MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
5 HNHPC, INC. VS. THE DEPARTMENT OF CANNIBIS CONTROL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Motion of Respondents Department of Cannabis Control and Clint Kellum in his Official Capacity as Director of the Department of Cannabis Control (“Respondents”) for Reconsideration of the Court’s prior ruling on the Petition for Writ of Mandate filed b y Petitioner HNHPC, Inc. (“Petitioner”) is DENIED.
Respondents’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to Exhibits 20 through 22 and DENIED as to the remaining because they are not material to the disposition of the Motion.
Petitioner’s Request for Judicial Notice of Exhibits 1 and G is GRANTED.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (c) provides, “If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.” “A ‘change of law’ under section 1008, subdivision (c), ‘is always an appropriate basis, up until a final judgment is entered, for changing an interim order ....’ [Citation.]” (State of California v. Superior Ct. (Flynn) (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 94, 100.)
As applicable here, Business & Professions Code section 26067, subdivision (b)(2), was amended, effective January 1, 2026, by Senate Bill 861. The court issued its ruling on the Petition for Writ of Mandate under the prior version of section 26067, subdivision (b)(2), therefore, Respondents ask that the court reconsider its prior ruling.
Prior to the amendment, section 26067, subdivision (b)(2) provided, “The database shall be designed to flag irregularities for the department to investigate.” (Emphasis added.)
As amended, section 26067, subdivision (b)(2) provides, “The electronic system shall be designed to flag irregularities for the department to investigate.”
The amendment simply replaced the term “database” with “electronic system” and was a terminology change for clarification and not a substantive change. This is reflected in the legislative history of Senate Bill 861.
Specifically, the Legislative Counsel’s Digest of the amendment states: “Existing law requires the department to establish a trac k and trace program for reporting the movement of cannabis and cannabis products throughout the distribution chain, as specified. Existing law requires the department, in consultation with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, to create an electronic database containing the electronic shipping manifests to facilitate the administration of the track and trace program, as specified. [¶] This bill would instead refer to the electronic database as an electronic
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?”
system.” (Petitioner’s RJN Ex. 1; Legis. Counsel’s Digest., 2025 - 2026 Regular Session, S.B. 861 [emphasis added].)
Similarly, the Senate Floor Analysis of Senate Bill 861 states that: “This bill replaces references to DCC’s electronic database with electronic system to more accurately reflect to the functionality of the system.” (Senate Rules Committee, Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 2025-2026 Regular Session, S.B. 861, 9/25/25 in Assembly [emphasis added].)
The Senate Third Reading explained, “This bill contains several technical and noncontroversial changes to MAUCRSA and provisions relating to the DCC. Specifically, this bill would update cross-references in statutes providing for license application requirements, clarify that track-and-trace is an electronic system rather than a database, and make other minor changes. None of the changes proposed by this bill are controversial or meaningfully substantive.” (Respondent’s RJN Ex. 22; Senate Committee, 2025 - 2026 Regular Session, S.B. 861, Sen., 9/4/25 [emphasis added].)
Thus, the legislative history of Senate Bill 861 shows the amendment is non- substantive and therefore does not impact the court’s prior analysis. Accordingly, the court finds the amendment does not warrant reconsideration of its prior ruling.
Moving party to give notice.
6. DOAN VS. KIA AMERICA, INC. 2025-01513185 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Plaintiffs Carla T. Doan and Jonathan I. Weaver’s Motion for Sanctions Under Code Civil Procedure, section 871.26 is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs move for an order imposing a monetary sanction of $2500.00 against the attorney of record for defendant Kia America, Inc. for the failure to comply with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc., section 871.26, subdivision (h)(6), (7), (8), (11) and (12).
Code Civil Procedure, section 871.26, subdivision (b) provides:
(b) Within 60 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to all other parties an initial disclosure and documents pursuant to subdivisions (f), (g), and (h).
Code Civil Procedure, 871.26, subdivision (h) provides, in relevant part:
The defendant or manufacturer shall provide the following documents to all other parties pursuant to