Avo Vista Farms LLC vs County of Santa Barbara et al

Case Number

23CV04999

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 10/16/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Hearing on Petition

Tentative Ruling

Avo Vista Farms, LLC v. The County of Santa Barbara, et al. # 23CV04999

HEARING

Petitioner Avo Vista Farms, LLC’s Petition for Relief From Provisions of Government Code Section 945.4.

                                               

ATTORNEYS

For Petitioner Avo Vista Farms, LLC: Rebecca Mendribil

For Respondent The County of Santa Barbara, also sued as Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors: Christine M. Monroe

                       

RULING

For the reasons set forth herein, Avo Vista Farms, LLC’s petition for relief from provisions of Government Code section 945.4 is denied.

Background

This action commenced on November 13, 2023, by the filing of the present petition for order relieving Petitioner Avo Vista Farms, LLC (“Avo Vista”) from the provisions of Government Code section 945.4, against numerous Respondents including the County of Santa Barbara, also sued as Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors (“County”).

On March 12, 2024, Avo Vista dismissed the petition as to all named Petitioners other than County.

According to an Amended Notice of Related Cases, filed by County on July 15, 2024, there are five other cases related to the present petition. Of those other cases, on July 29, 2024, three were ordered related. Of the related cases, Case No. 23CV05002 is a civil action between the same parties as this action. The complaint in that action is for: (1) violations of due process rights; (2) abuse of process; (3) illegal search and seizure; (4) conspiracy to deprive and violate constitutional rights; (5) Monell violation of Civil Rights Policy Claim; (6) defamation; (7) intentional interference with economic prospective; (8) civil conspiracy; and (9) respondeat superior.

The present petition was brought in response to County rejecting Avo Vista’s government claim and denying Avo Vista’s application for leave to present a late claim.

Summarized:

Avo Vista is the owner of real property located at 2761 Cebada Canyon Road, Lompoc (the “property”).

Avo Vista leased the property to Herbal Angels (“Herbal”) for the purpose of cannabis cultivation.

Herbal, its CEO Mariette Wingard (“Wingard”), and Eli Sheiman (“Sheiman”) operated a cannabis cultivation business at the property.

The allegations contained in Avo Vista’s petition relate to a criminal investigation of Avo Vista, Herbal, Wingard, and Sheiman. As alleged in the government claim that was served on the County on May 6, 2023: County was aware that Herbal held twelve active cannabis cultivation licenses. Despite this knowledge, in September 2019, the County initiated the investigation and on December 13, 2019, and December 16, 2019, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department (the “Sheriff”) requested a search warrant for the property, Herbal’s home office of Wingard, the residence of a previous owner of Avo Vista, and the office location for Avo Vista in Westlake Village, California, for evidence of illegal cannabis cultivation, paraphernalia, records, proceeds and other evidence showing that persons associated with the property are cultivating cannabis in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11358, subdivision (c). Starting on December 16, 2019, the Sheriff executed the warrants but found no evidence of cannabis cultivation without a license. Despite this, the Sharrif seized $206,418.72 from Herbal, Wingard, and Sheiman, and destroyed legally cultivated cannabis worth millions of dollars.

Avo also alleges that criminal charges were filed against Wingard for misdemeanor violations of Health and Safety Code section 11358, subdivision (c), cannabis cultivation without a license, and possession of cannabis for sale without a license. The criminal case is designated 20CR02691. The court notes that Sheiman was also named as a defendant in that case.

Avo Vista claims: “Avo Vista’s reputation has been destroyed in the community and industry due to its relationship with Herbal Angels, the lost relationship with Herbal Angels, the false allegations of conspiracy to cultivate without a license and possession of cannabis for sale without a license. Avo Vista Farms was put out of business by the false, malicious prosecution of Herbal Angels’ CEO, Mariette Wingard, by the illegal search and seizure of Avo Vista’s Cebada Property and business offices.” (Govt. Claim, p. 6.)

On November 9, 2022, in Case No. 20CR02691, Hon. Thomas Adams found that the license issued to Herbal was valid and that sufficient evidence was presented to connect Wingard and Sheiman to Herbal. The court found there was insufficient evidence to bind Wingard and Sheiman over for trial on charges of violating Health and Safety Code sections 11358, subdivision (c) and 11359, subdivision (b). The charges related to those sections were dismissed as to both Wingard and Sheiman. The court found that there was sufficient evidence presented to hold Sheiman to answer for violations of Penal Code sections 115 and 118.

Avo Vista was not a party to the criminal action.

Avo Vista filed a Government Claim on November 7, 2023. (Mendribil Decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. 1.) [Note: The cover letter for the claim has a date of May 6, 2023.] On June 22, 2023, the County responded to the claim. (Mendribil Decl, ¶ 4 & Exh. 2.) The County’s response returned claims that were not presented within six months after the events or occurrence, or within the 60-day extension. (Ibid.) To the extent that any of the claims relate to causes of action that accrued no more than six months and sixty days before the claim was presented, the claims were rejected. (Ibid.) On August 29, 2023, Avo Vista sought leave from the County to present a late tort claim, arguing that none of the claims were late. (Mendribil Decl., ¶  7 & Exh. 5.)

