Larry Lawson, et al., v. John Coggi, et al.

of [Health and Safety Code] [s]ection 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).)

"A petition of forfeiture under this subdivision shall be filed as soon as practicable, but in any case within one year of the seizure of the property that is subject to forfeiture, or as soon as practicable...." (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11488.4, subd. (a)(2).)

For the same reasons discussed in the Order set forth above, the Court finds that the petition was timely filed.

"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." (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11488.4, subd. (c).)

Though information presented in the supplemental brief described above shows that Walsh was designated in any receipt for the Property, as to Hernandez, the motion asserts that Hernandez was served with the petition by mail as reflected in exhibit 4 to the motion. (Motion at p. 3, l. 4.)

As noted in the Order set forth above, exhibit 4 contains the proof of service filed by the People in this case on January 9, 2025, which states that a copy of the petition was mailed to Hernandez at the following address: 1502 San Pascual Street, Apartment B, Santa Barbara, California. (Jan. 9, 2025, Proof of Service, P.P. 4-5.)

"Service of process refers to a formal delivery of documents that is legally sufficient to charge the Defendant with notice of a pending action. [Citations.] The legal sufficiency of a formal delivery of documents must be measured against some standard." (Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou SinoType Technology Co., Ltd. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 125, 136.)

Wholly absent from the motion, including the supplemental brief, is any reasoned legal or factual argument showing why the mailing of the petition to Hernandez at the address described above and in the proof of service is sufficient to make "service of process" of the petition upon Hernandez as required by Health and Safety Code section 11488.4. (Id. at p. 139 [general discussion of "service of process"]; see also Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 17, subd. (b)(7) [defining "[p]rocess"].)

"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).)

The supplemental brief asserts that on December 7, 2023, detective Isaac Munoz signed a notice of forfeiture, and provided that notice to Senior Custody Deputy Luis Murillo who then personally served Hernandez with that notice in county jail. (Supp. Brief at p. 2.)

Exhibit 1 to the supplemental brief is a document entitled "Notice of Seizure and of Forfeiture Proceedings Pursuant To Health and Safety Code Section 11488 Is Hereby Given To All Persons Named Below", which the Court understands to be the notice of forfeiture described in the supplemental brief and above (the Notice of Forfeiture). The Notice of Forfeiture states that Hernandez may file a verified claim with the Santa Barbara Superior Court. (Supp. Brief, exhibit 1.)

Notwithstanding whether the present record is sufficient to show that the Notice of Forfeiture was personally delivered to Hernandez, or includes matters described in Health and Safety Code section 11488.4, the motion and the supplemental brief do not show, or explain why, that notice was accompanied by the claim form described in section 11488.5.

For example, exhibit 1 to the supplemental brief does not include the claim form described in section 11488.4, subdivision (c), and the proof of service attached to the supplemental brief as exhibit 3 does not reflect that the Notice of Forfeiture was accompanied by a claim form.

The People also do not include or present any evidence or information showing why the Pacific Coast Business Times is "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); see also Gov. Code, Sec. 6000 [defining "newspaper of general circulation"].)

In addition, this case number does not appear to be included in the published notices contained in exhibit 5 to the supplemental brief, nor does that brief contain any citations to or explanation of where those notices appear in that exhibit.

For all reasons discussed above and in the Order, the supplemental brief is also deficient, and fails to cure the defects in the motion.

For these reasons, the motion fails to show whether the time period set forth in subdivision (a) of Health and Safety Code section 11488.5 has ended, and fails to establish a prima facie case in support of the petition. (See Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11488.5, subd. (b)(1), (2).)

The examples provided herein are intended to be illustrative but not exhaustive, and, absent appropriate citations to the record in support of a prima facie case, the Court declines to issue an advisory opinion as to whether the motion is appropriate or statutorily compliant in other respects.

For these and all further reasons discussed above, the Court will continue the hearing on the motion to permit the People another opportunity to correct or explain the deficiencies described herein, and if appropriate, any other deficiencies that the People may determine require further explanation or correction.

Tentative Ruling: Larry Lawson, et al., v. John Coggi, et al. Tentative Ruling: Larry Lawson, et al., v. John Coggi, et al. Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 07/01/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion of Plaintiffs for Leave to File First Amended Complaint Tentative Ruling For Plaintiffs Larry Lawson and Nancy Duong aka Nancy Lawson: Jeffrey S. