Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: BC723513, Date: 2024-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC723513    Hearing Date: July 11, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 7-11-24

Case BC723513

Trial Date: 8-12-24

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Erba, Inc., et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Second Site, LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Summary Judgment

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Second Site, LLC alleges entry into a partnership agreement with defendant Los Angeles Wellness Center (LAWC), whereby the parties would operate as a partnership from September 26, 2016, through September 26, 2019, with two three year “options to renew.” The agreement required Plaintiff a “right of first refusal” for the purchase of the marijuana dispensary license held by Los Angeles Wellness Center during any option period for “fair market value.”

On a date after July 30, 2017, LAWC opened a facility on 4665 Melrose Ave., then moved the facility to 4881 Topanga Canyon Blvd. Meanwhile, a facility operated by defendant Erba, Inc. operated a facility on Pico, acquired LAWC rights in alleged violation of the partnership agreement.

On September 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against a number of parties, including Erba, Inc., for Breach of Partnership Agreement; Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith And Fair Dealing; Breach Of Fiduciary Duty; Fraud; Unfair Competition; Tortious Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage; Conversion; Conspiracy; Money Had And Received; Negligence; Declaratory Relief; and, Injunctive Relief. On October 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a 170.6 challenge and the action was reassigned. On December 21, 2018, Plaintiff dismissed the City of Los Angeles without prejudice.

On February 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for Breach of Partnership Agreement; Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Fraud; Unfair Competition; Tortious Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage; Conversion; Conspiracy; Money Had And Received; Negligence; and, Declaratory Relief. On April 18, 2019, the court sustained the demurrer in part and overruled the demurrer in part.

On March 4, 2022, defendant Paul Scott filed a cross-complaint for Breach of Contract; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Negligent Misrepresentation; and, Fraud. On August 12, 2020, the court sustained the demurrer to the cross-complaint with leave to amend. On September 14, 2020, Scott filed a first amended cross-complaint.

On November 20, 2020, the court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint for Breach of Partnership Agreement; Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Fraud; Unfair Competition; Tortious Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage; Conversion; Conspiracy; Money Had And Received; Declaratory Relief; Aiding and Abetting, and Accounting. The second amended complaint added in new defendants as well.

On January 14, 2021, the court sustained the demurrer to the first amended cross-complaint with leave to amend. On February 22, 2021, Scott filed a second amended cross-complaint.

On April 1, 2021, and April 22, 2021, new defendants filed 170.6 challenges, which were rejected.

On April 22, 2021, the court overruled the demurrer to the Second Amended Cross-Complaint.

RULING: Denied

Request for Judicial Notice: Granted in Part/Denied in Part.

·         The court takes judicial notice of the second amended complaint, but not for the truth of the content.

·         The court takes judicial notice of the existence of Proposition D and California Health & Safety Code section 11379.6(a) only. Any consideration of the sections should be addressed in the points and authorities.

·         The court cannot take judicial notice of the articles of incorporation downloaded from the California Secretary of State website in that the mere filing of said items in no way constitutes an official act of the Secretary of State.

Defendants Erba, Inc., Jay Handal, Devon Wheeler, and Gabriel Dezio, move for summary judgment on the second amended complaint. Defendants move on grounds that the partnership agreement regarding marijuana licensing rights in an and of itself constituted an illegal agreement, thereby preventing enforcement of the agreement. Plaintiff Second Site, LLC in opposition maintains no illegality in the contract exists. Any additional operations were separately licensed and therefore never in violation of Proposition D. Defendants in reply reiterate the illegal nature at the core of the agreement and illegal cultivation operations. Defendants also challenge Plaintiff’s failure to “meet their burden of proof” establishing triable issues of material fact.

The pleadings frame the issues for motions, “since it is those allegations to which the motion must respond. (Citation.)”  (Scolinos v. Kolts (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 635, 640-641; FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 382-383; Jordan-Lyon Prods., LTD. v. Cineplex Odeon Corp. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1472.) The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) 

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.) 