As noted above, Avo Vista now petitions this court for an order relieving it from the provisions of Government Code section 945.4.

The County opposes the petition.

Analysis

As an initial matter: “All electronic documents must be in text searchable format and must comply with the formatting and content requirements of the California Rules of Court for electronic documents, including particularly CRC 3.1110(f)(4) requiring electronic bookmarks.” (Super. Ct. Santa Barbara County, Local Rules, rule 1012 (c)(1).)

“Unless they are submitted by a self-represented party, electronic exhibits must include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110 (f)(4).)

“Compliance with all of the formatting requirements for electronic documents is extremely important for the court’s timely consideration of e-filed documents. In cases of noncompliance, the court may, in its discretion, order any, or all, of the following in addition to any other sanction permitted by law: (i) the noncomplying document to be stricken as improperly filed; (ii) the continuance of the hearing to which the noncomplying document pertains; or, (iii) the imposition of monetary sanctions for violation of the California Rules of Court or these Local Rules, following adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.” (Super. Ct. Santa Barbara County, Local Rules, rule 1012 (c)(2).)

Petitioner did not properly bookmark her exhibits. Counsel is reminded of her obligation to comply with the Local Rules and the California Rules of Court for any future filings with the court.

           

            Requests for Judicial Notice:

In opposition, County requests that the court take judicial notice of: (1) Court orders in The People of the State of California v. Eli Christopher Sheiman, Case No. 20CR02691; (2) Corporate records on file with the California Secretary of State related to Avo Vista; (3) Excerpts from the County of Santa Barbara Land Use and Development Code; and (4) Santa Barbara County Planning Commission’s June 10, 2020, decision.

Avo Vista does not oppose the court taking judicial notice of the documents.

Judicial notice will be taken of the existence of the documents pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452 and 453. However, the documents have no impact on the court’s ruling.

Government Code Claims Presentation:

“A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. A claim relating to any other cause of action shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than one year after the accrual of the action.” (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a).)

“Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board, in accordance with Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this division.” (Gov. Code, § 945.4.)

Government Code section 946.6 provides, in its entirety:

“(a) If an application for leave to present a claim is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6, a petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the Petitioner from Section 945.4. The proper court for filing the petition is a superior court that would be a proper court for the trial of an action on the cause of action to which the claim relates. If the petition is filed in a court which is not a proper court for the determination of the matter, the court, on motion of any party, shall transfer the proceeding to a proper court. If an action on the cause of action to which the claim relates would be a limited civil case, a proceeding pursuant to this section is a limited civil case.

“(b) The petition shall show each of the following:

            “(1) That application was made to the board under Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied.

            “(2) The reason for failure to present the claim within the time limit specified in Section 911.2.

            “(3) The information required by Section 910.

The petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6.

“(c) The court shall relieve the Petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4 if the court finds that the application to the board under Section 911.4 was made within a reasonable time not to exceed that specified in subdivision (b) of Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6 and that one or more of the following is applicable:

            “(1) The failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect unless the public entity establishes that it would be prejudiced in the defense of the claim if the court relieves the Petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4.

            “(2) The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss was a minor during all of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim.

            “(3) The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss was a minor during any of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim, provided the application is presented within six months of the person turning 18 years of age or a year after the claim accrues, whichever occurs first.

            “(4) The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss was physically or mentally incapacitated during all of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim and by reason of that disability failed to present a claim during that time.

            “(5) The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss was physically or mentally incapacitated during any of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim and by reason of that disability failed to present a claim during that time, provided the application is presented within six months of the person no longer being physically or mentally incapacitated, or a year after the claim accrues, whichever occurs first.

            “(6) The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss died before the expiration of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim.

“(d) A copy of the petition and a written notice of the time and place of hearing shall be served before the hearing as prescribed by subdivision (b) of Section 1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure on (1) the clerk or secretary or board of the local public entity, if the Respondent is a local public entity, or (2) the Attorney General, if the Respondent is the state. If the petition involves a claim arising out of alleged actions or inactions of the Department of Transportation, service of the petition and notice of the hearing shall be made on the Attorney General or the Director of Transportation. Service on the Attorney General may be accomplished at any of the Attorney General’s offices in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, or San Francisco. Service on the Director of Transportation may be accomplished only at the Department of Transportation’s headquarters office in Sacramento. If the petition involves a claim arising out of alleged actions or inactions of a judicial branch entity, service of the petition and notice of the hearing shall be made in accordance with the following:

            “(1) If the petition involves a claim arising out of alleged actions or inactions of a superior court or a judge, court executive officer, or trial court employee, as defined in Section 811.9, of the court, service shall be made on the court executive officer.

