Judicial Review Timeline & Key Documents

11/5/2025- The the hearing on the PVHA's motion to strike and an informal discovery conference was held. Brian P represented the himself as the Petitioner and Nick Meerson was the Lawyer representing the PVHA Board. Below are the key takeways:

1. The Judge made it crystal clear that he believed our Petition against the PVHA's election procedures was not improper and he would not be granting their request to strike the entire petition or any part of it. As a result, the PVHA's lawyer withdrew their motion to strike on Thursday 11/6. We believe this was the correct decision and look forward to the next phase of the trial.

2. The Judge also spoke a bit about the merits of our case. He indicated that it is strange and interesting that we haven't had an election in 16 years and even thought about our situation in the context of Tuesday's Government elections and the concept that "every vote counts". However, he also said that he seemed to think the PVHA's election is more like a private contract between members & the PVHA and not like a public election. He also said the HOA's rules were created 100 years ago and members willingly accepted them when they joined the association. Because this was a pre-trial hearing we didn't get to explain to Judge Honeycutt why this is not the case and during the upcoming hearing on the merits look forward to doing so. Judge Honeycutt also said that he wanted to fix the PVHA's election situation for good- so we will not be back in front of him next year if the election problem remains. We really liked hearing that.

3. The Judge pushed both parties to participate in a settlement conference with him being the mediator. Brian P told him he would gladly participate and was100% willing to work with him or anyone at any time to fix our elections. The PVHAs lawyer did not accept initially but told Brian P via telephone on Nov 6 that the PVHA would join the mediation.

4. On our discovery issues the Judge agreed with Brian P that all of the things asked for were relevant to our case (which we of course agreed with) but that he agreed with the PVHA that asking for 9 years worth of docs as requested was too much. Brian P offered to reduce the request from 9 years to 3 years as a compromise. The Judge seemed very happy with this offer and the PVHA agreed.

10/29/2025- The PVHA's lawyer filed their reply to our Opposition. You can read the full reply here.

10/17/2025- We filed our Opposition to the PVHA's Motion to Strike. A link to our Opposition is here. We believe that the PVHA's Motion is just an attempt to avoid Judicial oversight and continue its undemocratic and broken election process of directors self appointing themselves year after year.

9/29/2025- The PVHA filed a motion to strike our entire first Amended Petition. A motion to strike is legal method one side can use to wipe our a complaint or petition when they believe that the pleading filed has irrelevant, false, or improper matters OR not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of the state. A link to the PVHA's motion can be found here. We obviously believe the PVHA's motion is wrong on the law and wrong on the facts. The Motion will be heard on November 5, 2025 at 11am in the Torrance Courthouse Section E. We hope PVHA members will attend.

8/25/2025- Brian Pressman on behalf of the PVHA files an "Amended First Petition" with the court. A copy of the Amended Petition is here.

8/8/2025- The Court scheduled our first hearing on the petition. It is scheduled for January 29, 2026 at 11am In Department E of the Torrance Court House 825 Maple Ave in Torrance with Judge Honeycutt.

7/25/2025- A petition with the Los Angeles Superior Court and assigned to Judge Honeycutt. The lawsuit seeks to compel the PVHA to:

• Open the ballots received for the Jan 2025 election, count them, and accept the top five candidates as Directors

• Lower the quorum on future elections to 20% from 50%

• Lower the quorum on changing the By-Laws from 67% to 40%

• Require all candidates (including incumbents) to comply with the process for collecting nominating signatures

• Require PVHA to do three ballot mailings (unless a quorum has been reached with less than 3 mailings)

• Allow for proxies, drop-off of ballots, and cumulative voting (which means if there are 5 positions, the voter can allocate 5 votes however the voter wants, such as on vote for each for 5 candidates or 5 votes for one candidate)

A copy of the full petition with all exhibits is here

3/26/2025- Mahmoud Farzaneh, a current PVHA board member responds saying that "At this time, the Board has decided that it is not in the best interest of the Association to incur legal fees and time to file such a petition. As you know, the Association conducts annual meetings as required, allowing each member the opportunity to exercise their right to vote, including the option to vote electronically."

3/4/2025-Mahmoud Farzaneh, a current PVHA board member responds saying that board will discuss supporting the legal petition the week of March 17th.

3/3/2025- After receiving no response to the second letter a third letter was sent.

2/25/2025- After receiving no response a second letter was sent.

1/26/2025- Letter sent to the PVHA's lawyer asking if they would support a legal petition to reform the PVHA's election rules and reduce the quorum. We offered to cover $1000 of the legal fees associated with the petition.