Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00340, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CMCV00340 Hearing Date: December 8, 2022 Dept: A
22CMCV00340
City of Compton v. San Pedro Mo, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
OVERRULING SEPARATE DEMURRERS OF DEFENDANT, SAN PEDRO MO, LLC, AND MIKEL
HAGHNAZARZADEH
I.
BACKGROUND
The complaint filed on September
28, 2022, alleges that Defendant, San Pedro Mo, LLC, (“San Pedro”) whose
manager is Mikel Haghnazarzadeh, owns real property in San Pedro. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants are operating a marijuana business at the property
without a license. Plaintiff alleges claims for (1) abatement, (2) public
nuisance, (3) violation of Municipal Code Chapter 9-24.3, (4) violation of
Municipal Code Chapters 30-33, (5) Violation of Unfair Competition law, and (6)
violation of Bus. and Prof. Code §26000.
II.
ARGUMENTS
A.
Demurrers filed on November 1,
2022
Defendants, San Pedro and
Haghnazarzadeh, filed separate demurrers. San Pedro demurs to the sixth cause
of action only for violation of the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation
and Safety Act (“the Act”) on grounds the tenant is not using the property for
the purpose intended under the lease, San Pedro is actively attempting to
remove the tenant, and the complaint fails to state facts showing San Pedro
knowingly allowed its property to be used for commercial cannabis activity.
Haghnazarzadeh demurs to all six
causes of action because Plaintiff did not allege any actionable facts against
him since he is not the owner of the property as shown by the deed to the
property. Defendant contends he is not a proper party to this action.
B.
Oppositions filed November 23,
2022
Plaintiff argues that San Pedro
challenges the veracity of the complaint which is not a demurrable issue. Regardless,
Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts showing that San Pedro repeatedly issued
citations regarding the illegal use of the property, sufficient to give the
property owner notice of the illegal use, and San Pedro continued to rent the
property with full knowledge of such use.
As to Haghnazarzadeh, Plaintiff
argues that the complaint alleges his active role in the illegal use of the
real property and his knowledge of such use, as well as his conduct
facilitating the use of the property for that purpose. Plaintiff alleges he is
an accomplice of the illegal narcotics activities at the property.
The court’s file does not reflect
that either Defendant filed a reply brief.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a
complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706. In
testing the sufficiency of the complaint, the court must assume the truth of
(1) the properly pleaded factual allegations; (2) facts that can be reasonably
inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3) judicially noticed matters. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.
The Court may not consider contentions,
deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638. Because a
demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the plaintiff must show
that the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each
cause of action. Rakestraw v. California Physicians
Service (2000)
81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43. Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer. Code Civ.
Proc., § 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126.
Sufficient facts are the essential facts
of the case "with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficiently
specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his
cause of action.” Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.
Whether the Plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant. Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609–610.
A demurrer may also be sustained if a
complaint is “uncertain.” Uncertainty exists where a complaint’s factual
allegations are so confusing, they do not sufficiently apprise a defendant of
the issues it is being asked to meet. Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986)
185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2; Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(f).
A pleading is required to assert general
allegations of ultimate fact. Evidentiary facts are not required. Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title
Guaranty Co. (1998)
19 Cal. 4th 26, 47; Lim v. The.TV Corp. Internat. (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 684, 690.
However, unlike federal courts, California state courts are not a notice
pleading jurisdiction, and notice alone is not a sufficient basis for any
pleading. California is a fact pleading
jurisdiction. Merely putting an opposing party on notice is not sufficient. Bach v. County of Butte (1983) 147
Cal.App.3d 554, 561; see Diodes, Inc. v. Franzen (1968) 260
Cal.App.2d 244, 250. The alleged facts are “sufficient in precision to acquaint the defendant with the nature,
source, and extent of his cause of action.” Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.
Defense
counsel, Lee J. Petrohilos complied with his obligations to attempt to meet and
confer with opposing counsel, who did not respond. Petrohilos Declaration, Code
Civ. Proc., § 410.40.
IV.
DISCUSSION
A. The sixth cause of action against San Pedro adequately alleges
facts to support violation of the Act.
The complaint alleges that San
Pedro violated Section 26038 of the Act, which imposes civil penalties against
persons engaging in and aiding and abetting in an unlicensed commercial
cannabis activity. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26038
subd. (a) (1) and (2). Liability is also imposed against a person with
management or control of a commercial property “either as an owner, lessee,
agent, employee, or mortgage, who knowingly leases, or makes available for use
… the commercial property, building” for the purpose of the unlicensed
commercial distribution or sale of cannabis. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26038
subd. (a)(3).
The complaint alleges that San
Pedro owns the real property at issue and that Haghnazarzadeh is the manager of
San Pedro. Complaint, ¶ 6. San Pedro
allegedly permitted Haghnazarzadeh and Loud 20 to control the real property.
Complaint, ¶ 61. Haghnazarzadeh, its manager, knew that the narcotics
activities were unlicensed, and provided a substantial assistance to further
such activity. Complaint ¶ 61. These facts adequately alleged San Pedro’s
knowledge of the illegal activity occurring on its property by way if its agent/manager,
Haghnazarzadeh.
San Pedro’s dispute of the allegation
that the property is being used for illegal purposes is not an issue to be
resolved at the pleading stage. A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the
allegations. It does not test their truth, the Plaintiff’s ability to prove
them, or the possible difficulty in making such proof. Saunders v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 832, 840. Moreover, San Pedro’s attempt to remove the tenant is irrelevant
to whether the Complaint adequately alleges a claim against San Pedro. Accordingly, San Pedro’s demurrer is
OVERRULED.
B. The complaint adequately alleges
facts implicating Haghnazarzadeh in each cause of action of alleged.
The complaint alleges that Haghnazarzadeh, as manager of San
Pedro, oversees the real property. Complaint ¶ 6. Haghnazarzadeh is alleged to
be an accomplice in the distribution of the illegal narcotics at the property.
Complaint, ¶ 7. Plaintiff alleges that
all defendants, including Haghnazarzadeh has not shown any intention of abating
the narcotics nuisance at the property. Complaint ¶ 17.
Plaintiff alleges that all
defendants as property owner, mortgagee, or operator of the business are
responsible for the illegal business and that Defendants encouraged the illegal
sale for the last four years. which supports the claims for abatement and nuisance.
Complaint ¶¶ 31, 32. The foregoing
allegations also implicate Haghnazarzadeh to support a violation of Compton
Municipal Code Chapter 9-24.4, which
prohibits commercial marijuana activity within the City. Complaint ¶ 46.
Municipal Code Chapter 30-33
prohibits the occupancy of a building without a valid certificate. This claim
is alleged against all defendants who “continue to have concurrent control and
dominion over the property.” Complaint ¶ 52.
All the foregoing violations are
the predicate facts supporting the claim for violation of Bus. and Prof. Code §
17200, which provides for injunctive and other relief against any person
engaged in “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.
Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.
Since Plaintiff alleges Haghnazarzadeh’s
involvement in and facilitation and operation of an illegal marijuana business,
this claim is adequately stated against him.
Finally, the sixth cause of action
for violation of the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act
expressly alleges that Defendants, including Haghnazarzadeh, are engaged in
commercial marijuana activity without a license in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26038.
Complaint, ¶ 60. All the foregoing allegations do not turn on whether Haghnazarzadeh
is the owner of the property. Accordingly, evidence of the deed is for the real
property at issue not dispositive.
V.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the
demurrers of Defendants, Haghnazarzadeh and San Pedro, are OVERRULED. Defendants are ordered to
answer within 10 days. Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1320.