COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
MI
CHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney, SBN 111529
ANNE C. TREMBLAY, Assistant City Attorney, SBN 180956
MEREDITH A. McKITTRICK, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 234484 JENNIFER A. LAM, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 253728
OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY
CANNABIS ABATEMENT & PROSECUTION SECTION
200 North Main Street, Suite 966, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 978-4090 / Fax: (213) 978-8717
Attorneys for Plaintiff NO FEE – GOV. CODE § 6103
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Pla
intiff,
vs.
TONY TSUNGCHENG HUANG (aka TONY
HUANG and TSUNGCHENG HUANG),
individually and as managing director of TNS
MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, a California
limited liability company, representative of 2318
W FLORENCE INVESTMENT LLC, a California
limited liability company, and manager of GROUP
25 HOLDINGS LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; PHILIP OH, individually and as
manager of LA FLORENCE INVESTMENT
LLC, a California limited liability company (aka
LA FLORENCE INVESTMENTS LLC) and
managing manager of GLOBAL SOLUTIONS I
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
2318 W FLORENCE INVESTMENT LLC, a
California limited liability company; GROUP 25
HOLDINGS LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; TNS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC,
a California limited liability company;
--- defendants continued on the next page
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.:
COM
PLAINT FOR ABATEMENT,
INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER
EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES FOR:
1. LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 104.15;
2. LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 12.21;
3. PUBLIC NUISANCE IN
VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE
SECTION 3479 ET SEQ.;
4. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
SECTION 11570; AND
5. UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
(BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
CODE SECTION 17200 ET SEQ.)
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 07/27/2022 12:33 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Perez,Deputy Clerk Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Steven Kleifield 22STCV24221
1 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
LA FLORENCE INVESTMENT LLC, a
California limited liability company (aka LA
FLORENCE INVESTMENTS LLC);
GLOBAL SOLUTIONS I LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; JYP INVESTMENTS,
LLC, a California limited liability company (aka
JYP INVESTMENT LLC); and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive,
Defendants.
_________________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
For at least the last four years, the property at 2138 West Florence Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90047 has been the location of an unlicensed (and therefore, illegal) commercial cannabis storefront under three successive groups of property owners. First are: Tony Tsungcheng Huang (“Tony Huang”) and his companies, 2318 W Florence Investment LLC; Group 25 Holdings LLC; and TNS Management Group, LLC; (collectively, “Huang et al.”). Second are the owners after Huang et al.:
Philip Oh and his companies, LA Florence Investment LLC and Global Solutions I LLC (collectively, “Oh et al.”). Third is the owner after Oh et al.: JYP Investments, LLC (“JYP”), the current owner of the property. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff, the People of the State of California (“People”) allege the following against these property owners and DOES 1-100 (collectively, “Defendants”):
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The People bring this action to end unlicensed commercial cannabis activity in the City of Los Angeles (“City”). For years, Defendants have collectively allowed this illegal activity to persist at their property at 2138 West Florence Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90047 (“Florence Property”). This is notwithstanding law enforcement’s extraordinary and extensive efforts to stop it.
Indeed, to avoid law enforcement action, Tony Huang and Philip Oh worked together to disguise their involvement. They hid behind their shell entities. They shifted ownership of the Florence Property to and from each other’s shell entities in a sham “sale.” When they finally sold the Florence Property to JYP in a seemingly arms’ length transaction, they did so even though the illegal storefront remained there. The result is that the Florence Property continues to be the site of unlicensed commercial cannabis activity.
2 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
2. The Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) has taken enforcement action against this illegal activity at the Florence Property for at least the last four years. During this time LAPD has completed as many as four undercover purchases of cannabis and/or cannabis products and executed as many as nine search warrants at the property, each time recovering large amounts of:
cannabis, cannabis products, cash, and firearms.
3. Further, Defendants Tony Huang and Philip Oh are no strangers to illegal commercial cannabis activities. During the time period from June 2019 to April 2020, their other property at 11414 South Vermont Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90044 (“Vermont Property”) was also the location of an unlicensed (and therefore, illegal) commercial cannabis storefront. As this resulted in numerous violations of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, Tony Huang and Philip Oh schemed to shield themselves from liability for these violations. In owning the Vermont Property, Tony Huang hid behind his shell entities, 11414 Vermont LLC and THSC Holdings, LLC. He then executed a sham “sale” of this property to Philip Oh, who hid behind his own shell entities, PST Investment LA, LLC and Global Solutions I LLC. Through THSC Holdings, LLC, Tony Huang loaned money to PST Investment LA, LLC, creating a lien against the Vermont Property and enabling him to retain his interest in the Vermont Property despite its “sale.” The People, thus, filed two criminal actions against Tony Huang and three criminal actions against Philip Oh. These cases resolved with Tony Huang and Philip Oh agreeing, inter alia, to 12-months summary probation that required that they obey all laws and prohibited them from being involved in any commercial cannabis activity. Tony Huang and Philip Oh have been under this probation starting on July 26, 2021 and December 21, 2021, respectively.
4. Indeed, the problem is simple: property owners refuse to stop illegal commercial cannabis storefronts from operating on their properties as these businesses are too profitable to give up. In this case, Defendants have collectively engaged, and continue to engage, in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity at the Florence Property.
5. State and local law extensively regulate commercial cannabis activity. These laws require that businesses obtain licenses from the City and from the State of California (“State”) before engaging in commercial cannabis activity. (Los Angeles Municipal Code (“LAMC”), §§ 104.15,
3 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
104.01(a)(13), 104.01(a)(29); see also LAMC, § 105.06(a); Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26053, subd. (a).) These laws further prohibit property owners from renting, leasing to or otherwise allowing or permitting any unlicensed commercial cannabis activity to occupy or use their buildings or land. (LAMC, §§ 104.15(a)(3), 104.15(b)(4), 12.21(A)(1)(a); see also LAMC, § 105.06(g).) To do so constitutes a public nuisance. (Civ. Code, §§ 3479, 3480; LAMC, § 11.00(l); Health & Saf. Code, § 11570.)
6. Thus, the People bring this civil law enforcement action and allege violations of: 1) L
AMC section 104.15; 2) LAMC section 12.21; 3) California Public Nuisance Law, Civil Code section 3479 et seq.; 4) California Drug Abatement Act, Health and Safety Code section 11570; and 5) Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.
7. Through this action, the People seek the following remedies. The People seek to enjoin Defendants from engaging in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity in the City.
Specifically, the People seek to enjoin Defendants from renting, leasing to or otherwise allowing unlicensed commercial cannabis activity to occupy or use their properties. The People further seek statutory penalties and the appointment of a receiver to prevent Defendants from engaging in such wrongful conduct in the future. Finally, the People seek restitution to restore to any person in interest any money which Defendants acquired through unfair competition.
