err in entering judgm ent in favo r o f Trustee.

18B

. Th e ba nk r u pt cy co u r t d i d not err by awarding T rus tee attorneys ’

feesunder Cal. Civ . Code § 5975.
C al. C iv. C o de § 5975(c ) pro vides: In an ac tio n to e n f o rc e the go verning do cum ents, the prevailing party shall b e awarded reasonab le atto rneys’ fees and c o sts.

C al. C iv. C o de § 4150 defines what is a governing do cum ent: Go verning do cu me n t s m eans the dec laratio n and any o ther do cum ents, such as b ylaws, o p er a t i n g rules, artic les o f inc o rpo ration, o r artic les o f asso c iatio n, which go vern the o peratio n o f the c o m m o n interest develo pm ent o r asso c iatio n. Whether a tto rne y s ' f e es m ay b e allo wed under the s tatute is no t dependent o n a determ inatio n o f th e di s pute c o nc erning the go verning do cum ents b ut that it was put at issue in the ac tio n. Fo r the atto rneys’ fees pro visio n o f C al. C iv. C o de § 5975 to a pply, the c o urt mu s t f i n d that a plaintiff’s c o m p laint asserts a c laim to “enfo r c e the go verning do cum ents.” A “c laim b ased o n a right o r re me d y u n der the go verning do cum ents,” is an
ac tio n to enfo rc e the go verning do cu m ents. S a la wy v. O cea n To wers H o us. Co rp. , 121 C a l.A p p .4th 664, 670 (2004). To determ ine whether an ac tio n is “an ac tio n to enfo rc e the go verning do cum ents,” c o urts lo o k t o the gravam en o f the c o m p laint. S a lehi v. S urfside III Co ndo

. O wners’ Ass’n , 200 C al.A pp.4th 1146, 1151 (2011); s ee a lso R a ncho M ira ge Co untry C lub H

o m eo wners Ass’n v. H

az elba ker , 2 C al.A p p.5th 252,

19259–260 (2016) (in determ in i n g w h e ther an ac tio n is o ne “‘to enfo rc e the

go verning do cum ents’ in the m eaning o f sec tio n 5 975,” c o urts sho uld fo cus
o n the “gravam en” o f the c o m plaint, the “nature o f the d ispute b etween the parties,” and “the nature o f the relief so ught”); S a la wy, 121 C al.A pp.4th at 671 (an ac tio n is o ne to enfo rc e the go verning do cum ents if “the essenc e o f the

c laim falls within the enfo r c em ent o f the go verning do cum ents ”). The c o urt is therefo re required to do m o re than review the allegatio ns o f the o perative pleading to see if it referenc es duties under the CC & R’ s. R ather, it must
asc ertain the o verall gist o r “essenc e” o f the ac tio n. Fa rber , 141 C al.A pp.4th at 1012. The questio n b efo re us is h ow t o apply the statuto ry language in C al. C iv. C o de § 5975 t o a g iven fac tual and pro c edural c o ntext. Initially, we review the general allegatio ns in Mr. Lee’s c o m plaint which were inc o r po r ated in each c ause o f ac tio n. These general allegatio ns, as relevant to Plainti f f ' s c o ntentio n that the b ankruptcy estate's a sserted interests in the Pro perty are defec tive, inc lude the fo llo wing: A

. (36) “ Under C alifo rn i a l aw, an HOA c an only c ollec t as s es s m ents from its m em bers hip and thus c om p e l t heir paym ent if c ertain ac ts are undertaken , the m o st c ritic al o ne b eing that the b o ard o f direc to r s mu st m eet a n d set the annual dues each year. If it fails to m eet each year and set a new rate, the existing dues rate c o ntinues until changed.” C o m plaint ¶ 36.
B. (37) “The 2002 H OA, the ‘Gold S trike H e i gh t s A s s oc iation’, nev er s et any rate for annual dues
. T he 2007 H OA, t h e ‘ G o ld
20Strike Heig hts Hom eowners A s s oc iation’, has nev er s et any rate

for annual d u e s and lac ks the rig ht to do s o. T he g ov erning doc um ents filed b y F rank M eag er in 2002 did no t set a rate fo r dues and no b o ard o f direc to rs has ever do ne so .” C o m plaint ¶ 3 7.
C

. ( 3 9) “It appears that the non-judic ial forec los u r e is bas ed entirely upon a failure of Indian V illag e to pay mo n t h ly as s es s m ents o n 3 1 l o ts b ased upo n a m o nthly rate o f $84.00. Ho wever, such a rate was never set b y the 2002 HO A no r the 2007 HO A

