Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 23STCV20769, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20769    Hearing Date: March 14, 2024    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date:             March 14, 2024

Case Name:                State of California v. Arjon

Case No.:                    23STCV20769

Matter:                        Default Judgment prove-up

Moving Party:             Plaintiff State of California

Responding Party:      Unopposed

Tentative Ruling:      The request for default judgment is granted.



            This is an action arising from the operation of illegal commercial cannabis business. The Complaint alleges violations of Health and Safety Code section 11570 and various Los Angeles Municipal Code violations.

 

            On January 8, 2024, the Court entered default against Defendant Luis Arjon. Plaintiff settled with Defendants Faustino Alva, Angie R. Alva, and Tina Alva. Does 1-25 have been dismissed.

 

            Plaintiff State of California now moves for default judgment against Defendant Luis Arjon. The request for entry of default judgment is granted.

 

Discussion

 

            Plaintiff seeks default judgment in the amount of $33,525,000 against Defendant Arjon and for the issuance of an order permanently restraining and enjoining Defendant Arjon from engaging in Commercial Cannabis Activity in the City of Los Angeles.

 

            Plaintiff submits evidence that Defendant Arjon was operating a laboratory which processed concentrated cannabis – that is, Defendant was engaging in Commercial Cannabis Activity (CCA). (Jackson Decl., ¶¶ 4-16; Srbova Decl., ¶¶ 9-13.) Defendant’s operation was illegal as he was engaging in CAA without the required license or temporary approval. (Blake Decl., ¶¶ 3-6.)

 

Further, Plaintiff submits evidence that there were 1,340 separate violations based on Defendant renting the property starting on January 1, 2019 and ending on September 2, 2022 (with the warehouse fire).[1] (Alva Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.) Thus, the violations and the amount of civil penalties has been adequately substantiated.

 

Further, Plaintiff does not seek prejudgment interest, costs or attorney fees.

 

            Thus, the only question before this Court then is whether Defendant had adequate notice in the Complaint of the magnitude of the civil penalties sought. (National Diversified Services, Inc. v. Bernstein (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 410, 418.) Based on the allegations in the body of the Complaint, Defendant had fair warning that he may be liable for the maximum civil penalties for the various violations of statutes and ordinances for each day of violation or presence of the nuisance. (Compl., ¶¶ 6, 11, 23, 25, 31-32, 38, 42, 50, 55, Prayer Decl., ¶ 6, 21, 30.)

 

Accordingly, the request for entry of default judgment is granted.

 


[1]           Each day an LAMC violation continues is “a new and separate offense” and subject to a civil penalty “for each and every offense.” (RJN Ex. 1 [LAMC, § 11.00(l)], Ex. 7 [LAMC § 104.15(c)].) Also, under the UCL, each day Arjon violated the law is a separate act or violation. (People v. Nat. Assn. of Realtors (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 578, 585-586.)