2012-00132800-CU-PT

The People of the State of Ca vs. Tasha Wynn

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Filed By: Hornbuckle, Matthew

Real Party In Interest’s motion for judgment on the pleadings to Petitioner the People
of the State of California’s Petition for Forfeiture is denied.

Real Party’s request for judicial notice is granted.

At the outset, the Court rejects Petitioner’s suggestion that the Code of Civil Procedure
does not apply such that a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to CCP §
438 is not available. “The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to
proceedings under this chapter unless otherwise inconsistent with the provisions or
procedures set forth in this chapter. However, in proceedings under this chapter, there
shall be no joinder of actions, coordination of actions, except for forfeiture proceedings,
or cross-complaints, and the issues shall be strictly limited to the questions related to
this chapter.” (Health & Saf. Code § 11488.5(c)(3) [emphasis added].)

When the moving party is the defendant [real party in interest], there are two
permissible grounds for the motion: (a) The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, or
(b) the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against
the defendant. (C.C.P. 438(c)(1)(B).) The second of these is the traditional ground,
and the same as for a general demurrer. (See 5 Cal. Proc. (5th), Pleading, §§951,
952.) As with a demurrer, the Court assumes the truth of all the well-pled allegations.
(Macias v. State of California (1995) 10 Cal.4th 844, 847, fn. 1.)

The Court finds that the petition is adequately pled. Indeed, there do not appear to be
any specific pleading requirements for a forfeiture petition in the relevant statutes and
none have been cited by Real Party. The relevant statute states that if the “local
governmental entity determines that the factual circumstances do warrant that the
moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value seized or subject
to forfeiture come within the provisions of subdivisions (a) to (g), inclusive, of Section
11470, and are not automatically made forfeitable or subject to court order of forfeiture
or destruction by another provision of this chapter, the Attorney General or district
attorney shall file a petition of forfeiture with the superior court…” (Health & Saf. Code
§ 11488.4(a).) The statute does not delineate what must be alleged in the petition,
though a common sense reading of the statute suggests that the petition must allege
that the property that has been seized is properly subject to forfeiture pursuant to one
of the provisions of Section 11470. Petitioner has alleged such information in the
instant case.

Here, the petition alleges that “it appears that the [seized] money was earned by
narcotics trafficking. From all objective indicia, the seized currency is a proceed
traceable to an exchange for a controlled substance, or was used, or intended to be
used, to facilitate such an exchange.” (Petition ¶ III.) The money is alleged to be
“subject to forfeiture in that is was furnished or intended to be furnished by any person
in exchange for a controlled substance within the meaning of Health and Safety Code
Section 11470(f).” (Id. ¶ IV.) It is also alleged that the money is alternatively subject to
forfeiture because it is traceable to the “exchange identified in Section IV within the
meaning of Health and Safety Code Section 11470(f)” or because “it was intended to
be used to facilitate a violation of possession for sale or sale of a conditional
substance within the meaning of Health and Safety Code Section 11470(f).” (Id. ¶¶ V,
VI.)

While Real Party argues that the above constitutes nothing more than legal
conclusions devoid of any facts, the Court disagrees. Instead, they are more properly
characterized as allegations of ultimate facts demonstrating that the currency at issues
was subject to seizure pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 11470(f) that Petitioner
will ultimately be required to prove. Whether Petitioner can do so is not relevant at this
stage. While the allegations are sparse, they are sufficient, though the Court notes
that Petitioner offers much more information in the opposition regarding the facts that
were not set forth in the petition.

Finally, while Real Party argues that she has been prejudiced by the lack of facts set
forth in the petition because it has denied her the opportunity to raise appropriate
affirmative defenses (apparently she asserts that had some of the information set forth
in the Petitioner’s opposition been alleged in the petition, she would have raised
additional defenses), nothing prevents her from seeking leave to amend her answer to
the extent she deems it appropriate.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings is therefore denied.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or other notice is required.