Motion: Entry of Judgment
Sec. 2031.310, subd. (a).) "The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand." (Id., subd. (b)(1).)
RFP Nos. 2, 4, and 5 ask for the bank records and correspondence that show receipt and disbursement of the proceeds from the sale of the Morningstar Property, as well as the bank statements for the account utilized for the Morningstar Joint Venture from April 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024. (RFP Sep. Stat., p. 7, ll. 17-22; p. 9, ll. 15-19; p. 10, ll. 21-25.)
Thyne refused to provide a substantive response to these RFPs. The court finds these RFPs straightforward and relevant to claims and defenses in this action. The CC appears to allege that Thyne participated in a joint venture with LaBarre. (CC, P. 53.) The CC appears to allege that funds related to the Morningstar Joint Venture were placed in a business account of Thyne's law firm and then directed to other projects as agreed by Thyne. (CC, P.P. 32-33.) LaBarr submits evidence that Thyne admitted to receiving funds for the Morningstar Joint Venture in this account. (SI Sep. Stat., p. 8, ll. 20-27.) Thyne did not respond to this evidence.
LaBarre has demonstrated good cause for further responses. Thyne's burden objections are unsupported by evidence. Thyne's objections are otherwise overruled with the exception of financial privacy. The court will grant the motion as to RFP Nos. 2, 4, and 5. To address Thyne's privacy concerns, the court will order that any responsive records shall only be used by LaBarr as to this litigation and shall be kept confidential. If Thyne believes an additional protective order is warranted, the parties can meet and confer on an appropriate stipulated protective order or Thyne may file a noticed motion.
(9) Attorney Client Privilege
Thyne may redact documents or information compelled by this ruling that is protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine and place these redactions on a privilege log with sufficient detail for LaBarre to ascertain the basis and merits of the claim of privilege.
(10) RFAs
Based on the joint statement filed on June 5, 2026, it appears that verifications and substantive responses have been provided to these RFAs. No separate statement was submitted by LaBarre as to these RFAs. The court will deny the motion as moot as to the RFAs.
Tentative Ruling: The People of the State of CA vs $36,611 US Currency and Michael Riegard Tentative Ruling: The People of the State of CA vs $36,611 US Currency and Michael Riegard Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 06/12/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion: Entry of Judgment Tentative Ruling People of the State of California v. U.S. Currency in the Amount of $35,611 and Michael Reigard Case No. 25CV04436 Hearing Date: June 12, 2026 HEARING: Motion for Default Judgment ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiff the People of the State of California: John Savrnoch, Adam C. Howland, Office of the District Attorney For Defendant Michael Reigard and U.S. Currency in the Amount of $35,611: No appearance TENTATIVE RULING: For all reasons stated herein, the People's motion for default judgment is continued to
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
August 7, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in this department. On or before July 24, 2026, the People may file a declaration or other supporting evidence establishing the elements of notice required by Health and Safety Code section 11488.4, subdivisions (e) and (f). If a supplemental declaration or other supporting information is not submitted by this time, the court will order this matter off-calendar.
Background: On July 14, 2025, the People of the State of California (the People) initiated this action by filing a petition (Petition) for forfeiture against Michael Reigard (Reigard) and U.S. currency in the amount of $35,611 (Property). The Petition asserts one cause of action for forfeiture pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11488.4. As alleged in the Petition: On or before June 11 and June 25, 2025, the Property became subject to forfeiture pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11470.
The Property was used as an instrument to facilitate the manufacture or distribution of controlled substances. On June 11, 2025, officers seized $32,336 in cash from Reigard following his arrest on controlled substance possession for sales charges, on the Mission Street on-ramp in Santa Barbara. On June 25, 2025, and pursuant to a search warrant, $2,275 was seized from a storage unit at 20 S. Calle Cesar Chavez Street controlled by Reigard. The Property is currently located at, or is under the control of, the Santa Barbara Police Department.
The Petition seeks judgment declaring the Property forfeited to the State of California and for disposition pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11489, 11473.2, or 11473.3.
On December 10, 2025, the People filed this motion for default judgment. The motion is supported by a declaration of Adam C. Howland. Howland testifies that on July 29, in Santa Barbara County Case No. 25CR04529, Reigard plead guilty to felony transportation for sale of fentanyl and methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code sections 11352 and 11379. (Howard Decl., P.P. 4-9.) Reigard also signed a stipulation forfeiting his interest in the Property. (Howland Decl., P.P. 9-10, Ex. C.) There is no opposition to this motion or response to the Petition.
Analysis: "[I]f the Department of Justice or 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 of the county in which the defendant has been charged with the underlying criminal offense or in which the property subject to forfeiture has been seized or, if no seizure has occurred, in the county in which the property subject to forfeiture is located...." (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11488.4, subd. (a)(1).)
"The Attorney General or district attorney shall make service of process regarding this petition upon every individual designated in a receipt issued for the property seized. In addition, the Attorney General or district attorney shall cause a notice of the seizure, if any, and of the intended forfeiture proceeding, as well as a notice stating that any interested party may file a verified claim with the superior court of the county in which the property was seized or if the property was not seized, a notice of the initiation of forfeiture proceedings with respect to any interest in the property seized or subject to forfeiture, to be served by personal delivery or by registered mail upon any person who has an interest in the seized property or property subject to forfeiture other than persons designated in a receipt issued for the property seized.
Whenever a notice is delivered pursuant to this section, it shall be accompanied by a claim form as described in Section 11488.5 and directions for the filing and service of a claim." (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11488.4, subd., (c).)
"When a forfeiture action is filed, the notices shall be published once a week for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the seizure was made or where the property subject to forfeiture is located." (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11488.4, subd. (e).)
"All notices shall set forth the time within which a claim of interest in the property seized or subject to forfeiture is required to be filed pursuant to Section 11488.5. The notices shall explain, in plain language, what an interested party must do and the time in which the person must act to contest the forfeiture in a hearing. The notices shall state what rights the interested party has at a hearing. The notices shall also state the legal consequences for failing to respond to the forfeiture notice." (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11488.4, subd. (f).)
"Any person claiming an interest in the property seized pursuant to Section 11488 may, unless for good cause shown the court extends the time for filing, at any time within 30 days from the date of the last publication of the notice of seizure, if that person was not personally served or served by mail, or within 30 days after receipt of actual notice, file with the superior court of the county in which the defendant has been charged with the underlying or related criminal offense or in which the property was seized or, if there was no seizure, in which the property is located, a claim, verified in accordance with Section 446 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating the claimant's interest in the property.
An endorsed copy of the claim shall be served by the claimant on the Attorney General or district attorney, as appropriate, within 30 days of the filing of the claim. The Judicial Council shall develop and approve official forms for the verified claim that is to be filed pursuant to this section. The official forms shall be drafted in nontechnical language, in English and in Spanish, and shall be made available through the office of the clerk of the appropriate court. A claim under this section is an unlimited civil case, regardless of the value of the seized property." (Health & Saf.
Code, Sec. 11488.5, subd. (a)(1).)
"If at the end of the time set forth in subdivision (a) there is no claim on file, the court, upon motion, shall declare the property seized or subject to forfeiture pursuant to subdivisions (a) to (g), inclusive, of Section 11470 forfeited to the state. In moving for a default judgment pursuant to this subdivision, the state or local governmental entity shall be required to establish a prima facie case in support of its petition for forfeiture. There is no requirement for forfeiture thereof that a criminal conviction be obtained in an underlying or related criminal offense." (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11488.5, subd. (b)(1).)
Pursuant to Civil Code section 11470, "[a]ll moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance, [and] all proceeds traceable to such an exchange" are subject to forfeiture. (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11470, subd. (f).)
Here, the People have established that the Property is traceable to the sale of controlled substances in violation of the Health and Safety Code and that Reigard executed a stipulation forfeiting his interest in the Property. (Howland Decl., P.P. 4-13, Exs. A-D.) Further, it is apparent that no other claimants have filed claims in this matter or any response to the Petition. However, the evidence provided as to public notice of seizure is insufficient. Howland testifies that "[n]otice of seizure was also published in an appropriate newspaper for the statutorily required three consecutive weeks." (Howland Decl., P. 8.)
This is insufficient to establish a prima facie case that: "All notices shall set forth the time within which a claim of interest in the property seized or subject to forfeiture is required to be filed pursuant to Section 11488.5. The notices shall explain, in plain language, what an interested party must do and the time in which the person must act to contest the forfeiture in a hearing. The notices shall state what rights the interested party has at a hearing. The notices shall also state the legal consequences for failing to respond to the forfeiture notice." (Health & Saf.
Code, Sec. 11488.4, subd. (f).) "When a forfeiture action is filed, the notices shall be published once a week for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the seizure was made or where the property subject to forfeiture is located." (Id., subd. (e).)
"A forfeiture proceeding is a civil in rem action in which property is considered the defendant, on the fiction that the property is the guilty party. [Citations.] Statutes imposing forfeitures are disfavored and are to be strictly construed in favor of the persons against whom they are sought to be imposed." (Cuevas v. Superior Court (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1312, 1320, internal quotation marks omitted.) "This disfavor applies 'notwithstanding the strong governmental interest in stemming illegal drug transactions.' " (Id. at p. 1322; see also People v. International Fidelity Ins. Co. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1556, 1561 (in the context of bail statutes, forfeiture procedures "must be precisely followed or the court loses jurisdiction and its actions are void.")
The court will continue this matter so that the People may file a supplemental declaration or other information establishing the elements of notice required by Health and Safety Code section 11488.4, subdivisions (e) and (f).
Tentative Ruling: IQ Holdings Inc vs Surfdog Ventures LLC et al Tentative Ruling: IQ Holdings Inc vs Surfdog Ventures LLC et al Case Number