II. THE PARTIES
A. Plaintiff
8. Plaintiff is the sovereign power of the State and is designated by LAMC section
11.00, subsection (l); Civil Code section 3494 and Code of Civil Procedure section 731; Health and Safety Code section 11571.5; and Business and Professions Code section 17204 to be the complaining party in civil law enforcement actions brought under those statutes. The People have an interest in ensuring that the City does not have any unlawful commercial cannabis activity. This includes, inter alia, ensuring that property owners do not rent, lease to or otherwise allow unlicensed commercial cannabis activity to occupy or use their buildings or land in the City. ///
///
4 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
B. Defendants
a. Huang et al., Prior Owners of the Florence Property
9. Defendant Tony Huang resides in Walnut, California. He owned the building located at the Florence Property through two shell entities: 1) 2318 W Florence Investment LLC from August 18, 2017 to October 1, 2019; and 2) LA Florence Investment LLC from October 2, 2019 to June 14, 2021. More specifically, on August 18, 2017, Tony Huang purchased the property through his shell entity, 2318 W Florence Investment LLC. To further disguise his involvement, on October 2, 2019, he signed a grant deed, fictitiously “selling” the property for $440,000 to LA Florence Investment LLC, a shell company belonging to Philip Oh. On October 9, 2019, through Group 25 Holdings LLC, he also loaned $440,000 to LA Florence Investment LLC, creating a lien against the property. At all times relevant hereto, however, Tony Huang managed and controlled these shell companies involved in owning the Florence Property: 2318 W Florence Investment LLC (Florence Property owner); Group 25 Holdings LLC (manager of 2318 W Florence Investment LLC and lienholder on Florence Property); and TNS Management Group, LLC (payer of Florence Property’s property taxes). As the true owner of the Florence Property, he personally authorized, directed, and actively participated in allowing unlicensed commercial cannabis activity to occupy or use the Florence property.
10. Defendant 2318 W Florence Investment LLC at all times relevant hereto was a California limited liability company. It owned the Florence Property during which it authorized, directed, and actively participated in allowing unlicensed commercial cannabis activity to occupy or use the Florence Property. As a shell company controlled by Tony Huang, it further disguised Tony Huang’s ownership of the Florence Property. On March 24, 2022, it dissolved after its ownership of Florence Property ended.
11. Defendant Group 25 Holdings LLC is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a Delaware limited liability company. It was the manager of 2318 W Florence Investment LLC. As another shell company controlled by Tony Huang, it helped him conceal his ownership of the Florence Property, which continued notwithstanding its sham “sale” from 2318 W Florence Investment LLC to LA Florence Investment LLC on October 2, 2019. On October 9, 2019, seven
5 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
days after the completion of the sham “sale,” Group 25 Holdings LLC loaned money to LA Florence Investment LLC. As this loan was for the entire purchase price (or $440,000) that LA Florence Investment LLC “paid” for the Florence Property, Group 25 Holdings LLC’s lien against the Florence Property was for its entire value (or $440,000).
12. Defendant TNS Management Group, LLC is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a California limited liability company controlled by Tony Huang. On April 9, 2020, TNS Management Group, LLC paid the property taxes of the Florence Property, thereby concealing Tony Huang’s continued ownership of the Florence Property notwithstanding its sham “sale” from 2318 W Florence Investment LLC to LA Florence Investment LLC on October 2, 2019.
13. Defendant Tony Huang used and/or continues to use: 2318 W Florence Investment LLC; Group 25 Holdings LLC; and TNS Management Group, LLC (“Huang Entity Defendants”) as mere instrumentalities and conduits through which, for his convenience, they engage or help him engage in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity in this City. At all times relevant hereto, he controlled, dominated, managed, and operated the Huang Entity Defendants to suit his convenience such that there was a unity of interest between him and the Huang Entity Defendants and any separateness between them ceased to exist. The facts are such that an adherence to the fiction of separate existence of these Huang Entity Defendants would, under the particular circumstances, sanction a fraud or promote injustice. More specifically, Tony Huang: 1) controlled the business and affairs of the Huang Entity Defendants; 2) commingled Huang Entity Defendants’ funds and assets and diverted them for his own personal use; 3) disregarded legal formalities and failed to maintain minutes or adequate corporate records for the Huang Entity Defendants; 4) inadequately capitalized the Huang Entity Defendants; 5) used the same office or business location and employed the same employees and/or attorney as the Huang Entity Defendants; 6) held himself out as personally liable for the debts of the Huang Entity Defendants; 7) used the Huang Entity Defendants as mere shells, instrumentalities, or conduits for himself; 8) used the Huang Entity Defendants to procure labor, services, or merchandise for himself; 9) used the Huang Entity Defendants to conceal his ownership, management, and financial interests and/or personal business activities; and/or 10) used the Huang Entity Defendants to shield against his personal obligations. 6 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
b. Oh et al., Prior Owners of the Florence Property
14. Defendant Philip Oh resides in Fullerton, California. He owned the building located at the Florence Property through LA Florence Investment LLC, a shell entity that he controlled, from October 2, 2019 to June 14, 2021. To conceal Tony Huang’s continued ownership of the Florence Property, he further helped Tony Huang execute a sham “sale” of the property to LA Florence Investment LLC on October 2, 2019. Later, on June 15, 2021, he signed a grant deed selling the Florence Property to JYP Investment, LLC. Philip Oh further managed and controlled several shell companies involved in owning the Florence Property. They include: LA Florence Investment LLC (Florence Property owner); and Global Solutions I LLC (manager of LA Florence Investment LLC).
As the true owner of the Florence Property, however, he personally authorized, directed, and actively participated in allowing unlicensed commercial cannabis activity to occupy or use the Florence Property.
15. Defendant LA Florence Investment LLC at all times relevant hereto was a California limited liability company. It owned the Florence Property during which it authorized, directed, and actively participated in allowing unlicensed commercial cannabis activity to occupy or use the Florence Property. It further disguised Tony Huang’s and Philip Oh’s ownership of the Florence Property in fictitiously “purchasing” the property from 2318 W Florence Investment LLC. On March 1, 2022, it dissolved after its ownership of Florence Property ended.
16. Defendant Global Solutions I LLC is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a Delaware limited liability company. As another shell company controlled by Philip Oh, it was the manager of LA Florence Investment LLC, helping Philip Oh (and Tony Huang) disguise his (and their) ownership of the Florence Property.
17. Defendant Philip Oh used and/or continues to use: LA Florence Investment LLC; and Global Solutions I LLC (“Oh Entity Defendants”) as mere instrumentalities and conduits through which, for his convenience, they engage or help him engage in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity in this City. At all times relevant hereto, he controlled, dominated, managed, and operated the Oh Entity Defendants to suit his convenience such that there was a unity of interest between him and the Oh Entity Defendants and any separateness between them ceased to exist. The facts are such
7 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
that an adherence to the fiction of separate existence of these Oh Entity Defendants would, under the particular circumstances, sanction a fraud or promote injustice. More specifically, Philip Oh: 1) controlled the business and affairs of the Oh Entity Defendants; 2) commingled Oh Entity Defendants’ funds and assets and diverted them for his own personal use; 3) disregarded legal formalities and failed to maintain minutes or adequate corporate records for the Oh Entity Defendants; 4) inadequately capitalized the Oh Entity Defendants; 5) used the same office or business location and employed the same employees and/or attorney as the Oh Entity Defendants; 6) held himself out as personally liable for the debts of the Oh Entity Defendants; 7) used the Oh Entity Defendants as mere shells, instrumentalities, or conduits for himself; 8) used the Oh Entity Defendants to procure labor, services, or merchandise for himself; 9) used the Oh Entity Defendants to conceal his ownership, management, and financial interests and/or personal business activities; and/or 10) used the Oh Entity Defendants to shield against his personal obligations. c. JYP Investments, LLC, Current Owner of the Florence Property
18. Defendant JYP Investments, LLC is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a California limited liability company. It owns the Florence Property (and has owned the Florence Property since June 15, 2021) during which it has authorized, directed, and actively participated in allowing unlicensed commercial cannabis activity to occupy or use the Florence Property.
