Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00656, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 21PSCV00656    Hearing Date: December 10, 2024    Dept: G

Plaintiff City of El Monte’s Motion to File Supplemental Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff City of El Monte’s Motion to File Supplemental Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff City of El Monte is ordered to file the proposed Supplemental Complaint separately with the Court forthwith.

BACKGROUND

This is a nuisance abatement action. As a result of investigations by its police department, the City of El Monte (the City) discovered an illegal nightclub and marijuana grow operation in a warehouse within city limits operating from June 1, 2020 to January 19, 2021.

On August 12, 2021, the City filed a complaint against Defendants Dale Lue as the owner of the warehouse, Xinging Xu as the property manager for the warehouse, Huan Li as the tenant of the warehouse, Andrew Yan and Zihang Zhang as operators, and Caili Wang and Wenyun Chen as accomplices, as well as Does 1-100, alleging the following causes of action: (1) narcotics abatement, (2) public nuisance, (3) violation of El Monte Municipal Code, (4) violation of Unfair Competition Law (illegal cannabis cultivation), (5) violation of Unfair Competition Law (operation of illegal nightclub), (6) violation of Unfair Competition Law (illegal sale of Schedule III narcotics), and (7) violation of MAUCRSA.

On October 10, 2024, the City dismissed Wang from the present action. On October 21, 2024, the City dismissed Chen from the present action.

On November 14, 2024, the City filed the present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for December 10, 2024. A final status conference and OSC Re: Default Judgment Setting is set for January 13, 2025, with a non-jury trial scheduled for January 27, 2025.

ANALYSIS

The City seeks leave to file a supplemental Complaint that alleges additional facts about ongoing illicit marijuana cultivation. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the City’s motion.

Legal Standard

“A court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) Parties are also permitted to seek leave file “a supplemental complaint or answer, alleging facts material to the case occurring after the former complaint or answer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 464, subd. (a).) A request to file a supplemental pleading is subject to the court’s discretion and is generally granted. (Louie Queriolo Trucking, Inc. v. Superior Court of Kern County¿(1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 194, 197.)

Discussion

In this case, the initial Complaint was based upon the allegations that Defendants were unlawfully operating a marijuana cultivation operation at a property in El Monte from June 2020 to January 2021. While the Complaint was filed on August 12, 2021, the City seeks to file a supplemental Complaint that alleges the existence of another unlawful marijuana cultivation operation that was discovered at the El Monte property in April 2023. (Welch Decl., ¶ 6.) The City initially delayed in filing the present motion as they were engaging in settlement discussions with Lue and participated in mediation on August 19, 2024. (Welch Decl., ¶ 8-9.)

No Defendant filed a timely opposition in response. Based upon the declaration of the City’s counsel and in the absence of any opposition, the court finds City has established good cause for filing a supplemental pleading.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the City’s motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the City’s motion to file a supplemental Complaint is GRANTED.

The City is ordered forthwith to file separately the proposed supplemental Complaint attached as Exhibit B to the declaration of counsel for the City, David R. Welch, Esq.