. In fac t, no rate of any kind has ev er been s et b y either HOA

. ” C o m plaint ¶ 39.
D. (40) “T he 2002 HOA, the ‘Gold Strike H e i gh ts A s s oc iation’, m ay hav e the rig ht under the 2002 g ov erning doc um e nts rec orded w i t h t h e County of C alav e r as to s et a m onthly or annual rate for as s e s s m ents b ut it nev er has
. T he 2007 HOA, the ‘Gold Strike Heig hts A s s oc iation’, d oes not h av e the rig ht to s et s uc h a n a s s es s m ent and has neve r t r i e d to do so .” C o m plaint ¶ 40.
E. (44) “Ho wever, b ec ause the 2 0 07 HOA lac ked a ny rig ht to c ollec t s uc h as s es s m ents , the fo r e cl os u r e pro c ess was b egun in 2013 under the nam e o f Defen d ant GO LD STRIK E 2002 which m ay have had such rights a t on e t i m e b ut c o uld no t legally exerc ise themas a suspended c o r po ratio n.” C o m p laint ¶ 44.
F. (50) “A ll no tic es and do cum ents rec o rded with the C alaveras C o unty Rec o r der in th e y ears 2013 and 2014 and served u po n Indian Village in r eg ard this as s es s m ent d i s pute and the s ubs equent illeg a l forec los ure ac tion c learly i n d i cated that the fo rec lo s ing entity was the ‘Go ld Strike Heights A sso c iatio n’ (Defendant GO L D STRIK E 2002) fo rm ed in 2 002. It was o nly when th e illegal fo rec lo sure was finally c o m pleted in early 2015
21with rec o r ding o f a trustee's deed that o wnershi p of 145 Jasper

W ay w as illegally transfer r e d into the 2007 c o rpo rate entity, the ‘Go ld Strike Heights Ho m eo wners A sso c iatio n’.” C o m plaint ¶ 5 0.
G. (51) “A t all tim es when this fo rec lo sure was c arried o ut, the senio r deeds o f trust in existenc e o n each o f 31 lo t s, far exc eeded the valu e o f each lo t b y large m a rgins. T hus , there w as no v alid reas on to take the forec los ure ac tion initiated by the D efendant GOL D S T RIK E 2007 exc e pt t o s trip Indian V illag e of its property and v oti n g r i ghts and thus p av e the way for the D efendant to di sso l v e the HOA and thus attem p t to avo id all liab ility fo rtheir years o f m isc o nduc t.” C o m p laint ¶ 51.
H

. (59) “On O c tob er 31, 2014, Plaintiff LEE s ent a lette r t o M i k e C o o per in which LEE challenged the c laim that the new o wner o f the pro perty lo c ated at 145 Jaspe r W ay was the ‘Go ld Strike Heights Ho m eo wners A sso c iatio n’ (Defendant GO L D STRIK E 2007). L E E told Cooper that the ‘Gold S t r i k e Heig hts A s s oc iation’ and the ‘ Gold Strike Heigh t s Hom e owners A s s oc iation’ were no t the s am e entity and in fac t were dis tinc t and s e parate c orporate entities and thus not interc hang eable a s was c o ntended b y M ike C o o per. A ttached as E xhib it ‘O ’ to this c o m plaint is a t ru e and c o rrec t c o py o f this letter.” C o m plaint ¶ 59.
I. (73) “When ‘Go ld Strike Heights Ho m eo wners A sso c iatio n’ ( D e fendant GO LD S TRIK E 2007) c o ntrac ted with ‘C o m muni t y A ssessm ent Rec o very S ervic es' to start the non - judic ial forec los ure proc es s ag ains t India n Villag e on the bas is that Indian V illag e owed thous and of dollars in d e l i n quent as s es s m ents , there was n o p o s s ibility whats oev er of c ollec ting any m oney f r o m s uc h a forec los u re proc e eding as the s enior liens on eac h of the p roperti e s f a r exc e ed the m arket v alue of
22any of the 31 lots
. ” C o m plaint ¶ 73.

