Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2023-00018491-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 25, 2024

04/26/2024  09:30:00 AM  C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00018491-CU-BC-CTL MAKSYMILLIAN OLINSKI VS SALIENT ENTERPRISE LTD LIABILITY CO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 09/18/2023

Plaintiff's Request for a Receiver is DENIED.

This is a dispute between two alleged partners of a marijuana business. Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff and Defendant Jakob Edward Magness were co owners of defendant Salient. Plaintiff contends they are equal and co-founding partners and members Of Defendant Salient Enterprise Ltd Liability Co, LLC.

Plaintiff states the company was formed to enter the legal marijuana business in California. [Declaration of Plaintiff Paragraph 5,6,7, 9.] The business was formed on November 12, 2021. [Declaration of Plaintiff Paragraph 9.] The formed business purchased a California type 11 Distribution License that allows for the transport, storage and wholesale of cannabis goods between other licensed cannabis premises.

[Declaration Of Plaintiff Paragraph 31.] Conditional Use of the license was granted on January 11, 2023.

[Declaration Of Plaintiff Paragraph 31.] Plaintiff then generally alleges that 'the breaches of the agreement alleged in the Complaint occurred, temporally, very shortly after the license was secured. The first indication of a breach were the January 14, 2023 text messages. [Declaration of Plaintiff Paragraph 23.] These occurred 3 days after the conditional use was granted.' The Court has the inherent authority to appoint a receiver and the appointment is within the Court's discretion. Barber v. Lewis & Kaufman, Inc. (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 95, 99. Cases are clear: a receivership is a drastic remedy and is available ONLY where more 'delicate', alternative remedy is inadequate. It will not be used unless it is absolutely necessary and no other remedy will do the job. City & County of San Francisco v. Daley (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 734, 745.

Receivership is a statutory remedy. There must be showing in the moving papers that a receiver is necessary because of the statutory circumstance. CCP 564 governs the appointment and provides the statutory basis needed for appointment. Relevant to this case, plaintiffs rely on CCP §564(b)(l) for the protection of the Business assets in which Plaintiffs has a 'probable interest' in danger of being lost, removed, or injured and Subsection (9) -'in all other cases where necessary to preserve the property or rights of any party.' The request does not meet the high criteria needed for appointment. The Court finds that the evidence presented does not sufficiently support breach of contract. But even so, assuming a breach is shown, the necessary element for a receiver is mismanagement to the point that assets are being squandered such that there is no other remedy available to plaintiffs. Insufficient evidence is presented that business assets are in danger of being lost, removed or injured or that a receiver is needed to preserve the property or rights of plaintiff.

The Court denies the request without prejudice.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3101317  35 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  MAKSYMILLIAN OLINSKI VS SALIENT ENTERPRISE LTD  37-2023-00018491-CU-BC-CTL Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3101317  35