            “(2) If the petition involves a claim arising out of alleged actions or inactions of a court of appeal or a judge thereof, service shall be made on the Clerk/Executive Officer of the Court of Appeal.

            “(3) If the petition involves a claim arising out of alleged actions or inactions of the Supreme Court or a judge thereof, service shall be made on the Clerk/Executive Officer of the Supreme Court.

            “(4) If the petition involves a claim arising out of alleged actions or inactions of the Judicial Council or the Administrative Office of the Courts, service shall be made on the Administrative Director of the Judicial Council.

“(e) The court shall make an independent determination upon the petition. The determination shall be made upon the basis of the petition, any affidavits in support of or in opposition to the petition, and any additional evidence received at the hearing on the petition.

“(f) If the court makes an order relieving the Petitioner from Section 945.4, suit on the cause of action to which the claim relates shall be filed with the court within 30 days thereafter.”

While there are several deficiencies with the arguments presented by Avo Vista, the most glaring deficiency is that Avo Vista’s entire argument is premised on the assertion that the claim was not filed late. Rather than requesting that the court excuse a late claim, Avo Vista is asking this court to determine that the claim was timely filed. Such is not the proper purpose of a petition pursuant to Government Code section 946.6. Rather, the section, assumes that the claim was late filed and requires, under subdivision (c) (1)-(6), that the Petitioner demonstrate one or more of six enumerated factors are applicable to the late filing of the claim in order to excuse the late filing. 

When, and to whom, a cause of action accrues is generally a question of fact for the trier of fact, not a question of law. (see Krusi v. S.J. Amoroso Construction Co. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 995, 1006.)

“A proceeding under section 946.6 is not a trial of the action itself and the court in those proceedings has no more power than would the court handling the action itself to grant what amounts to a summary judgment so long as there are triable issues of fact concerning whether or not the claims statutes were complied with.” (Ngo v. County of Los Angeles (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 946, 951.)

“The procedure set forth in section 946.6 is simply an avenue of relief similar to Code of Civil Procedure section 473 in providing relief from default [citation], and is not designed to resolve the issue of actual compliance with the claim filing requirements.” (Ibid.)

“A trial court’s granting of relief under section 946.6 is not a determination of compliance but one of excusing compliance.” (Ibid.)

“Petitioners are, however, free to proceed on a complaint which properly pleads compliance with the claims statute . . .” (Id. at p. 952.)

Avo Vista’s arguments pertaining to equitable tolling principles, continuing violations doctrine, delayed discovery, unclean hands, and last overt act, are misplaced. The court cannot  make a determination, by way of the present petition, that Avo Vista’s Government Claim was timely or untimely.

To any extent that Avo Vista concedes that the claim was untimely, and that the untimeliness was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, Avo Vista completely fails to connect any mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect to an untimely filing of the claim. The argument made in this regard is, in essence: “Until November 9th, 2022, there was no reasonable way to determine the County’s conduct was illegal.” (Petition, p. 25, ll. 1-2.)

“To obtain relief under section 946.6, subdivision (c)(1), “ ‘[t]he mere recital of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is not sufficient to warrant relief. Relief on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is available only on a showing that the claimant’s failure to timely present a claim was reasonable when tested by the objective ‘ “reasonably prudent person” ’ [Citation.] Under the reasonably prudent person standard, “ ‘[e]xcusable neglect is that neglect which might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.’ ” [Citation.] When relief is sought based on mistake, because of the reasonably prudent person standard “ ‘it is not every mistake that will excuse a default, the determining factor being the reasonableness of the misconception.’ ” [Citation.]” (N.G. v. County of San Diego (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 63, 73-74.)

“[T]he showing required as to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect in proceedings to file a late claim against a governmental agency, ‘ “is the same as required under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure for relieving a party from a default judgment.’ ” In such case the burden of showing ‘ “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect’ ” is on the moving party [citation] who must meet his burden by a ‘ “preponderance of the evidence” ’ [citation.].” (Shaddox v. Melcher (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 598, 600-601.)

Avo Vista has provided no admissible evidence tending to show mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, or the reasonableness for any misconception it may have had.

Avo Vista’s argument that “there was no reasonable way to determine the County’s conduct was illegal,” until November 9, 2022, is not an argument that can be tied to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.  It is simply another way of arguing delayed discovery. 

Finally, Avo Vista’s prayer for relief in the petition is that “this Court make a finding of fact that the County of Santa Barbara did not properly reply to the tort claim of Petitioner . . .” Again, this is not the function of a petition under Government Code section 946.6. The sole purpose of a petition brought under the Code section is to relieve a party from their failure to present a timely Government Claim, not to make a finding of fact that the government entity did not properly reply.

Avo Vista has not met its burden under Government Code section 946.6. The petition will be denied.