J. (74) “Thus, the non-judic ial forec los ure a c tion orc hes trated by ‘Gold S trike Heig hts Hom eowners A s s oc iation’ (D efendant GOL D S T R IK E 2007) w as for purpos es other than c ollec ting any delinquent dues
. ” C o m plaint ¶ 74.
K

. (75) “ A s this no n-judic ial fo rec lo sure a pplied to Indian Village Estates, the ac tual purpos e was to take way owners hip of all the land owned by I ndian V illag e E s t a t e s and thus take away any oppos ition b y I n d ian V illag e to plans to dis s olv e Defendant GO LD STRIK E 2007.” C o m plaint ¶ 75.
L. (86) “ D efendants GOL D ST RIK E 2002 a nd GO LD S T RIK E 2007 nev er had the leg al authority to forec los e, i.e., the authority to exerc is e the power of s ale under C alifornia law to c ollec t the alleg ed d elinquent as s es s m e nts , r esulting in the no n-jud ic ial fo rec lo s ure sale b eing vo id ab initio

. ” C o m plaint ¶ 86.
M. (88) “ None of the D ef endants were ev er a benefic iary or as s ig nee of a n y benefic iary of a ny delinqu e n t a s s e s s m e nts rec o rded against the s ubjec t p ro perty. A c c o rdingly, they wro ngfully c a used the rec o rding o r the N o tic e o f Default, N o tic e o f Trustee's Sale , a n d a n y Trustee's Deed U p o n S a le against the subjec t pro perty.” C o m plaint ¶ 88.
N

. (99) “De fendants GOL D ST RIK E 2002 and GOL D ST RIK E 2007 nev er had the leg al authority to fo rec lo se, i.e., the autho rity to exerc ise the po w er o f sale under C alifo rnia law to co l lec t the alleg ed d elinquent as s es s m e nts , resulting in the no n-judic ial fo rec lo s ure sale b eing vo id ab initio

. ” C o m plaint ¶ 99.
O

. (101) “ None of the D efendants were ev er a benef i ciary o r
23assignee o f any b enefic iary o f any delinquent as s e s s m e nts

rec o rded against the s ubjec t p ro perty. A c c o rdingly, they wro ngfully c aused the rec o rding o f the N o tic e o f Default, N o tic e o f Trustee's Sale , a n d a n y Trustee's Deed U p o n S a le against the subjec t pro perty.” C o m plaint ¶ 101. P. Prayer fo r Relief Paragraph 1: “ Fo r a dec laratio n that the 2002 and the 2 007 Go ld Strike cor p or a t io n are no w and hav e always been s eparate and dis tinc tiv e corporate entities and that have no t b een m erged either b y o ffic ial ac tio n o r b y o peratio n o f law,. . . .” The b ankruptcy c o urt c o rrec tly fo und that these allegatio ns put at issue the rights arising fro m the Go verning Do cu m ents: (1) Go ld Strike 2007 c o uld

no t m ake assessm ents (which are rights arising under th e G ov e rning D ocu me n ts); (2) N o assessm ents were ever set b y either Go ld Strike 2002 or Go ld Strike 2007 (which are issues arising under the Go verning Do cum ents); (3) Go ld Strike 2007 do es n ot have the right to set assessm ents (which are rights a r i s i ng under the Go verning Do cum ents); (4) The no n-judic ial f or e cl o sure is b ased o n assessm ents that were no t s et b y Go ld Strike 2002 o r Go ld Strike 2007 (which are r ights arising u nder the Go verning Do cum ents); (5) The no tic es and do cum ents relate to d isputed assessm ents and sub sequent illegal fo rec lo sure b ased o n s u ch d isputed a ssessm ents (which a re rights arising under the Go verning Do cum ents); (6 ) There was no valid r easo n fo r Go ld Strike 2007 to c o nduc t the no n-judic ial f or e cl osure ac tio ns (which are rights relating to the assessm ents which a re asse r ted b y Plaintiff no t to b e

24pro per under the Go verning Do cum ents); (7) Th e no n-judic ial fo rec lo sure

ac tio ns were taken to disso lve the ho m eo wners asso c iatio n (which relates to the r ights and po wers o f the ho m eo wners a sso c iatio n and relatio nship to the

m emb er arising under the Go verning Do cu m ent s ) ; (8) Go ld Strike 2002 and Go ld Strike 2 0 07 were separate entities (and Go ld Strike 2007 is no t perm itted to exerc ise the po wers under the Go verning Do cum ents); (9) The no n-judic ial f or ec lo sure sale was b ased o n asserted unpaid assessm ents (which Plaintiff asserts were no t p ro p erly m ade under the Go verning Do cum ents); ( 1 0) The

