In the 2008 Chang v. Rockridge Manor Condominium, 2008 WL 413741 (D.C. N. Dist. Cal. 2008) opinion, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California finds that members have released their claims against the Homeowners's association. Also, actions by the association's manager are not state action to which constitutional limits apply. 

            The plaintiffs in this case were a member of the Board of a Homeowners’ Association (Association) and her son. Plaintiffs claim that some Association members were embezzling funds. Because plaintiffs disapproved of such conduct, animosity arose between them and other members. After one of the managers instigated an incident with the son, plaintiffs sued the Association and the particular manager. Plaintiffs later added other individuals and entities as defendants.

            Plaintiffs claimed that the attorney who represented them in an initial suit was corrupt. They alleged that the attorney first promised to conduct all claims against all defendants in one trial. But within a week of the trial the attorney said all would be separate trials. Plaintiff also complained the lawyer said the trial against one of the individuals was a mistrial, when in fact it was a trial in favor for that individual. Had plaintiffs known they lost the trial, they allegedly would have filed a motion for a new trial. In addition, plaintiffs claimed other abuse and conspiracy against them by both owners and their counsel.

            In response, defendants filed motions for the judge to rule in their favor, claiming that plaintiff’s facts supported a judgment for defendants under the law. Also, some defendants stated that the complaint was too vague to reasonably allow for an answer. 

            The court noted that plaintiffs had signed a release under which they agreed not to bring any actions related to the incidents that plaintiffs were complaining about.  The court did not find enough evidence to show the plaintiffs were induced and defrauded into signing the release. Therefore, the court found the defendants were entitled to win under the law. In addition, except for the fraud claim, defendants could not bring all their other claims because the time within which they were allowed to do so had expired. The court further dismissed the claims for fraud and conspiracy because plaintiffs did not specify any facts supporting false representation, concealment, or basis for conspiracy, as required by law. 

            The court also rejected any claim by defendants of violations of civil rights. First, the court found that the constitutional amendments gave citizens protections from government or state action, not the individual Association manager. Also, one has right to effective assistance of counsel only in criminal cases. Although they had a right to jury trial, evidence showed that defendants waived such right.

            Furthermore, the court pointed out that even if the time to file the claims did not expire, plaintiffs would not be entitled to judgment for the malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and negligence claims because plaintiffs did not show sufficient evidence to support such claims. 

            Lastly, the court agreed that with regard to some defendants, the plaintiff’s complaint was too vague to reasonably allow the particular defendant to answer. Therefore, for the above reasons, the court ruled in the Association’s favor. 

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.