Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV00796, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV00796 Hearing Date: February 8, 2024 Dept: A
23CMCV00796 City of Compton v. Mehdi Javadiaghdam, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff,
City of Compton (“City”), filed this action to require Defendants to abate the
operation of an illegal narcotics business by Defendant, Green House Cure. The real
property is allegedly owned by Defendant, FS International, Inc. (“FS”), for whom
Defendant Mehdi Javadiaghdam serves as FS’s officer and director. The City
alleges claims for abatement, injunction, equitable relief, and imposition of civil
penalties.
II.
ARGUMENTS
The City requests an
order to appoint John Rey as a receiver to take control of the real property,
terminate illegal activity, and require Defendants to obtain a certificate of
occupancy. Despite being cited by the City on numerous occasions, Defendants
continue to distribute marijuana and psilocybin in violation of the Compton
Municipal Code.
The City informs
that the Receiver will file a bond for $10,000. City requests an order
permitting the receiver to fund an initial $50,000 Certificate of Indebtedness
with super priority status to cover the costs of securing, preserving, rehabilitating,
and/or maintaining the property as the receiver deems necessary. (Prop. Ord., ¶ 21.)
In opposition, Defendants,
FS and Mehidi Javadiaghdam (collectively “Defendants”), argue that appointing a
receiver is drastic. Defendants propose that the parties conduct a site
inspection of the premises to substantiate compliance. Defendants propose an
independent compliance officer and/or a court-appointed referee to assist the parties’
collaboration.
In reply, the
City argues that Defendants did not vacate the premises as represented but
continue to operate the marijuana dispensary. As such, a receiver is necessary
since Defendants demonstrate an unfitness, unwillingness, or inability to bring
the property in conformity with law. There are no other viable options.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The court can appoint a receiver to generally do such acts respecting
real property as authorized by the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 568). A person who is “a party, or attorney of a party,
or person interested in an action, or related to any judge of the court by
consanguinity or affinity within the third degree,” cannot be appointed
receiver without the written consent of the parties, filed with the clerk. (Code Civ. Proc., § 566.)
Where the owner fails to comply within a reasonable time with the terms
of a notice to abate, the plaintiff may seek a court order appointing a
receiver for the bring the property into compliance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 17980.7).
IV.
DISCUSSION
The City first became aware of the unlawful marijuana dispensary on the
property on October 12, 2022. (Anthony Ward Decl., ¶ 5.) The City’s code
enforcement officer cited the property at least 22 times, most recently on
December 20, 2023, for violation of the Compton Municipal Code. (Id. ¶ 6,
11, Ex. A.) The City’s evidence
demonstrates that Defendants have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to
correct the conditions cited in the notice of violations. (Health & Saf. Code, § 17980.7(c)(1).)
The purpose of the receivership is to terminate
Defendants’ operation of its illegal business and to require a certificate of
occupancy. (Motion, 2:3-11.) The City has not issued citations for substandard
conditions of the property such as for unpermitted or unsafe improvements. Mr. Rey’s
experience consists of law enforcement and real property management (Rey Decl.,
Ex. A.) He declares he has served as a court-appointed receiver for 30 years. (Rey
Decl. ¶2.)
Defendants contend that a less drastic remedy
should be employed by appointing a “compliance officer” or “court appointed
referee.” Ordinarily, the court should
not take the property out of the hands of its owners if “there is any other
remedy, less severe in its results, which will adequately protect the rights of
the parties.” (Alhambra-Shumway
Mines, Inc. v. Alhambra Gold Mine Corp. (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 869, 873.)
The City has established that despite
nearly 22 citations, Defendants continue to operate the dispensary unabated
based on the compliance officer’s personal observation of the property and Defendants’
continued advertising on social media. (Anthony Ward reply decl.) Defendants
have not explained how a compliance officer or referee would be more favorable
than appointment of a receiver under the statutory provisions of Civil
Procedure, section 566, et seq. A receiver acts as a fiduciary for the benefit
of all parties interested in the property, with the powers and authority
permitted by statute, and under the control and supervision of the Court. (People
v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co. (2017) 17
Cal.App.5th 51, 158.)
The receiver is required to give an oath
and post an undertaking as directed by the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 567). City proposes to file a bond in the amount of
$10,000. (Prop. Ord. 4:19-20.) The powers of a receiver are governed by Section
17980.7 subd. (c)(4) and includes the power to take full and complete control
of the property; manage the building; pay operating expenses, including taxes,
insurance, utilities, general maintenance, and debt secured by an interest in
real property; to secure a cost estimate and construction plan for the
necessary repairs; enter into contracts and collect all rents and income and to
use such income for the cost of rehabilitation. (Health & Saf. Code, § 17980.7(c)(4).)
V.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS
the motion as set forth in the proposed order submitted on January 17, 2024.
The Court sets a hearing for