no n-judic ial fo rec lo sure sales were co nduc ted b y Go ld Strike 2007 fo r purpo ses o f then c o llec ting delinquent dues (which are rights and po wers arising under the Go verning Do cum en ts); (11) The purpo se o f the no n-judic ial fo rec lo sure w as to t a k e ow nership o f the land away fro m Indian Village , to
rem o ve o ppo sitio n (to the c o nduc t o f Go ld Strike 2 007 m anagem ent under the Go verning Do cum ents), and disso lve the ho m eo wners asso c iation ; (12) The

ac tio n o f Go ld Strike 2007 was no t fo r the purpo ses o f c o llec ting delinquent

assessm ents (which a re rights and p ow e r s arising under the Go verning Do cum ents); (13) Go ld Strike 2002 and Go ld Strike 2007 never had th e l e g a l autho r ity to fo rec lo se (which are rights and po wers arising u nder the Go verning Do cum ents); (14) Go ld Strike 2002 and Go ld Strike 2007 were no t b enefic iaries o f any delinquent assessm ent (which are rights arising under the Go verning Do cu m ents); (15) Go ld S t rike 2002 and Go ld Str i k e 2007 did no t h ave autho rity under C a lifo rnia law to c o llec t the alleged d elinquent

25assessm ents (which a re rights a n d p o wers arising under the Go verning

Do cume n t s); and (16) Plaintiff requests that the c o urt determ ine that Go ld Strike 2002 and Go l d Strike 2007 were and a re separate legal entities (and thereb y Go ld Strike 2007 c anno t e x e r ci s e and enfo rc e the rights and po wers under the Go verning Do cum ents). The b ankruptcy c o u r t’s findings suppo rt the c o nc lusio n that Mr. Lee’s

c o m p laint was an ac tio n to enfo rc e the Go verning Do cum ents. C o ntrary to Mr. Lee’s c o ntentio ns o n appeal, th e essenc e o f the allegatio ns in the

c o m p laint is that Go ld Strike 2002 and 2 007 partic ipated in the fo rec lo sure pro c ess in vio latio n o f the Go verning Do cu m ents and that their enfo rc em ent
o f the fo rec lo sure pro visio ns o f the Go verning Do cum ents were otherwise invalid. M r . L e e a r g u e s th a t th e g ravam en o f his c o m plaint was to re s ol v e landlo rd/tenant issues. H e further asserts that he was no t seeking to enfo rc e the Go verning Do cum ents b ut m entio ned them o nly to pro vide a c o ntext fo r his c o nc erns o ver who w as the pro p er o wner o f his P rop e r t y . T he fac t that M r. L ee did no t expressly allege a vio latio n o f the Go verning Do cume n t s or
c laim that he w as seeking t o enfo rc e the Go verning Do cum ents in any o f his

c auses o f ac tio n do es no t change the nature o f the c laim asserted. Regardless

o f ho w he titled his c auses his a ct io n, the gravam en o r gist o f his c o m plaint

was to e n f or ce the Go verning Do cum ents with r espec t to the no n-judic ial fo rec lo sure. S ee R a ncho M ira ge Co untry C lub H

o m eo wners Assn. , 2 C al.A pp.5th

26at 259–260 (even tho ugh the c o m plaint “ was fram ed as an ac tio n to enfo rc e [a

settlem ent] a greem ent,” the “gravam en” o f the c o m plaint was to enfo rc e the Go verning Do cum ents b ec ause the plaintiff c laim ed the defendants di d no t take s teps to b r ing the p r o perty into c o m p lianc e with the C C & R s); see a lso C utujia n v. Benedict Hills Esta tes Assn. , 41 C al.A pp.4th 1 3 79, 1389 (1996) (fo r statute o f lim itatio ns purpo ses, even tho ugh the plaintiff lab eled his c ause o f

ac tio n “nuisanc e,” the asso c iatio n's vio latio n o f its duty to the plaintiff under the C C&R s “gave rise toliab ility fo r the nuisanc e”). Mr. Lee also c o ntends that Trustee is judicially esto pped fro marguing that the c o m plaint was an ac t io n to enfo rc e the Go verning Do cum ents b ec ause th e b ankruptcy c o urt entered j udgm ent fo r Trustee o n his m o tio n f or judgm ent o n the pleadings b ased o n Mr. Lee’s lac k o f standing. Fo r judic ial esto ppel to apply: Several fac to rs typic ally info rm the dec isio n whether to apply the do c trine in a p articular c ase: First, a party's later po sitio n must b e ‘c learly inc o n s i s tent’ with its earlier po sitio n. Sec o nd, c o urts regularly inquire whether the party has suc c eeded in persuading a c o urt to ac c ept that party's earlier po s itio n, so that ju di c ial ac c eptanc e o f an inc o nsistent po sitio n in a later pro c eeding wo uld c reate ‘the perc eptio n that either the first o r the sec o nd c o urt was m isled,’ Ab sent suc c ess in a p r i or pro c eeding, a party's later inc o nsistent p o s itio n intro du ce s no ‘risk o f inc o nsistent c o urt determ inatio ns, and thus po s es little threat to judic ial integrity. A third c o nsideratio n is whet h e r th e p arty seeking to assert an inc o nsistent po sitio n wo uld derive an unfair advantage o r im po se an unfair detrim ent o n the o ppo sing party if no t esto pped.

