Global Assets Liens & Foreclosures LLC vs Haven #7 LLC et al

Case Number

24CV03211

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 06/23/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motions to Compel; Right to Attach

Tentative Ruling

Global Assets Liens & Foreclosures, LLC v. Haven #7, LLC, et al.

Case No. 24CV03211

Hearing Date: June 23, 2025

HEARING: 1. Plaintiff’s Application for Right to Attach Order, and Issuance of Writ of Attachment as to Defendant Haven #7, LLC, dba Haven Cannabis Dispensary-Porterville

2. Plaintiff’s Application for Right to Attach Order, and Issuance of Writ of Attachment as to Defendant RLB Collective, Inc., dba Haven Los Alamitos

3. Plaintiff’s Application for Right to Attach Order, and Issuance of Writ of Attachment as to Defendant 4th Street Collective, Inc., dba Haven Downtown Long Beach

4. Plaintiff’s Application for Right to Attach Order, and Issuance of Writ of Attachment as to Defendant Maywood Green Solutions, LLC, dba Haven Maywood

5. Plaintiff’s Application for Right to Attach Order, and Issuance of Writ of Attachment as to Defendant CLB Collective, Inc., dba Haven Belmont

6. Plaintiff’s Application for Right to Attach Order, and Issuance of Writ of Attachment as to Defendant The Airport Collective, Inc., dba Haven Paramount

7. Defendant Haven #7, LLC.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions

8. Defendant Haven #7, LLC.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Production of the Requested documents; Request for Sanctions

ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiff Global Assets Liens & Foreclosures, LLC: Michael S. Warda

For Defendants Haven #7, LLC, dba Haven Cannabis Dispensary-Porterville, RLB Collective, Inc., dba Haven Los Alamitos, 4th Street Collective, Inc., dba Haven Downtown Long Beach, Maywood Green Solutions, LLC, dba Haven Maywood, Pure San Bernardino, LLC, dba Haven San Bernardino, CLB Collective, Inc., dba Haven Belmont, and The Airport Collective, Inc., dba Haven Paramount: Dimitri P. Gross, Law Office of Dimitri P. Gross

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons set forth herein:

Plaintiff’s Applications for Right to Attach Orders, and Issuance of Writs of Attachment are denied.
Defendant Haven #7’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions is granted as follows:
1. Plaintiff shall serve further, code compliant responses, without objection, no later than July 7, 2025, to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 50.1, and 50.2.
2. The request for monetary sanctions is granted in favor of Haven #7 and against plaintiff in the amount of $760.00, to be paid to counsel for Haven #7 on or before July 18, 2025.
Defendant Haven #7’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Production of the Requested documents, and Request for Sanctions is granted as follows:
1. Plaintiff shall serve further, code-compliant responses, without objections except as to privilege, along with the requested documents, no later than July 7, 2025, to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1 through 29.
2. For any document withheld based on a claim of privilege, plaintiff shall provide a privilege log, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (c)(1), containing sufficient factual information for defendants, and the court, to evaluate the merits of the claim.
3. The request for monetary sanctions is granted in favor of Haven #7 and against plaintiff in the amount of $2,760.00, to be paid to counsel for Haven #7 on or before July 18, 2025.

Background:

This action commenced on June 7, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Global Assets Liens & Foreclosures, LLC (plaintiff) against defendants: (1) Haven #7, LLC, dba Haven Cannabis Dispensary-Porterville (Haven #7), (2) RLB Collective, Inc., dba Haven Los Alamitos (RLB), (3) 4th Street Collective, Inc., dba Haven Downtown Long Beach (4th Street), (4) Maywood Green Solutions, LLC, dba Haven Maywood (Maywood), (5) Pure San Bernardino, LLC, dba Haven San Bernardino (Pure SB), (6) CLB Collective, Inc., dba Haven Belmont (CLB), and (7) The Airport Collective, Inc., dba Haven Paramount (Airport) (collectively “defendants”), for Breach of Written Contract, Account Stated, Open Account, and Goods Sold and Delivered.