C. Does 1 Through 100
19. The true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to the People. Therefore, the People sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names and capacities of these Defendants have been ascertained, the People will seek leave of this Court to amend this Complaint to insert, in lieu of such fictitious names, the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named Defendants. The People are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that these Defendants participated in, and in some part are responsible for, the acts alleged herein. Does 1 through 100 include unknown individuals who conspired with one or more Defendants concerning the acts alleged herein. Does 1 through 100 also include agents of Defendants acting within the course and scope of their duties. Each reference in this Complaint to: 1) Tony Huang; 2) any of the Huang Entity Defendants: 2318 W Florence Investment LLC;
8 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Group 25 Holdings LLC; and TNS Management Group, LLC; 3) Philip Oh; 4) any of the Oh Entity Defendants: LA Florence Investment LLC; and Global Solutions I LLC; 5) JYP Investments, LLC; or 6) Defendants is also a reference to all Defendants sued as Does.
20. Each Defendant is jointly and severally liable by act, omission, strict liability, negligence, agency, respondeat superior, alter ego, or otherwise for violations of law alleged herein.
At all times relevant hereto, Defendants were acting as the agents, assignees, partners, joint venturers, alter egos, representatives, co-schemers, co-conspirators or employees of each other, and in committing the wrongful acts and omissions alleged herein, were acting within the course and scope of that agency, assignment, partnership, joint venture, alter ego relationship, representation, scheme, conspiracy, or employment. Each Defendant had and has knowledge or constructive notice of the acts of every other Defendant. The allegations in this Complaint apply equally to the fictitious Defendants sued as Does.
21. Whenever this Complaint refers to an act or failure to act by Defendants, such allegation and reference shall be deemed to mean also the act and failure to act of each Defendant, whether acting individually or jointly and severally.
III. THE PROPERTIES
A. The Florence Property
22. The legal description of the Florence Property is:
The Westerly 25 feet of Lot 7 and the Easterly 25 feet of Lot 8, Block 4 of Tract No. 5107, in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 54, Page 67 to 70 inclusive of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 6017-004-033.
23. This property has a yellow one-story building with a gray metal security door that faces west. The building is located on the south side of Florence Avenue, just east of Van Ness Avenue. The building has the numbers “2138” in black paint located on the north and west side of the building. Just west of the building’s gray metal door is a black metal gate that leads to a tan detached structure, south of the front building located at the same property address.
24. This property is further located within 700 feet of several Sensitive Uses. “Sensitive
9 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Use” means an Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facility, Day Care Center, Public Library, Public Park, School, and/or Permanent Supportive Housing. (LAMC, § 105.01.) Here, the Sensitive Uses near the property include three elementary schools: 1) 74th Street Elementary School at 2112 West 74th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90047; 2) Learning by Design Charter School at 7019 South Van Ness Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90047; and 3) Buckner Educational Christian Academy at 2330 West Florence Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90043 (now closed since June 30, 2020). They also include a public library: Hyde Park Branch Library at 2205 West Florence Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90043.
IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
25. For years, the Florence Property has had an unlicensed (and therefore, illegal) commercial cannabis storefront during the time in which Defendants have collectively owned it.
Since February 2019, LAPD received numerous complaints concerning the sale and use of cannabis and cannabis products at this property. The complaints centered on the resulting heavy pedestrian traffic, numerous car accidents occurring on Florence Avenue, and cannabis being sold to juveniles.
As such, LAPD tried to stop the illegal commercial cannabis activity at the Florence Property.
LAPD completed at least four undercover purchases of cannabis and/or cannabis products and executed as many as nine search warrants at the Florence Property. However, the illegal commercial cannabis activity persisted and continues there today.
A. LAPD’s Investigation
a. LAPD’s First Controlled Purchase and Execution of Its Search Warrant
26. In March 2019, LAPD observed that the Florence Property had an unlicensed (and therefore, illegal) commercial cannabis storefront. On March 5, 2019, LAPD’s confidential informant purchased cannabis there. Shortly thereafter, LAPD searched the Los Angeles City Department of Cannabis Regulation (“DCR”) and the California Bureau of Cannabis Control (“BCC”) licensing databases and observed that the Florence Property did not have a license to sell cannabis within the City. This led LAPD to execute a search warrant at the Florence Property on March 14, 2019. LAPD arrested the storefront’s manager. During this search, LAPD also found and recovered, inter alia, large amounts of cannabis and cannabis products (over 60 pounds), cash, and
10 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
firearms.
b. LAPD’s Execution of Its Second Search Warrant
27. In September 2019, unlicensed commercial cannabis activity at the Florence Property continued. On September 23, 2019, while undercover, LAPD walked into the illegal commercial cannabis storefront there and observed a check-in area along with multiple posters displaying cannabis and/or cannabis products, the storefront’s hours, and a price list. Again, LAPD searched the DCR and BCC licensing databases, noting that the Florence Property did not have a license to sell cannabis within the City.
28. On September 30, 2019, LAPD executed a search warrant at the Florence Property.
LAPD arrested the storefront’s “budtenders,” street vernacular for those who sell cannabis and/or cannabis products. LAPD further found and recovered during its search, inter alia, large amounts of cannabis and cannabis products (approximately 18 pounds) and cash as well as a firearm. c. LAPD’s Execution of Its Third Search Warrant
29. In November 2019, LAPD observed that the illegal storefront at the Florence Property was selling cannabis and/or cannabis products. On November 9, 2019, LAPD stopped a pedestrian who told LAPD that he had just purchased cannabis from the storefront there. That same day, LAPD observed a woman exiting the storefront, carrying a white pharmaceutical bag (packaging consistent with the purchase of cannabis and/or cannabis products). The woman also told LAPD that she had just purchased cannabis from the storefront at the Florence Property. On November 13, 2019, LAPD continued to observe numerous individuals enter the storefront and stay inside for a short period of time (i.e., four to seven minutes) and then exit, often carrying white pharmaceutical bags.
30. As a result, on November 26, 2019, LAPD executed a third search warrant at the Florence Property. Again, LAPD arrested the storefront’s employees for unlawfully engaging in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. During this search, LAPD again found and recovered the same or similar items as prior search warrants, including: large amounts of cannabis and cannabis products (over 19 pounds) and cash.
///
11 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
d. LAPD’s Execution of Its Fourth Search Warrant
31. On January 23, 2020, LAPD drove by the Florence Property, observing that the illegal storefront was still open and operating without a license to engage in commercial cannabis activity. LAPD saw customers enter the storefront and then exit after approximately five minutes.
Moreover, LAPD saw one woman exit the storefront with a white pharmaceutical bag. When LAPD later spoke to her, she confirmed that she had just purchased $20 worth of cannabis from the storefront. Further, that day, LAPD visited the DCR website and searched its licensing database, noting that the Florence Property still did not have a license to sell cannabis within the City.