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inference that may be drawn form that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) “An issue of fact can only be created by a conflict in the evidence.  It is not created by speculation, conjecture, imagination or guesswork.”  (Lyons v. Security Pacific National Bank (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1041 (citation omitted).)

Defendants’ argument for illegality in the purpose of the contract relies on a finding that Plaintiff sought to operate multiple growth and/or dispensary facilities under a single license. According to Defendants, the licensing requirements governed by the City of Los Angeles only allow for single site operations per license. The agreement regarding the operation for multiple sites under a single license therefore constituted a statutory violation and therefore an illegal agreement.

“Malum prohibitum means ‘prohibited by statute’—malum prohibitum contracts are illegal as contrary to a statute.” (Russell City Energy Co., LLC v. City of Hayward (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 54, 71.) “If any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or of several considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the entire contract is void.” (Civ. Code, § 1608.) “[T]he doctrine of illegality considers whether the object of the contract is illegal. It does not turn on whether the illegality applies to the party seeking to enforce the agreement.” (McIntosh v. Mills (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 333, 346.) “[M]alum prohibitum contracts may be enforceable despite their illegality if the parties were not in pari delicto.” (Id. at p. 344 (footnote 10).)

The court reviews certain material terms of the agreement. In addition to the partnership and options agreement, paragraph 14 of the operative complaint alleges a profit sharing agreement with reference to “operations” (e.g. facilities in more than one location). The next paragraph continues that the agreement itself was based on a City of Los Angeles “Measure D compliant dispensary” for the sale of marijuana products in accordance with “requirements regulations” of the City of Los Angeles and Department of Cannabis Regulations. The partnership agreement identifies three separate locations for intended operations: 8010-8012 Remmet Ave in Canoga Park; 7027-7029 Eton Ave in Canoga Park; and, 4665 Melrose Ave in Los Angeles. [Declaration of Arthur Hodge, Ex. 1-2.]

Defendants cite to Proposition D for support of the argument regarding a prohibition of operations in more than one location per license. Notwithstanding the provision, and lack of challenge from Plaintiff on the specific subject, the Los Angeles Municipal Code indicates a repeal of Proposition D: “The voters of the City of Los Angeles adopted Article 5.1 of Chapter IV of the Los Angeles Municipal Code regarding medical marijuana (Sections 45.19.6 through 45.19.6.9) as part of Proposition D, a referendum submitted to the voters by the City Council at the election held on May 21, 2013. The Council shall adopt an ordinance repealing these provisions of Proposition D (Sections 45.19.6 through 45.19.6.9) effective January 1, 2018, unless the Council adopts a Resolution, by majority vote, specifying another date for the repeal. The Council retains and possesses authority to amend, by ordinance, these provisions of Proposition D prior to its repeal.”

Sections 45.19.6 through 45.19.6.9 no longer appear operative. While the alleged breach appears to have occurred sometime after 2017, the argument in support of the motion for summary judgment in no way addresses the impact of the repeal of the operative statute. The court declines to make the arguments for moving parties, as it is their burden to establish the lack of a valid claim through the affirmative defense of illegal contract. The City of Los Angeles apparently now regulates cannabis operations via the guidelines of Proposition M, as presented under Los Angeles Municipal Code section 104.00, et seq.

Plaintiff tacitly acknowledges the superseding of Proposition M for Proposition D based on a position that immunity conveyed to any licensee under Proposition D automatically extended under Proposition M, as long as compliance by the licensed operator was previously established. Defendants in reply offer no counter argument or even acknowledgment of Proposition M, and instead continues to reiterate Proposition D. The court accepts Proposition M as the governing statute given the lack of sufficient clarification, as is the burden of moving parties.

Even under Proposition M, however, Plaintiff acknowledges the single site location restriction. Thus, the argument for statutory illegality remains a consideration. On the other locations identified in the parties’ agreement, Plaintiff contends the additional sites constituted “separate assets” in existence prior to the agreement. Furthermore, the “cultivators” at said second sites obtained separate licenses under Proposition M/LAMC 104, et seq. guidelines. Plaintiff also denies any violation of processor laws.