As alleged in the complaint:

“Plaintiff is the assignee and owner of certain accounts receivable acquired through the East West Bank v. Herbl, Inc., receivership proceedings in the County of Santa Barbara, Case No. 23CV02629.” (Compl., ¶ 14 & Exh. A.)

Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of at least $141,934.12, representing unpaid invoices for the sale and delivery of various cannabis products that became due

from Defendants within the past 18 months in the following amounts:

Haven #7 - $4,702.56; RLB - $64,324.13; 4th Street - $6,312.08; Maywood - $3092.46; Pure SB - $17,561.81; CLB - $15,646.22; and Airport - $30,294.86. (Compl., ¶ 15 & Exhs. B-H.)

On September 9, 2024, defendants answered the complaint with a general denial and 17 affirmative defenses.

Plaintiff now seeks Right to Attach Orders, and Issuance of Writs of Attachment as to each defendant other than Pure SB. (Note: By way of its points and authorities, plaintiff does mention several times that it seeks the orders and writs as to Pure SB along with the other defendants. However, plaintiff did not file an application as to Pure SB, nor did it file a proposed order as to Pure SB.)

Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion.

Also, defendant Haven #7 moves to compel plaintiff to provide further responses to form interrogatories, set one, Nos. 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 50.1, and 50.2 (FIs). (Note: Although not entirely clear in the notice of motion or the points and authorities, these are the only interrogatories addressed by way of the separate statement. As such, they will be the only interrogatories ruled upon.) Haven #7 also moves to compel further responses to request for production of documents, set one (RFPs), and production of the documents, as to requests Nos. 1 through 29. Haven #7 seeks monetary sanctions for each of the motions to compel.

Plaintiff has not filed opposition or any other response to the motions to compel.

Analysis:

Attachment

“ ‘The basic purpose of the remedy of attachment . . . is to aid in the collection of a money demand by seizure of property in advance of trial and judgment, as security for eventual satisfaction of the judgment.’ ” [Citations.]” (Commercial & Farmers Nat. Bk. v. Hetrick (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 158, 164.)

“Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff may apply pursuant to this article for a right to attach order and a writ of attachment by filing an application for the order and writ with the court in which the action is brought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.010.)

“The application shall be supported by an affidavit showing that the plaintiff on the facts presented would be entitled to a judgment on the claim upon which the attachment is based.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.030.)

“(a) At the hearing, the court shall consider the showing made by the parties appearing and shall issue a right to attach order, which shall state the amount to be secured by the attachment determined by the court in accordance with Section 483.015 or 483.020, if it finds all of the following:

“(1) The claim upon which the attachment is based is one upon which an attachment may be issued.

“(2) The plaintiff has established the probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment is based.

“(3) The attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which the attachment is based.

“(4) The amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.090, subd. (a).)

“(a) Except as otherwise provided by statute, an attachment may be issued only in an action on a claim or claims for money, each of which is based upon a contract, express or implied, where the total amount of the claim or claims is a fixed or readily ascertainable amount not less than five hundred dollars ($500) exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney’s fees.

“(b) An attachment may not be issued on a claim which is secured by any interest in real property arising from agreement, statute, or other rule of law (including any mortgage or deed of trust of realty and any statutory, common law, or equitable lien on real property, but excluding any security interest in fixtures subject to Division 9 (commencing with Section 9101) of the Commercial Code). However, an attachment may be issued where the claim was originally so secured but, without any act of the plaintiff or the person to whom the security was given, the security has become valueless or has decreased in value to less than the amount then owing on the claim, in which event the amount to be secured by the attachment shall not exceed the lesser of the amount of the decrease or the difference between the value of the security and the amount then owing on the claim.

“(c) If the action is against a defendant who is a natural person, an attachment may be issued only on a claim which arises out of the conduct by the defendant of a trade, business, or profession. An attachment may not be issued on a claim against a defendant who is a natural person if the claim is based on the sale or lease of property, a license to use property, the furnishing of services, or the loan of money where the property sold or leased, or licensed for use, the services furnished, or the money loaned was used by the defendant primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

“(d) An attachment may be issued pursuant to this section whether or not other forms of relief are demanded.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 483.010; italics added.)