27N

ew H a m pshire v. M

a ine, 532 U .S. 742, 750-751 (2001) (citatio ns o m itted).

see a l so Po w er Agent, Inc. v. Electro nic D a ta S ys. Co rp., 358 F.3d 1187, 1192 (9th C i5r. 2004) (defining judic ial esto ppel as “[t]he princ ip l e th a t a litigant m ay
no t b enefit b y m aking direc tly c o ntradic to ry argum ents regar ding the sam e dispute in different trib unals.”). The do c t rine o f judic ial esto ppel is no t applic ab le under these

c ircu m stanc es. Trustee’s m o tio n fo r a judgm ent o n the pleadings under C ivil Rule 12(c ) b ased o n lac k o f standing is a distinc t d i s pute fro m o ne seeking atto rneys’ fees u nder C a l. C iv. C o de § 5975. Furtherm o re, even if an a c tio n is dism issed fo r lac k o f standing, C al. C iv. C o de § 5975 (c ) still a pplies such that the p revailing p arty is entitled to reaso nab le atto rneys’ fees. Fa rber v. Bay V iew Terra c e H

o m eo wners Ass’n , 141 C al. A pp. 4th 1 0 0 7, 1014 (2006) (“The

m andato ry atto rney's fees and c o sts award under sec tio n [5975], applies when

a plaintiff b rings an ac tio n to enfo rc e such go verning do cum ents, b ut i s
unsuc c essful b ec ause he o rshe do es no t have standing to do so .”) . Finally, Mr. Lee argues that the b ank ru p t cy c ou r t i mp r o p e r ly c on s i d ered f a ct or s o utside the c o m p laint that “ c o nvinc ed” the c o urt that he wa s attem p ting to attac k the fo r ec lo sure and enfo rc e the Go verning Do cum ents. Spec ific ally, the c o urt no ted Mr. Lee’s ac tive partic ipatio n in o ther aspec ts o f the b ankruptcy c ase. M r. Lee c o ntends that this w as err or b ec ause “the

c o m p laint at issue says what it says and this appeal c an b e pro perly dec ided within the fo ur c o rners o f the c o m plaint and the attached exhib its.”

28Mr. Lee’s a rgum ent is witho ut m erit. The b ankruptcy cou r t thro ughly

exam ined Mr. Lee’s comp l ai n t and lo o ked at the s ub stanc e o f the c laim s asserted and relief s ou g h t i n determ ining whether his ac tio n was o ne to enfo rc e the Go verning Do cum ents within the m eaning o f C al. C iv. C o de § 5975. U po n o ur o wn review, the detailed allegatio ns o f the c o m plaint sho w that Mr. Lee was s e e k i n g t o enfo r c e the Go verning Do cum ents in o rder to prove that neither Go ld Strike 2002 o r Go ld Strike 2007 had the a utho rity to fo rec lo se under tho se do cum ents. In any event, to th e e x tent that the c o urt relied o n M r . L e e ’ s extrac u rricular ac tivities fo r its d ec isio n, it was harm less

erro r that we igno re. V a n Z a ndt v. M bunda (In re M bunda ) , 484 B .R

. 344, 355 (9th C ir. BA P 2012), a

ff'd, 604 Fed.A ppx. 552 (9th C ir. 2015). Bec ause Mr. Lee m akes no argum ents regarding the reaso nab leness o f Trustee’s fees, tho se argum ent s a r e w a i ved. S m ith v. Ma rsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999). In sum, w e c o nc lude that the b ankruptcy cou r t pro p erly awarded Trustee prevailing party atto rneys’ fees under C al. C iv. C o d e § 5975. CONCL U SION Fo r the reaso ns discussed ab o ve, we A FFIRM b o th o r ders o n appeal.

29