Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV01022, Date: 2024-09-06 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/ui/main.aspx?casetype=civil

Case Number: 23CMCV01022    Hearing Date: September 6, 2024    Dept: A

23CMCV01022 City of Compton v. Rose Buds on Rosecrans, Ruben Servin

RECOMMENDATION: CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT

       The complaint alleges that Defendants were unlawfully operating an unlicensed marijuana dispensary on the real property at issue. Plaintiff alleges claims for abatement, injunction, equitable relief, and civil penalties. The court entered default against Rose Buds on Rosecrans (“Rose”) and Rubin Servin (“Servin”), on February 6, 2024, and against Defendant Henry Halimi on May 1, 2024. Defendant Sam Ostayan and all DOE defendants have been dismissed. Plaintiff seeks judgment for civil penalties against Rosebuds and Servin only, leaving Halimi as the remaining Defendant, although Halimi is in default.

       Plaintiff must submit a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (Cal Rules of Court 3.1800 (7).) Plaintiff has not explained why a separate judgment is appropriate in this case.

       Plaintiff seeks civil penalties for the second through fourth causes of action for public nuisance and violations of the Compton Municipal Code. While Plaintiff argues that a permanent injunction is required to prohibit Defendants from continuing their unlawful activities, the proposed judgment does not provide for an injunction.

       Plaintiff requests civil penalties for the following violations:

1.      Health & Saf. Code, § 11581 for perpetrating a nuisance $25,000.00.

2.      Compton Municipal Code Chapter 9-24, for prohibiting commercial marijuana activity in the City. Civil penalties of $1,000 maximum per violation and $1,000 for every day any violation continues, which will be considered a separate offense. (CMC §§ 1-6.2, 1-6.4.)

3.      Compton Municipal Code section 30-33 for failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy. (CMC §§ 30-33.) Penalties for a violation of Compton Municipal Code 30-33 are found in Compton Municipal Code section 30-40(a) which provides $1,000 maximum per violation and $1,000 for every day any violation continues. (CMC §§30-33, 30-40.) Compton Municipal Code section 1-6.2 allows for any misdemeanor violation of the Compton Municipal Code to be “redressed by civil action” (CMC §§ 1-6.2, 1-6.4.)

4.      Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26001 for engaging in commercial cannabis activity without a license is subject to a civil penalty of up to three times the amount of the license fee ($2,500) for each violation not to exceed $30,000. Each day of violation is a separate violation. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26038.)

Civil penalties for the foregoing violations are calculated as follows.

       The proposed judgment seeks $322,500 in principal damages, an increase of $3,000, which is not explained. The court recalculates statutory attorney’s fees of $5,085.00 pursuant to Local Rule 3.214 based on principal damages of $319,500. Costs of $355.66 are established.

       Plaintiff is ordered to either dismiss Defendant Halimi or explain why a separate judgment against Halimi is warranted. Plaintiff is to submit a supplemental declaration showing Plaintiff’s calculations of civil penalties totaling $322,500 as requested. Plaintiff is also to clarify whether a permanent injunction is being sought which should be reflected in the proposed order.

       The court continues the hearing to September 6, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in Department A of the Compton Courthouse. Supplemental evidence and declaration are to be submitted 10 days prior to the hearing (or earlier.)