32. As such, on January 24, 2020, LAPD executed a fourth search warrant at the Florence Property. Again, LAPD arrested the storefront’s employees for unlawfully engaging in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. Again, LAPD found and recovered, inter alia, large amounts of cannabis and cannabis products (over 31 pounds), cash and firearms. e. LAPD’s Execution of Its Fifth Search Warrant
33. In February 2020, LAPD observed that unlicensed commercial cannabis activity continued at the Florence Property. On February 15, 2020, LAPD drove by the Florence Property, again observing that the storefront was open and operating. LAPD saw customers enter and then exit the storefront in a span of approximately five to ten minutes. LAPD spoke to one of the customers, who confirmed having purchased $35 worth of cannabis from the storefront. On February 21, 2020, LAPD also visited the DCR website, searched its licensing database, and found that no license existed for the Florence Property to sell cannabis within the City.
34. On February 26, 2020, LAPD executed its fifth search warrant at the Florence Property. LAPD cited the storefront’s employees for engaging in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. LAPD found and recovered, inter alia, large amounts of cannabis and cannabis products (over 11 pounds), and cash.
f. LAPD’s Execution of Its Sixth Search Warrant
35. In April 2020, LAPD observed that the Florence Property continued to have unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. On April 9, 2020, LAPD saw customers enter the storefront and then exit after approximately two to five minutes. Many customers exited the
12 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
storefront carrying white pharmaceutical bags. LAPD spoke to one of the customers who confirmed that he had purchased $18 worth of cannabis from the storefront. LAPD also observed that on the Internet, the storefront advertised itself under the name, “The Plug 20 Cap Collective,” posting the sale prices for cannabis and cannabis products along with its hours of operation as from 9:00 a.m. to 2 a.m. daily.
36. On April 13, 2020, LAPD executed its sixth search warrant at the Florence Property.
LAPD arrested the storefront’s employees for engaging in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity.
LAPD further found and recovered, inter alia, a large amount of cannabis and cannabis products (over 17 pounds) and cash as well as one firearm.
g. LAPD’s Second Controlled Purchase and Execution of Its Seventh Search Warrant
37. In October 2020, LAPD observed that unlicensed commercial cannabis activity remained at the Florence Property. That month, LAPD drove by the property and saw customers enter and then exit the storefront there in a span of three to five minutes. Moreover, LAPD’s confidential informant purchased $25 worth of cannabis from the illegal storefront, further confirming that the storefront was still operating. On October 9, 2020, LAPD also visited the DCR website, searched its licensing database, and found no license for the Florence Property to sell cannabis within the City.
38. On October 22, 2020, LAPD executed its seventh search warrant at the Florence Property. LAPD cited the storefront’s employees for engaging in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. Further, LAPD found and recovered, inter alia, a large amount of: cannabis and cannabis products (over 15 pounds) as well as cash.
h. LAPD’s Third Controlled Purchase and Execution of Its Eighth Search Warrant
39. Even a year later, in September 2021, the illegal commercial cannabis storefront at the Florence Property was still operating. On September 3, 2021, LAPD’s confidential informant purchased $20 worth of cannabis. On September 6, 2021, LAPD visited the DCR website and searched its licensing database, noting that the Florence Property did not have a license to sell cannabis within the City.
40. On September 9, 2021, LAPD executed its eighth search warrant at the Florence
13 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Property. LAPD issued citations to the storefront’s employees for engaging in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. During its search of the storefront, LAPD found and recovered, inter alia, large amounts of cannabis and cannabis products (over 42 pounds) and cash as well as a firearm.
i. LAPD’s Fourth Controlled Purchase and Execution of Its Ninth Search Warrant
41. Still, the storefront at the Florence Property did not stop operating. Again, on September 22, 2021, LAPD visited the DCR website and searched its licensing database, noting that the Florence Property did not have a license to sell cannabis within the City. That day, LAPD’s confidential informant purchased $20 worth of cannabis from the storefront at the Florence Property.
On October 1 and 20, 2021, LAPD also conducted surveillances at the Florence Property. Each time, LAPD saw customers entering and then exiting the storefront with white pharmaceutical bags.
42. As a result, on October 26, 2021, LAPD executed its ninth search warrant at the Florence Property. Again, LAPD issued citations to the storefront’s employees for engaging in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. Consistent with all other search warrants executed at the Florence Property, LAPD found and recovered, inter alia, large amounts of cannabis and cannabis products (over 35 pounds) as well as cash.
B. The Internet Continues to Advertise Commercial Cannabis Activity at the Florence Property
43. On www.yelp.com (“Yelp”), the storefront (“The Plug 20 Cap Collective”) still advertises its illegal operations. Yelp shows its operating hours as “8:00 AM – 2:00 AM” from Monday through Sunday at the Florence Property. Additionally, on Yelp, there are photographs of cannabis strains and products as well as the storefront’s menu.
44. The City and the State have never issued any license for The Plug 20 Cap Collective, its location (the Florence Property), or for any of the Defendants to conduct commercial cannabis activity. In fact, a search of the licensing databases maintained by DCR and the BCC still yields no license to date for any one of them.
///
///
14 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
C. Evidence Code Section 1101(b) Conduct
45. This was not the first time that Tony Huang and Philip Oh have worked together to engage in illegal commercial cannabis activity through their companies and their employees at the same property in the City. From June 2019 to April 2020, Tony Huang, Philip Oh, and their cohorts (including, Global Solutions I LLC) had unlicensed commercial cannabis activity at their property at 11414 South Vermont Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90044 (“Vermont Property”). This demonstrates their knowledge of and intent to violate the law and absence of mistake or accident. (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (b).) This further demonstrates their continuing willingness to allow illegal commercial cannabis activity to take place on their properties.
46. In July 2019, Tony Huang purchased the Vermont Property through his newly formed company, 11414 Vermont LLC. LAPD immediately discovered that the property then had unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. As a result, the People filed two criminal actions against Tony Huang: 1) People v. Daniel J Rodriguez, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 9CJ00356 (“Criminal Case 1”); and 2) People v. Tony Tsungcheng Huang, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 0CJ01155 (“Criminal Case 2”). In Criminal Case 1, the People charged Tony Huang with violating LAMC sections 104.15(b)(4) and 12.21(A)(1)(a) for renting, leasing to or allowing unlicensed commercial cannabis activity at his property. In Criminal Case 2, the People charged him with violating various sections of the Los Angeles Fire Code at his property.
47. However, to evade further law enforcement action against him, Tony Huang “sold” the Vermont Property a few months later, in October 2019, to PST Investment LA LLC, a company belonging to Philip Oh (and managed by Global Solutions I LLC, another company belonging to Philip Oh). Through THSC Holdings, LLC, Tony Huang also loaned money to PST Investment LA LLC, creating THSC Holdings, LLC’s (and his) lien against the Vermont Property. Meanwhile, unlicensed commercial cannabis activity continued at the Vermont Property. The People, therefore, filed the following criminal actions against Philip Oh: 1) People v. Delvondre B. Gardner et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 0CJ00251 (“Criminal Case 3”); 2) People v. Brianna Ashley Delgado et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 0CJ00352 (“Criminal Case 4”); and 3) People v. Delvondre B. Gardner et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 0CJ00395 (“Criminal Case
15 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
5”). In all these criminal cases, the People charged Philip Oh with violating LAMC sections 104.15(b)(4) and 12.21(A)(1)(a) for renting, leasing to or allowing unlicensed commercial cannabis activity at his property.
