Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00330, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 22CMCV00330 Hearing Date: March 29, 2023 Dept: A
22CMCV00330 City of Compton v. Mohamad Bahmani, et al
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
The complaint filed on September 21,
2022, alleges that Defendant, “Straight Up”, is operating an illegal marijuana
and narcotics distribution business at 15812 Atlantic Avenue in the City of
Compton. The property is allegedly owned by Defendant, A&M Alondra, LLC (“A&M”)
which is managed by Defendant, Mohammad Bahmani (“Bahmani”). Plaintiff alleges
claims for abatement, injunction, equitable relief, and for civil
penalties.
On January 25, 2023, the Hon. George
F. Bird heard and granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application for the appointment
of a receiver and set an order to show cause regarding the receiver’s
confirmation, to be heard concurrently with Defendants’ motion for
reconsideration.
This matter was originally set for
hearing on March 16, 2023, but was continued to March 29, 2023.
II. ARGUMENTS
A.
Motion for reconsideration
Defendants,
Bahmani and A&M, (collectively, “A&M”), request an order reconsidering
Judge Bird’s order appointing a receiver, or alternatively rescission and/or modification
of that order because it was based on Plaintiff’s misrepresentations to the
Court. The true facts are that the A&M Defendants are not involved with the
sale and distribution of cannabis and have gone to great expense to remove the offending
parties, including filing an unlawful detainer action, a fact known to
Plaintiff’s counsel. The tenants have since been evicted, and a receiver is no
longer required.
In opposition, Plaintiff
argues that the motion is untimely filed and not based on new or different
facts, circumstances, or law. The motion must be heard by Judge Bird.
In reply, Defendants
object to the evidence submitted by Plaintiff, who does not challenge the fact
that Plaintiff lied at the ex parte hearing.
A&M opposes the
receiver’s appointment for the same reasons supporting their motion for
reconsideration. Defendants have successfully removed the offending parties
from the property. These new facts support reconsideration. A&M intends to
demolish the property. A receiver is no longer necessary.
In response,
Plaintiff argues that the threat of illegal use is still present. The prior
tenant tried to re-enter the property and re-establish the dispensary after the
Receiver boarded up the property. A&M knew of the business being operated on
the property.
II. DISCUSSION
A.
The motion for reconsideration is
procedurally defective.
A motion
to reconsider must be made 10 days from written notice of entry of the order
and must be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd (a)8). Plaintiff served notice of the Court’s
ruling on February 6, 2023, by electronic mail and U.S. Postal Service. (M.O. 1/25/23). Defendants served the motion on
February 17, 2023, more than ten days after service.
The
motion is also required to be heard by the same judge who issued the ruling to
be reconsidered. The Court’s file reflects that Judge Bird heard and granted
Plaintiff’s ex parte motion appointing a receiver. (M.O. 1/25/23). Accordingly, the motion is denied for
these procedural defects.
B. OSC re
Confirmation of Receiver
The
Court has considered the Receiver’s report. (Rpt. 2/17/23). The
Receiver was charged with correcting or abating narcotics violations on the property
and taking reasonable precautions to prevent future violations from occurring.
(Id., 3:9-14).
The Receiver has accomplished this goal by boarding up the building after the
initial break in, and no further incursions have occurred. (Rpt. 2/17/23,
6:21-26).
The remaining issue is whether the Receiver should obtain insurance on the real
property since the present policy and current coverage will be cancelled on
March 15, 2023. (Decl. of
Baker, ¶4, Ex. B).
The
request to appoint a receiver became necessary as the City could not obtain Defendants’
confirmation or cooperation with respect to whether Defendants commenced an unlawful
detainer action since the Court entered a preliminary injunction on October 19,
2022. (Welch Decl. filed
3/3/23, Ex. B). Defendants commenced the unlawful detainer action on December
1, 2022. (Bahmani Decl.
filed 2/17/23, Ex. A). The Court takes judicial notice of its own records in Case No. 22CMUD01654
A&M Alondra, LLC v. Alondra C. Rivera. Defendants obtained a judgment on
February 17, 2023, and a writ of possession against Alondra Rivera only, not
the entity doing business as “Straight Up.” (U.D. Judgment
filed 2/17/23).
While
the narcotic activity appears to have abated, the problems with respect to the
property at issue began in 2018, and continues to date. (Ward Decl.
filed 3/3/23, ¶ 4). Bahmani asserts that he intends to demolish the property as
evidenced by the March 6, 2023, report completed by A5 Environmental. (Bahmani Reply decl. filed 3/9/23, Ex. U). However, he declares that “additional work will have to be
done” before demolition can commence. (Bahmani Reply
decl. filed 3/9/23 ¶ 3).
Given
the City’s lengthy history with the issues arising from the property, and its
inability to abate the nuisance until a Receiver was appointed, the Court is
inclined to confirm the appointment of receiver until such time as the property
is sold or demolished.
III. CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration as
procedurally defective. The order to show cause is discharged.