Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 24STCV09188, Date: 2024-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV09188    Hearing Date: October 10, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On April 11, 2024, Plaintiffs The People of the State of California and County of Los Angeles filed this action against Defendant Milton Joyner and others to abate a public nuisance and enjoin the operation and maintenance of an illegal cannabis dispensary.

Defendant filed an answer, and on September 16, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Defendant’s objections to Plaintiffs’ RJN Exhibit D are sustained.  Information on websites, even official governmental agency websites, can be reasonably subject to dispute and are not proper subjects for judicial notice.  (Jolley v. Chase Home Finance, LLC (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 872, 888-889; see also Huitt v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1586, 1605 fn. 10.)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted.

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is granted as to Exhibits A, B, and C.

DISCUSSION

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is the functional equivalent to a general demurrer.  (Lance Camper Mfg. Corp. v. Republic Indemnity Co. of Am. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 194, 198.)  Like demurrers, motions for judgment on the pleadings challenge the legal sufficiency of the allegations, not their veracity.  (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)  The Court “must accept as true all material facts properly pleaded, but does not consider conclusions of law or fact, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or facts that are judicially noticed.”  (Stevenson Real Estate Services, Inc. v. CB Richard Ellis Real Estate Services, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1219-1220.)

A.        The Complaint Sufficiently Alleges a Basis for Defendant’s Liability.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant is “owner of record and/or Beneficiary under a Short Form Deed of Trust and Assignment of Rents.”  (Complaint ¶ 7.)  An unlicensed cannabis dispensary operating under the name Compton Remedy was located at the property.  (Complaint ¶¶ 14-17.)  On May 16, 2023, Plaintiffs began contacting Defendant and Compton Remedy to inform them that they needed to take steps to ensure the illegal activity ceased.  (Complaint ¶ 18.)  Defendant’s attorney stated that Defendant would evict the cannabis business.  (Complaint ¶ 20.)

Defendant argues that he cannot be liable because he no longer owns or controls the subject property.  (Motion at p. 6.)  Through a grant deed dated October 30, 2023, Defendant granted the property to Sun Bay Group LLC.  (Defendant RJN, Ex. A.)

Plaintiffs seek, in part, civil penalties for violations of Los Angeles County Code sections 1.23.010 et seq., 22.140.134, 22.242.020 et seq.; Health and Safety Code section 11570 et seq.; and Business and Professions Code sections 17200, 26200 et seq.  These civil penalties may be imposed for each day that Defendant permitted a cannabis business to operate at the property.  (See Complaint ¶¶ 35, 47, 59, 71.)  The Complaint sufficiently alleges—and Defendant admits—that Defendant owned the property during some of the relevant time period.

The motion is denied on this ground.

B.        The Complaint Sufficiently Alleges Plaintiffs’ Standing.

Los Angeles County Code section  22.140.134 prohibits the operation of a marijuana business in the unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County.  Defendant argues that the property is in the incorporated areas of the City of Compton.  (Motion at p. 8.)

Plaintiffs allege that the property is “located in the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County at real property commonly known as 15320 Avalon Boulevard, Compton CA 90220.”  (Complaint ¶ 1.)  Although Compton is an incorporated city, “Compton” in the property’s address is not dispositive.  This is further supported by Defendant’s own grant deed, which indicates that the property (also known as “15320 Avalon Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90220”) is in the “Unincorporated area.”  (Defendant RJN, Ex. A.)

The motion is denied on this ground.

CONCLUSION

The motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 10th day of October 2024