48. On July 26, 2021, to globally resolve the criminal cases against him, Tony Huang pled no contest to violating the Los Angeles Fire Code (LAMC section 57.109.1). The Court placed Tony Huang on 12-months summary probation, required that he obey all laws, and further prohibited him from being involved in any commercial cannabis activity. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the People moved to dismiss all the other criminal charges against Tony Huang.
49. On December 21, 2021, to globally resolve the criminal cases against him, Philip Oh pled no contest to violating LAMC section 104.15(b)(4) in Criminal Case 3 and Criminal Case 4.
The Court placed him on 12-months summary probation, required that he obey all laws, and further prohibited him from being involved in any commercial cannabis activity. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the People moved to dismiss all other criminal charges against Philip Oh.
V. APPLICABLE LAWS
A. Los Angeles Municipal Code
50. The LAMC defines commercial cannabis activity as including “the cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing, packaging, labeling, transportation, delivery or sale of Cannabis or Cannabis products in the City [of Los Angeles].” (LAMC, § 104.01(a)(13).)
51. For those who engage in commercial cannabis activity, the LAMC requires that they obtain a license to do so from the City. (LAMC, § 104.02(a); see also LAMC, §§ 104.15, 105.06(a).) The LAMC also requires that they obtain a license to do so from the State, which further requires that they include the license number in their advertisements of cannabis products. (LAMC, § 105.06(a); see also Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26053, subd. (a), 26151, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2).)
52. To ensure that unlicensed commercial cannabis activity does not occur in the City, the LAMC also prohibits property owners from renting, leasing to or otherwise allowing any unlicensed commercial cannabis activity to occupy or use their building or land. (LAMC, §§ 104.15(a)(3), 104.15(b)(3), 104.15(b)(4), 105.06(g).)
16 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
53. Moreover, as a general matter, LAMC section 12.21(A)(1)(a) prohibits any building, structure, or land from being used or from being designed to be used for any use other than its permitted use (i.e., after applying for and securing all permits and licenses required by all laws and ordinances). Cannabis related activity is not currently enumerated in the LAMC as a permitted use in any zone, nor is it set forth in the Official Use List of the City. (LAMC, § 105.04.)
54. LAMC section 105.02(a)(1)(B) further prohibits retailer commercial cannabis activity from occurring within a 700-foot radius of a school.
55. Any act or omission that is made unlawful in the LAMC shall include “causing, permitting, aiding, abetting, . . . or concealing the fact of the act or omission.” (LAMC, § 11.00(j).)
56. Any violation of the LAMC constitutes a public nuisance. The People may abate this public nuisance by seeking a restraining order, injunction or other order or judgment in law or equity. (LAMC, §§ 11.00(l), 104.15(c).) Additionally, each day that an LAMC violation continues is a new and separate offense and subject to a maximum civil penalty of $2,500 for each and every offense. (LAMC, § 11.00(l).)
57. To further deter unlicensed commercial cannabis activity in the City, the LAMC also states that each day that an LAMC section 104.15 violation continues is a new and separate offense and subject to a maximum civil penalty of $20,000 for each and every offense. (LAMC, § 104.15(c).)
B. Public Nuisance Law
58. Unlicensed commercial cannabis activity is also a public nuisance under California public nuisance law. A nuisance is “[a]nything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances . . . so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property . . . .” (Civ. Code, § 3479, italics added.) A public nuisance is “one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons . . . .” (Civ. Code, § 3480.)
59. Remedies against a public nuisance include but are not limited to a civil action or abatement accomplished by an injunction issued by a court of equity. (Civ. Code, § 3491.) In such action, a court may hold property owners liable for their tenant’s nuisance activities—even if their
17 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
tenant is not a party to such action.
C. Health and Safety Code Section 11570
60. Additionally, California Health and Safety Code section 11570 specifically deems properties at which unlicensed commercial cannabis activity occurs to be nuisances. This statute states that “any building or place used for the purpose of unlawfully selling, serving, storing, keeping, manufacturing, or giving away any controlled substance” and any “building or place wherein or upon which those acts take place” is a nuisance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11570.)
61. Plaintiff may sue to abate such nuisance against “the [property] owner, lessee, or agent of the building or place in or upon which the nuisance exists from directly or indirectly maintaining or permitting the nuisance.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 11571.)
62. If this abatement action establishes the existence of a nuisance, the Court must enter an order of abatement as a part of the judgment. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11581, subd. (a).) This order of abatement shall provide a one-year closing of the building or place against its use for any purpose. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11581, subd. (b)(1).)
63. Additionally, the Court may assess civil penalties not to exceed $25,000 against Defendants for this nuisance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11581, subd. (b)(2).) D. Unfair Competition Law
64. The Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. (“UCL”) prohibits “unfair competition,” which includes “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice . . . .” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.) The UCL authorizes the City Attorney to bring a civil enforcement action against those who engage, have engaged, or propose to engage in unfair competition. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17203.)
65. Under the UCL, Plaintiff may seek injunctive relief, appointment of a receiver, and restitution. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17203, 17204.) Plaintiff may also seek civil penalties of up to $2,500 for each violation of the UCL or up to $5,000 if the violation was perpetrated against a disabled or elderly person. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17206, 17206.1.) The UCL’s remedies and penalties are cumulative to each other and to the remedies or penalties available under all other laws in California. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17205.)
18 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
66. Additionally, the Court may appoint a receiver “to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice which constitutes unfair competition, as defined in this chapter, or as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17203.) VI. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
67. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to LAMC section
11.00; Civil Code section 3479 et seq.; Health and Safety Code sections 11571 and 11571.5; and Business and Professions Code section 17204.
68. The Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 10 and Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10 because each Defendant conducts substantial business in Los Angeles, California; each Defendant has purposefully availed himself, herself, or itself of the benefits of doing business in this City and State; Defendants’ violations of law alleged herein occurred, in whole or in part, in this City and State; and, each registered corporate Defendant conducts substantial business in the City and County of Los Angeles.
69. Venue for this matter lies within the County of Los Angeles pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 393, 395 and 395.5 because Defendants operate their businesses in the County of Los Angeles. Moreover, the violations of law alleged herein occurred, in whole or in part, in the County of Los Angeles.
VII. CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violations of LAMC Section 104.15)
(By Plaintiff against All Defendants)
70. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 69 of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
71. Plaintiff brings this cause of action pursuant to LAMC sections 104.15(c) and
11.00(l), which authorize Plaintiff to enforce any violation of the LAMC by seeking an injunction or other appropriate order in the Superior Court.
19 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
72. Defendants violated the provisions of LAMC section 104.15 by allowing unlicensed commercial cannabis activity to occupy or use the Florence Property. Defendants Huang et al. have done so since at least 2018, Defendants Oh et al. have done so since at least 2019, and Defendant JYP has done so since 2021.
73. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and injunctive relief is expressly authorized by LAMC sections 104.15(c) and 11.00(l). Unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined, they will continue to engage in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity in the City, as described herein. In doing so, Defendants will also continue to maintain a public nuisance to the harm of the public.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violations of LAMC Section 12.21)
(By Plaintiff against All Defendants)
74. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 73 of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
75. Plaintiff brings this cause of action pursuant to LAMC section 11.00(l), which authorizes Plaintiff to enforce any violation of the LAMC by seeking an injunction or other appropriate order in the Superior Court.
76. Defendants have violated LAMC section 12.21(A)(1)(a) by using or allowing the Florence Property to be used for unlicensed commercial cannabis activity, which is not a permitted use in any zone in the City. Defendants Huang et al. have done so since at least 2018, Defendants Oh et al. have done so since at least 2019, and Defendant JYP has done so since 2021.
77. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and injunctive relief is expressly authorized by LAMC section 11.00(l). Unless the Defendants are restrained and enjoined, they will continue to allow these properties in the City to be used for unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. In doing so, the Defendants will also continue to maintain a public nuisance to the harm of the public. ///
///
///
///
20 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violations of Code of Civil Procedure Section 731 and Civil Code Sections 3479, 3480) (By Plaintiff against All Defendants)
78. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 77 of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
79. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 731 to abate a public nuisance.
80. Defendants have caused, maintained, or permitted a continuing public nuisance at the Florence Property. An illegal cannabis business operated and continues to operate at the Florence Property in violation of LAMC sections 104.15, 105.06, and 12.21, and Defendants have caused, maintained, or permitted the Florence Property as public nuisances as defined by LAMC sections
11.00(l) and 104.15(c). These nuisance conditions at this property also adversely affected the immediate and adjoining neighborhoods, as well as the entire community. Thus, Defendants’ illegal acts were public nuisances under the LAMC and Civil Code, as defined in Civil Code sections 3479 and 3480.
81. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and injunctive relief is expressly authorized by Code of Civil Procedure sections 526 and 731. If it becomes necessary for Plaintiff to correct the violations or abate the nuisances at the Florence Property, Plaintiff will incur substantial costs.
Thus, Plaintiff requests recovery of its costs to correct these violations or abate the nuisances and establishment of priority liens on this property for such costs. Moreover, unless Defendants are restrained by order of this Court, Defendants will also continue unlicensed commercial cannabis activity in the City, thereby causing irreparable injury and harm to the public’s health and welfare.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violations of Health and Safety Code Section 11570)
(By Plaintiff against All Defendants)
82. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 81 of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
83. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11570 to abate
21 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
a nuisance.
84. Defendants have caused, maintained or permitted continuing public nuisances at the Florence Property. Because an illegal cannabis business operated and continues to operate at the Florence Property in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11570, Defendants have caused, maintained, or permitted the buildings and locations to unlawfully sell, serve, store, keep, manufacture, or give away a controlled substance (cannabis) as this property was the location where such acts took place.
85. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and injunctive relief is expressly authorized by Health and Safety Code sections 11571, 11573, 11573.5 and 11581. Unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined by order of this Court, they will continue to use, aid and abet the use, occupy and maintain, and aid and abet the occupation and maintenance of property in the City, together with the fixtures and appurtenances located therein, for the purpose of selling, storing, distributing or giving away a controlled substance (cannabis) and they will continue to allow, permit and encourage these nuisances on the premises, to the irreparable damage of the public.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violations of Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.) (By Plaintiff against All Defendants)
86. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 85 of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
87. Plaintiff brings this cause of action pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17204 to enjoin Defendants from engaging in unfair competition by their unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices.
88. Defendants have violated and continue to violate the UCL (Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.) as described herein.
89. Defendants engage in the following unlawful business acts or practices:
a. Establishing, operating, or participating in an unlicensed commercial cannabis activity by allowing unlicensed commercial cannabis activity to occupy or use the
22 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Florence Property in violation of LAMC section 104.15, subsections (a)(1) through (a)(3);
b. Allowing unlicensed commercial cannabis activity at the Florence Property in violation of LAMC sections 104.15(b)(4) and 105.06(g);
c. Using or allowing the Florence Property to be used for an unpermitted use (i.e., unlicensed commercial cannabis activity) in violation of LAMC section
12.21(A)(1)(a);
d. Engaging in commercial cannabis activity at the Florence Property within 700 feet of three schools and one public library in violation of LAMC section 105.02(a)(1)(B); e. Causing and maintaining continuing public nuisances at the Florence Property in violation of Civil Code sections 3479 and 3480; and
f. Causing and maintaining continuing public nuisances at the Florence Property in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11570.
90. Defendants have also violated and continue to violate the UCL (Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.) by engaging in unfair business acts or practices. State and local law establish legislatively declared policies prohibiting unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. By engaging in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity, Defendants have violated these legislatively declared policies. Defendants have gained an unfair advantage over other commercial property owners who do not allow businesses engaging in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity to occupy or use their properties.
91. Defendants’ acts of unfair competition present a continuing threat to the public, and Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, unless Defendants are permanently enjoined and restrained by order of this Court, they will continue to commit acts of unlawful and unfair competition, and thereby continue to cause irreparable harm and injury to the public. ///
///
///
///
23 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against all Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
1. That the Court find that Defendants and their agents, heirs, successors, officers, employees and anyone acting on their behalf have violated LAMC section 104.15.
2. That Defendants and their agents, heirs, successors, officers, employees and anyone acting on their behalf be held jointly and severally liable for all penalties and other relief awarded in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants.
3. That Defendants and their agents, heirs, successors, officers, employees and anyone acting on their behalf be ordered to pay Plaintiff’s abatement costs, administrative penalties, court costs, and civil penalties in the amount of up to $20,000 per day for each and every violation of LAMC section 104.15, pursuant to LAMC section 104.15(c).
4. That Defendants and their agents, heirs, successors, officers, employees and anyone acting on their behalf be ordered to pay Plaintiff’s costs incurred through the abatement of, or enforcement activity against, an Unlawful Establishment as provided under Los Angeles Municipal Code section 104.15(h), and Los Angeles Administrative Code section 7.35.3 or any other applicable law.
5. That, pursuant to LAMC section 11.00(l) and LAMC section 104.15(c), the Court issue a temporary restraining order against Defendants, and each of them and their respective agents, officers, employees, heirs, assignees, transferees, legatees, volunteers, and anyone acting on their behalf, as follows: Do not transfer, sell, assign, give away, encumber, or otherwise cause or allow to be transferred the Florence Property, or any interest in this property.
6. That, pursuant to LAMC section 11.00(l) and LAMC section 104.15(c), the Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendant JYP (the Florence Property’s current owner), and each of it and its respective agents, officers, employees, heirs, assignees, transferees, legatees, volunteers, and anyone acting on its behalf, as follows:
a. Upon vacation of the Florence Property by any cannabis storefront, immediately take possession of the keys and secure the buildings on these properties to ensure
24 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
unauthorized access;
b. In the event of the failure of any cannabis storefront at the Florence Property to vacate this property within seven (7) days of issuance of a preliminary injunction, immediately institute and diligently pursue an unlawful detainer action against the cannabis storefront and its operators until the cannabis storefront is removed from the property;
c. Do not allow commercial cannabis activity at the Florence Property; and d. Do not allow the Florence Property to be used for cannabis, controlled substance or narcotics use.