“Under the Attachment Law, “ ‘[w]hether or not the defendant appears in opposition, the plaintiff has the burden of proving (1) that his claim is one upon which an attachment may be issued and (2) the probable validity of such claim.’ ” [Citation.]” (Bank of America v. Salinas Nissan, Inc. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 260, 271.)

“ ‘[A]ttachment is a harsh remedy at best in that an alleged debtor loses control of his property before the claim against him is adjudicated. This being so, the provisions relating thereto should be strictly construed.’ ” [Citation.]” (J.C. Peacock, Inc. v. Hasko (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 363, 365.)

Plaintiff’s action is ultimately a breach of contract action. “To prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove (1) the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff. [Citation.]” (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.)

Plaintiff has provided sufficient proof that: (1) There was a contract between each of the defendants and Herbl Inc. (Herbl) for wholesale cannabis products; (2) In June 2023, Herbl was a defendant in a receivership action entitled East West Bank v. Herbl, Inc. (Case No. 23CV02629) (The receivership action); (3) On January 10, 2024, the court in the receivership action authorized the court appointed receiver, Kevin Singer, to sell Herbl’s assets to Distro Accounts Receivable, LLC (Distro), which, on March 3, 2024, assigned and transferred to plaintiff all of the assets that Distro had acquired pursuant to that order; and (4) In connection with the assignment agreement, Distro provided plaintiff with access to an online document data room which contained access to Herbl’s documents and records which related to the assets sold to plaintiff. The documents include accounting records including invoices and account ledgers. In connection with the present motion, as well as the complaint, plaintiff has provided copies of invoices showing what it purports is owed by each defendant.

In opposition, defendant provides evidence that some of the invoices relied on by plaintiff are incorrect in amounts claimed to be owed or have been paid.

“[A]n attachment generally may be issued only in an action where the claim for money is for “ ‘a fixed or readily ascertainable amount.’ ” (§ 483.010, subd. (a).) “ “ ‘ “The fact that the damages are unliquidated is not determinative. [Citations.] But the contract sued on must furnish a standard by which the amount due may be clearly ascertained and there must exist a basis upon which the damages can be determined by proof.” ’ ” ” (CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc., (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 537, 540; accord, Force v. Hart (1928) 205 Cal. 670, 673, [“ ‘[i]t is a well-recognized rule of law in this state that an attachment will lie upon a cause of action for damages for a breach of contract where the damages are readily ascertainable by reference to the contract and the basis of the computation of damages appears to be reasonable and definite’ ”].)” (Park v. NMSI, Inc. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 346, 359.]

Here, based on the evidence presented, the court cannot make a determination, at this time, that the amounts of damages are reasonably ascertainable and definite. As such, the applications for writs of attachment will be denied.

As relevant here, trial is scheduled to begin in three months, on September 22, 2025. Given that trial is scheduled to begin in the near future, there is no harm or prejudice that plaintiff is likely to suffer as the result of the denial of the applications for right to attach orders.

For purposes of the present motion only, defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s evidence are overruled.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

“A trial court must be mindful of the Legislature’s preference for discovery over trial by surprise, [and] must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery. . .” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.010 provides, “(a) Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath. (b) An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.”

As noted above, defendant Haven #7 moves to compel plaintiff to provide further responses to FIs, set one, Nos. 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 50.1, and 50.2.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 provides that, “(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. (c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”

In plaintiff’s initial responses to each of the FIs, it set forth the following boilerplate objections:

“Plaintiff objects as follows: (1) Overbroad, vague, and unintelligible; (2) Seeks attorney-client privileged and work product protected information; (3) Seeks expert information and an expert opinion; (4) Responsive materials have already been produced and provided to Defendants; (5) Seeks confidential information without a protective order in place; (6) Seeks information not reasonably calculated to [lead to] the discovery of admissible evidence; and (7) Defendants’ counsel stated numerous times they would speak on this matter and the discovery, but has failed to do so, thus necessitating these objections.”

None of the objections have any merit and are overruled.

Following meet and confer efforts, plaintiff provided supplemental responses. The supplemental responses, to the disputed FI’s, contain the same unmeritorious objections and then add:

“Without waiving the aforementioned objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.230, Responding Party refers to its production of documents and all materials served in this case. Investigation and discovery are ongoing.”

“If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230; italics added.)

Plaintiff’s responses are not code compliant. No documents are identified that contain the information sought by Haven #7. Plaintiff will be ordered to serve further, code compliant, responses without objections.

Haven #7’s counsel seeks sanctions in connection with the motion to compel further responses to the FI’s.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

“Misuses of the discovery process include . . .(d) failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery, (e) making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery, (f) making an evasive response to discovery . . . (h) making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery, (i) failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made.” (Code Civ. Proc., 2023.010, subds. (d), (e), (f), (h), & (i).)

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiff’s assertion of multiple boilerplate objections, and failure to provide code-compliant responses, was without justification and no other circumstances would make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

By way of declaration, Haven #7’s counsel declares:

“I have spent two (2) hours preparing the Motion, Declaration, and Separate Statement at $350.00 per hour. . . . I also expect that I will spend approximately two (2) hours reviewing an Opposition, preparing the Reply, if any, and preparing for and attending the hearing. Defendants will also incur a filing fee of $60.00, for a total in fees and costs of $1,460.00.” (Gross Decl., ¶ 10.)

The court finds the time spent, and hourly rate, reasonable. However, as the motion was unopposed, and Haven #7’s counsel only prepared a very brief notice of non-opposition, the estimated time for reviewing opposition, preparing reply, and preparing for and attending the hearing will be deducted from the requested sanctions. As such, Haven #7 will be awarded monetary sanctions in the amount of $760.00.

Requests for Production of Documents

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.010 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) Any party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.

“(b) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.”

As noted above, Haven #7 moves to compel plaintiff to provide further responses to RFPs, set one, Nos. 1 through 29.

The RFP’s can broadly be broken up into the following categories: Requests Nos. 1 through 14 seek documents that support particular allegations of the complaint. Requests Nos. 15 through 21 seek invoices, purchase orders, and contracts between plaintiff and each of the defendants. Requests Nos. 22 through 28 seek documents between plaintiff and Herbl regarding each of the defendants. Request No. 29 seeks documents identified in response to form interrogatories, set one.

“The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:

“(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . .

“(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item, or

“(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

The requests are facially valid and seek documents that are discoverable.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.240, provides:

“(a) If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.

“(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:

“(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.

“(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.

“(c)(1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.

“(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.”

Plaintiff’s initial responses to each of the RFPs contained the same boilerplate objections that were provided in response to the FIs. To repeat, the objections are:

None of the objections, other than potentially those based on claims of privilege, have any merit and are overruled.

Following meet and confer efforts, plaintiff provided supplemental responses. The supplemental responses, to the disputed RFP’s, contain the same unmeritorious objections and then add:

“Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will produce the non-privileged and responsive materials in its possession and control to the extent the request is not objectionable and Responding Party has already produced responsive documents in this action. Discovery and investigation are ongoing. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement and/or modify this response.”

The responses are evasive and not code compliant. Further, Haven #7 represents that plaintiff did not produce any documents.

The motion to compel further responses will be granted.

The court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)

By way of declaration, Haven #7’s counsel declares:

“My hourly rate for this matter is $450.00. . . . I have spent at least one (1) hour meeting and conferring trying to get responses and documents, five (5) hours preparing the Motion, Declaration, and Separate Statement. I also expect that I will spend approximately two (2) hours reviewing an Opposition, preparing the Reply, if any, and preparing for and attending the hearing. Defendants will also incur a filing fee of $60.00, for a total in fees and costs of $3,660.00.”

Again, the motion was unopposed and Haven #7’s counsel only filed a brief notice of non-opposition. While the hourly rate, and time expended on preparing the motion, is reasonable, the court will deduct the estimated two hours for reviewing the opposition, preparing a reply, and attending the hearing.

Sanctions of $2,760.00 will be imposed against plaintiff and in favor of Haven #7.

Judicial Branch of California

Notice: