Court Opinion

ID: 9919201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-17 18:02:48.981606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:10.370941
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/17/24 City of Banning v. A&M Partners CA4/3

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

              IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                     FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION THREE

 CITY OF BANNING,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,                                        G062728

                     v.                                                (Super. Ct. No. CVMV2106029)

 A&M PARTNERS LLC,                                                     OPINION

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Chad W.
Firetag, Judge. Appeal Dismissed.
                   Frank A. Weiser for Defendant and Appellant.
                   Silver & Wright, Curtis R. Wright and Rene L. Farjeat for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                             *               *               *
               A&M Partners LLC (A&M) appeals from an order appointing a receiver
pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.7, subdivision (c), which is part of a
statutory scheme providing certain remedies to address substandard residential housing
that is unsafe to occupy. We dismiss the appeal.
               The subject property is an abandoned, fire-damaged, and partially boarded
up hotel with 53 units located in the City of Banning (the City). The property is owned in
fee by Pacterra Ventures, LLC (Pacterra) which leases it to A&M. In November 2021,
the City filed a complaint against Pacterra and A&M for nuisance abatement and
receivership. A default was entered against Pacterra which is not a party to this appeal.
               The City brought an ex parte application for appointment of a receiver
pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.7, subdivision (c). The trial court
granted the application and appointed a receiver. A&M filed a notice of appeal from the
appointment of a receiver.
               A&M’s corporate status was suspended at the time the receivership order
was made and when A&M filed its notice of appeal. No certificate of revival appears in
the record. A corporation that fails to pay its taxes, fails to file a required return, or fails
to file the required statement of information may be suspended and its corporate powers
will be forfeited while under suspension. (Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 23301, 23301.5; Corp.
Code, §§ 2205, 5008.6; see Friends of Shingle Springs Interchange, Inc. v. County of El
Dorado (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1470, 1486.) A suspended corporation may not sue or
be sued and may not appeal an adverse judgment or order. (Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 23301,
23301.5; Corp. Code, §§ 2205, 5008; see Reed v. Norman (1957) 48 Cal.2d 338, 343;
Waltrip v. Kimberlin (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 517, 522, fn. 2; Leasequip, Inc. v Dapeer
(2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 394, 402-403 [failure to file statement of information].)

                                                2
             As a suspended corporation, A&M could not appeal from the order
appointing a receiver. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The City shall recover
costs on appeal.

                                               SANCHEZ, J.

WE CONCUR:

GOETHALS, ACTING P. J.

GOODING, J.

                                           3