7. That, pursuant to LAMC section 11.00(l) and LAMC section 104.15(c), the Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendants and each of them and their respective agents, officers, employees, heirs, assignees, transferees, legatees, volunteers, and anyone acting on its behalf, as follows: Do not operate, participate in the operation of, or rent, lease, or sublease to any commercial cannabis activity in the City.
AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
8. That the Court find that Defendants and their agents, heirs, successors, officers, employees and anyone acting on their behalf have violated LAMC section 12.21.
9. That Defendants and their agents, heirs, successors, officers, employees and anyone acting on their behalf be held jointly and severally liable for all penalties and other relief awarded in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants.
10. That Defendants and their agents, heirs, successors, officers, employees and anyone acting on their behalf be ordered to pay Plaintiff’s abatement costs, administrative penalties, court costs, and civil penalties in the amount of up to $2,500 per day for each and every violation of LAMC section 12.21(A)(1)(a), pursuant to LAMC section 11.00(l).
11. That, pursuant to LAMC section 11.00(l), the Court issue a temporary restraining order against Defendants, and each of them and their respective agents, officers, employees, heirs, assignees, transferees, legatees, volunteers, and anyone acting on their behalf, as follows:
Do not transfer, sell, assign, give away, encumber, or otherwise cause or allow to be transferred the
25 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Florence Property or any interest in this property.
12. That, pursuant to LAMC section 11.00(l), the Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendant JYP (the Florence Property’s current owner), and each of it and its respective agents, officers, employees, heirs, assignees, transferees, legatees, volunteers, and anyone acting on its behalf, as follows:
a. Upon vacation of the Florence Property by any cannabis storefront, immediately take possession of the keys and secure the buildings on this property to ensure unauthorized access;
b. In the event of the failure of any cannabis storefront at the Florence Property to vacate the property within seven (7) days of issuance of a preliminary injunction, immediately institute and diligently pursue an unlawful detainer action against the cannabis storefront and its operators until the cannabis storefront is removed from the property;
c. Do not allow commercial cannabis activity at the Florence Property; and d. Do not allow the Florence Property to be used for cannabis, controlled substance or narcotics use.
13. That, pursuant to LAMC section 11.00(l), the Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendants and each of them and their respective agents, officers, employees, heirs, assignees, transferees, legatees, volunteers, and anyone acting on their behalf, as follows: Do not operate, participate in the operation of, or rent, lease, or sublease to any commercial cannabis activity in the City of Los Angeles.
AS TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
14. That the Florence Property, together with the fixtures and moveable property therein and thereon, be declared public nuisances and be permanently abated as such in accordance with Civil Code sections 3479 and 3480.
15. That the Court find that Defendants and their agents, heirs, successors, officers, employees and anyone acting on their behalf, have owned, operated, maintained, and managed the Florence Property in a manner constituting public nuisances.
26 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
16. That the Court grant a permanent injunction, order of abatement, and judgment in accordance with Civil Code section 3491, enjoining and restraining Defendants and their agents, heirs, successors, officers, employees and anyone acting on their behalf from owning, operating, maintaining, and managing the Florence Property (or any property within the City) as public nuisances, and to bring such properties into compliance with all applicable State and local regulations.
17. That Defendants and their agents, heirs, successors, officers, employees and anyone acting on their behalf be held jointly and severally liable for all penalties and other relief awarded in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants.
AS TO THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18. That all Defendants, the Florence Property, including all buildings and structures thereon, be declared in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11570 et seq.
19. That the Florence Property, together with the fixtures and moveable property therein and thereon, constitute public nuisances and be permanently abated as such in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 11581.
20. That the Court grant a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, permanent injunction and order of abatement in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 11570 et seq., enjoining and restraining Defendants and their agents, heirs, successors, officers, employees and anyone acting on their behalf, from unlawfully selling, serving, storing, keeping, manufacturing, or giving away controlled substances, including cannabis, on the Florence Property or on any property within the City.
21. That Defendants be prohibited from operating, permitting, conducting or in any way sanctioning the operation of any type of cannabis-related venture from the Florence Property or on any property within the City.
22. That the Court issue such orders in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 11573.5, and such orders as are appropriate, to remedy the nuisances on the Florence Property and enhance the abatement process.
///
27 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
23. That as part of the Judgment, an Order of Abatement be issued, and that the Florence Property be closed for a period of one year, not to be used for any purpose, and be under the control and custody of this Court for said period of time, or, in the alternative, that Defendant JYP (the Florence Property’s current owner) pay an amount equal to the fair market rental value of this property for one year to the City or County in whose jurisdiction the nuisance is located in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 11581(c)(1).
24. That Defendants, each individually, be assessed a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each nuisance occurring on the Florence Property.
25. That all fixtures and moveable property used in conducting, maintaining, aiding or abetting the nuisances at the Florence Property, be removed by the Los Angeles Police Department and sold in the manner provided for the sale of chattels under execution. Said fixtures and property shall be inventoried and a list prepared and filed with this Court.
26. That there shall be excepted from said sale, such property to which title is established in some third party not a defendant, nor agent, officer, employee or servant of any defendant in this proceeding.
27. That the proceeds from said sale be deposited with this Court for payment of the fees and costs of sale. Such costs may occur in closing the Florence Property, and keeping them closed, removal of said properties, and Plaintiff’s costs in the action, including attorneys’ fees, and such other costs as the Court shall deem proper.
28. That if the proceeds of the sale do not fully discharge all such costs, fees and allowances, the Florence Property shall also be sold under execution issued upon the order of the Court and the proceeds of such sale shall be applied in a like manner. That any excess monies remaining after payment of approved costs shall be delivered to the Defendant JYP (the Florence Property’s current owner). Ownership shall be established to the satisfaction of this Court.
29. That Defendants not allow any other commercial cannabis activity to occupy or remain on the premises.
30. That Defendants not allow, permit or condone any illegal use of the Florence Property.
28 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
31. That Defendants and any agents, officers, employees and anyone acting on their behalf, and their heirs and assignees, be perpetually enjoined from transferring, conveying, or encumbering any portion of the Florence Property, for consideration or otherwise, without first obtaining the Court’s prior approval.
32. That Defendants be prohibited from having the Florence Property occupied by any business that is not registered, permitted or licensed as required by law or is engaged in and/or proposes to make illegal use of this property.
33. That Defendant JYP (the Florence Property’s current owner) be ordered to immediately notify any transferees, purchasers, commercial lessees, or other successors in interest to the Florence Property of the existence and application of any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction to all prospective transferees, purchasers, commercial lessees, or other successors in interest, before entering into any agreement to sell, lease or transfer the Florence Property, for consideration or otherwise, all or any portion of the Florence Property, that is the subject of this action.
34. That Defendant JYP (the Florence Property’s current owner) be ordered to immediately give a complete, legible copy of any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction to all prospective transferees, purchasers, commercial lessees, or other successors in interest, before entering into any agreement to sell, lease or transfer the Florence Property, for consideration or otherwise, all or any portion of the Florence Property that is the subject of this action.
