Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 20PSCV00788, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20PSCV00788    Hearing Date: December 6, 2023    Dept: K

Plaintiff City of El Monte’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background   

Plaintiff City of El Monte (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

Defendants Jin Ming Chen (“Ming Chen”), Alan Yong Lun Chen (“Lun Chen”), Xiao Chang Liang (“Liang”), Top World Investment, Inc. (“Top World”) (collectively, “Defendants”) own, inhabit and/or operate the property located at 12121 Kerrwood Street, El Monte, California 91732 (“subject property”).

On June 20, 2017, members of the El Monte Police Department (“Police”) executed a search warrant at the subject property. While executing the warrant, the Police observed that the subject property had been converted into a marijuana cultivation facility. The Police seized numerous items which had been used to cultivate, manufacture, store and/or sell marijuana at the subject property in violation of state and municipal law. Additionally, the Police invited a Southern California Edison investigator to the subject property, who determined that electricity had been stolen at the subject property between April 4, 2017 and June 20, 2017 through a series of bypasses to the tune of approximately $12,000.00.

On November 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-100 for:

1.                  Narcotics Abatement (Health & Safety Code §§ 11570 et seq.)

2.                  Public Nuisance (Civil Code §§ 3479 et seq.)

3.                  Violation of El Monte Municipal Code (EMMC Chapters 5.18 and Ch. 1.19)

4.                  Violation of Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.)

5.                  Violation of MAUCRSA (Business & Professions Code §§ 26000 et seq.)

On August 27, 2021, Ming Chen’s default was entered.

On March 17, 2023, Top World filed a “Notice of Settlement as Between City of El Monte and Top World Investment Inc.” On March 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Settlement as Between Plaintiff City of El Monte and Defendants Alan Yong Lun Chen and Xiao Chang Liang.”

On May 3, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed Top World, with prejudice. On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed Liang and Lun Chen, with prejudice.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment is set for December 6, 2023.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

1.                  Plaintiff seeks $998,050.00 as the “demand of complaint” set forth on Judicial Council Form CIV-100; however, the prayer of Plaintiff’s complaint seeks, inter alia, a $25,000.00 penalty pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 11581(b)(2) and payment of the subject property’s fair market rental value (not stated) for one year pursuant to § 11581(c)(1) as to the first cause of action, a civil penalty of $1,000.00/day pursuant to EMCC Chapters 1.18 and 51.18 as to the second and third causes of action, a civil penalty of $2,500.00/day pursuant to Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. as to the fourth cause of action and “up to three times” the amount of the license fee for each unlawful violation pursuant to Business and Professions Code §§ 26000 et seq. as to the fifth cause of action and payment of “all monies unlawfully obtained from the illegal marijuana activities” at the subject property as to the second through fifth causes of action.

The proposed judgment seeks a $25,000.00 civil penalty as to the first cause of action, plus $590,040.00 as disgorgement of all monies unlawfully obtained from the illegal marijuana activities at the subject property as to the second through fifth causes of action, $51,000.00 in $1,000.00/day penalties per EMCC Chapters 1.18 and 5.18 as to the second and third causes of action and $332,010.00 in civil penalties per Business and Professions Code §§ 26000 et seq. as to the fourth and fifth causes of action.

In actions for money damages, however, a default judgment is limited to the amount demanded in the complaint. (See Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) The amount demanded in the complaint is determined both from the prayer and from the damage allegations in the complaint. (National Diversified Services, Inc. v. Bernstein (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 410, 417-418.) The disgorgement amount does not appear to have been set forth in the complaint.

2.                  Plaintiff is requested to provide the court with a copy of EMMC Chapter 1.18, Resolution No. 10104 at Section 2, referenced in Paragraph 15 of the Declaration of David R. Welch.

3.                  Plaintiff seeks $7,000.00 in “police enforcement” costs and $309.24 in “code enforcement costs” in its Memorandum of Costs. Plaintiff is requested to provide the court with an itemization of the foregoing costs.

4.                  Plaintiff requests an award of punitive damages. (Prayer, ¶ 24). It is unclear to the court whether Plaintiff is seeking punitive damages via this instant default prove-up application.