Plaintiff alternatively maintains reformation and severability prevent any declaration of a void contract. Plaintiff concludes with a suggestion of waiver and estoppel in that Defendants “waived” said defense or are estopped. The court declines to consider the severability, waiver and estoppel arguments, in that the said counter arguments constitute new argument beyond the scope of the framed issues from the pleadings and as presented in the motion. Furthermore, as discussed below, the court finds the merits of the argument do not warrant further consideration into these potential issues at the time of the instant motion.

More perfunctory, Defendants rely on an assumption that the agreement itself assumes multiple, licensed required operations under a single license without actually providing a copy of the entire agreement, or actually particularly addressing the meaning and context of the terms of the agreement. The court cites to fundamental contract interpretation rules.

“‘A contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful.’ (Civ. Code, § 1636.) ‘The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity.’ (Civ. Code, § 1638.) ‘When a contract is reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible; subject, however, to the other provisions of this Title.” (Civ. Code, § 1639.) “The whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other.’ (Civ. Code, § 1641.) ‘A contract must receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect, if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties.’ (Civ. Code, § 1643.) ‘The words of a contract are to be understood in their ordinary and popular sense, rather than according to their strict legal meaning; unless used by the parties in a technical sense, or unless a special meaning is given to them by usage, in which case the latter must be followed.’ (Civ. Code, § 1644.) ‘However broad may be the terms of a contract, it extends only to those things concerning which it appears that the parties intended to contract.’ (Civ. Code, § 1648.) ‘Repugnancy in a contract must be reconciled, if possible, by such an interpretation as will give some effect to the repugnant clauses, subordinate to the general intent and purpose of the whole contract.’ (Civ. Code, § 1652.) ‘Stipulations which are necessary to make a contract reasonable, or conformable to usage, are implied, in respect to matters concerning which the contract manifests no contrary intention.’ (Civ. Code, § 1655.)” (Siligo v. Castellucci (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 873, 880–881.)

“A contract term should not be construed to render some of its provisions meaningless or irrelevant.” (Estate of Petersen (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1742, 1754 (footnote 4).) “A well-settled maxim states the general rule that ambiguities in a form contract are resolved against the drafter. (Citations.) But that is a general rule; it does not operate to the exclusion of all other rules of contract interpretation. It is used when none of the canons of construction succeed in dispelling the uncertainty.” (Oceanside 84, Ltd. v. Fidelity Federal Bank (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1448.)

The plain language of the agreement only references a relocation of the “Dispensary” to Melrose, with “future operations” contemplated at two additional locations on Remmet Ave. and Eton Ave. for “120 lights + extraction” and “80 lights  + Dispensary” operations. Defendants cite pages and pages of deposition testimony regarding operations without actually addressing the parties’ understanding of the execution of the terms of the agreement, such as reliance on a single license (under Proposition D), intent to obtain additional licenses, or other forms of business operations (and potential, required growth licenses). [Hode Decl., Ex. 3: Deposition of Ronald Glantz.] One witness in fact even admits to an uncertainty as to business operations for dispensary operations, but also references a separate cultivation operation for the Remmet facility without any necessity of a dispensary license. [Hode Decl., Ex. 4: Deposition of Michael Sapir.]

The court finds no support for improper intended illegal operation of a second dispensary under a single license. At the core of the agreement regarding the Remmet facility, the unchallenged testimony from Sapir regarding the lack of any need for a “BTRC” license for a non-dispensary operation in and of itself undermines any argument for said license violation. As for Eton, Defendants reference testimony from Sapir regarding operations, and undisputed material fact number seven (7) in the separate statement directly cites to the Sapir deposition “71:3-15,” but no such pages are incorporated into the actual Hodge Declaration. Even relying on the purported copied portions of the deposition transcript incorporated into the points and authorities, however, it only appears Eton was for cultivation. There is no indication of any distribution requirement or licensing requirements. [See Declaration of Michael Sapir.]

Thus, given the intended relocation of the single dispensary from Topanga to Melrose under the Proposition M license requirement, Defendants fail to establish any actual violation of the statute for purposes of the subject motion. Defendants anticipated this potential, and alternatively argue that said cultivation operations violate California Health and Safety Code section 11379(a).

The statute states in relevant part: “Except as otherwise provided ...  every person who transports, imports into this state, sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away, or offers to transport, import into this state, sell, furnish, administer, or give away, or attempts to import into this state or transport any controlled substance ... unless upon the prescription of a physician, dentist, podiatrist, or veterinarian, licensed to practice in this state, shall be punished by imprisonment...” (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.)

Defendants cite to language regarding extraction activities, but the plain language of the statute appears to address transpiration and distribution rather than extraction or other forms of cannabis processing activity. The correct section is California Health and Safety Code section 11379.6, subdivision (a): “Except as otherwise provided by law, every person who manufactures, compounds, converts, produces, derives, processes, or prepares, either directly or indirectly by chemical extraction or independently by means of chemical synthesis, any controlled substance ... shall be punished by imprisonment ... and by a fine not exceeding fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).”

(Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6.)

Defendants again cite back to unattached deposition testimony from Sapir. [Undisputed Material Fact 15, Sapir Depo, 251.2-22.] The court considers the represented testimony from the points and authorities, whereby Sapir purportedly testified to extraction operations at an unspecified location. Under this assumption, Defendants conclude said extraction operation constituted an illegal activity, thereby again voiding the agreement.

The broad scope of the terms of the agreement renders some validity to the argument as to the partnership agreement for a potential “illegal” extraction operation constituting a void term by statute. Plaintiff acknowledges the “meth lab” penalty statute identified as  California Health and Safety Code section 11379.6, but maintains an exemption to the statute exists for operations utilizing non-flammable carbon dioxide extraction processes. [Sapir Decl.] (See Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.3, subd. (a)(3) [“‘Volatile solvent’ means a solvent that is or produces a flammable gas or vapor that, when present in the air in sufficient quantities, will create explosive or ignitable mixtures”].)

Defendants in reply maintain the exemption was not applicable as the relied upon at the time were not in existence. Thus, the violation occurred at the time of formation. Defendants state the new regulations were adopted in 2018, and the contract was in fact formed prior to 2018. “‘[L]egislative enactments are generally presumed to operate prospectively and not retroactively unless the Legislature expresses a different intention’” (Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1208.) A distinction arises however when a statutory change “merely clarifies, rather than changes, existing law.” A change that “clarifies” existing law properly applies to all “transactions predating its enactment,” where if an action “substantially changes the legal consequences of past actions or upsets expectations based in prior law,” the proactive presumption applies. (Carter v. California Dept. of Veterans Affairs (2006) 38 Cal.4th 914, 922.)

The conclusive argument in reply regarding a prospective application of the statute without address of potential clarification for non “meth lab” related activities renders the argument incomplete. The court again declines to make the argument for Defendants. For purposes of the subject motion, the court therefore finds no illegal conduct based on the operation of a carbon dioxide based extraction facility also presents no basis for the determination of an illegal extraction operation thereby voiding the partnership agreement in regards to said operations.

Finally, given the claimed wrongful conduct by Defendants in transferring the license in violation of the agreement, Defendants fail to dispel a potential in pari delicto challenge to the application of the defense of malum prohibitum. In other words, the court declines to find the illegal contract provision applicable in favor of parties summonsed to the court due to their own allegedly wrongful conduct.

The court therefore finds triable issues of material fact arising from the parties’ partnership agreement based on the lack of any evidence of any actual statutory violation under the operative regulation as passed Proposition M and reflected in Los Angeles Municipal Code 104, et seq., California Health and Safety Code section 11397.6, subdivision (a). To the extent Defendants depend on said argument for relief against all claims, and the court cannot accord on any of the presented argument, the motion for summary judgement is DENIED in its entirety.

Trial remains set for August 12, 2024.

Moving Defendants to give notice to all parties.