35. That Defendant JYP (the Florence Property’s current owner) be ordered to immediately request and procure signatures from all prospective transferees, purchasers, commercial lessees, or other successors in interest to the Florence Property, which acknowledges his or her respective receipt of a complete, legible copy of any temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction, and deliver a copy of such acknowledgment to the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, care of Supervising Deputy City Attorney Meredith A. McKittrick, or her designee.
///
29 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
36. That Plaintiff recover the costs of this action, including law enforcement investigative costs and any fees, including attorneys’ fees, authorized by law from all Defendants.
AS TO THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
37. That the Court find that Defendants , their successors, agents, representatives, employees and all persons who act in concert with them have engaged in unfair competition.
38. That the Court grant a temporary restraining order, permanent injunction and order of abatement enjoining and restraining Defendants, their agents, heirs, successors, officers, employees and anyone acting on their behalf from engaging in unfair competition and from owning, operating, maintaining, and managing the Florence Property or any other property in the City in an unlawful condition, as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
39. That the Court appoint a receiver to take charge of the Florence Property, with all powers and duties permitted by law.
40. That upon the discharge of the receiver, Defendant JYP (the Florence Property’s current owner), its agents, heirs, successors, officers, employees and anyone acting on its behalf, be required to maintain the Florence Property in full compliance with all State, County, and City laws.
41. That Defendants, their agents, heirs, successors, officers, employees and anyone acting on their behalf, be adjudged jointly and severally liable and assessed the maximum civil penalty of $2,500 for each violation of the UCL that they committed, caused, maintained, permitted, and conspired to commit relating to the Florence Property that they owned, managed, and/or had an interest in during the relevant four year time period.
42. That Defendants be ordered to make direct restitution of any money or other property that may have been acquired as a result of their unlawful and unfair business acts and practices related to the Florence Property.
43. That Defendants and their agents, heirs, successors, officers, employees and anyone acting on their behalf be held jointly and severally liable for all penalties, restitution and other relief awarded in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants.
44. That Defendants be prohibited from engaging in commercial cannabis activity at the Florence Property or any other property in the City.
1 2 45.
AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
That Plaintiff recovers the amount of the filing fees and fees for the service of process 3 or notices which would have been paid but for Government Code section 6103.5, designating it as 4 such and, that the fees, at the Court's discretion, may include the amount of the fees for certifying 5 and preparing transcripts.
6 46. That the Court issue orders to Plaintiff to record the lis pend ens, issue an Order 7 Appointing the Receiver, Permanent Injunction, Abatement Order, and Judgment with the Los 8 Angeles County Recorder.
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
47. That the Court grants Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: July 27, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney
ANNE C. TREMBLAY, Assistant City Attorney
MEREDITH A. MCKITTRICK, Deputy City Attorney
JENNIFER A. LAM, Deputy City Attorney
OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY
SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS AND GANG DIVISION
CANNABIS ABATEMENT AND PROSECUTION SECTION
By:�-;i-
J�A.LAM
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
The People of the State of California
30 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
City Attorney Hydee Feldstein
Soto Shutters Illegal Cannabis
Storefront in South L.A.
Posted on 10/10/2023
LOS ANGELES – Today, City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto announced that her office took action and successfully shut down a South L.A. storefront that has been selling cannabis illegally since 2018. In addition to being permanently barred from selling cannabis illegally, the property owner and operators were ordered to pay $450,000 in civil penalties. City of Los Angeles and California state law extensively regulates the commercial sale of cannabis, requiring appropriate licenses and prohibiting property owners from renting to or otherwise allowing unlicensed cannabis activity at their site.
“Cannabis sales in California are regulated for good reason — to ensure that businesses operate safely and legally, keep cannabis from being sold to children and regulate the industry so as to avoid nuisances and undue concentration of cannabis locations in an area,” said L.A. City Attorney Feldstein Soto. “The illegal activity at this store went on for far too long and was alarming for the neighborhood – with guns being recovered by law enforcement and complaints about the store selling cannabis products to minors. That ends now. I’m proud that my office put a stop to this and helped to level the playing field for legitimate business owners who operate by the rules.”
According to the complaint, since 2018, the property building at 2138 West Florence Avenue, which is located within 700 feet of two elementary schools and a library, has operated as an unlicensed – Home About Resources
News Careers Translate
Accessibility Search
3/2/25, 6:49 PM City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto Shutters Illegal Cannabis Storefront in South L.A. | City Attorney https://cityattorney.lacity.gov/updates/city-attorney-hydee-feldstein-soto-shutters-illegal-cannabis-storefront-south-la 1/3 and therefore illegal – commercial cannabis storefront. Over the last four years, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) received numerous complaints about the illegal sale and use of cannabis and cannabis products at this property. The complaints cited heavy pedestrian traffic, numerous car accidents occurring on Florence Avenue, and cannabis being sold to minors. The LAPD executed nine search warrants – each time recovering large amounts of cannabis, cash and guns, and at least four undercover purchase operations.
Despite these efforts, the illegal activity persisted as the property owners continued to sell cannabis at this storefront.
The City Attorney’s complaint further alleged that the illegal commercial cannabis sales at this property continued through a series of owner/operators – all who utilized shell companies and LLCs to hide their involvement and shirk responsibility tied to the illegal activity.
The groups of owners, since 2018, include:
Tony Huang and his companies 2138 W Florence Investment LLC, Group 25 Holdings LLC, and TNS Management Group, LLC.
Philip Oh and his companies LA Florence Investment LLC and Global Solutions I LLC.
Jin Kang and his company JYP Investments, LLC, the current property owner.
In addition to the civil penalties and being prevented from the illegal commercial cannabis sales, the property owners and operators will be ordered to pay a minimum of $1 million in civil penalties if they violate the law again.
This litigation was managed by attorneys in the newly formed Public Rights Branch of the City Attorney's Office. City Attorney Feldstein Soto created the Public Rights Branch earlier this year to protect and enforce the rights of California residents in a wide range of legal matters, including unfair or fraudulent business practices, consumer protection, environmental justice, nuisance abatement and intellectual property.
Civil case #22STCV24221: Complaint
The People of the State of California v. Tony Tsungcheng Huang (aka Tony Huang and Tsungcheng Huang), individually and as managing 3/2/25, 6:49 PM City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto Shutters Illegal Cannabis Storefront in South L.A. | City Attorney https://cityattorney.lacity.gov/updates/city-attorney-hydee-feldstein-soto-shutters-illegal-cannabis-storefront-south-la 2/3 director of TNS Management Group, LLC, a California limited liability company, representative of 2318 W Florence Investment LLC, a California limited liability company, and manager of Group 25 Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company et al.
###
Hydee Feldstein Soto is the 43rd Los Angeles City Attorney, elected in November 2022 and sworn into office in December 2022. Her team of nearly 1,000 legal professionals, including 500+ attorneys, carries out legal work for the City of Los Angeles at her direction and under her supervision. She is the first female City Attorney in L.A. history. 3/2/25, 6:49 PM City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto Shutters Illegal Cannabis Storefront in South L.A. | City Attorney https://cityattorney.lacity.gov/updates/city-attorney-hydee-feldstein-soto-shutters-illegal-cannabis-storefront-south-la 3/3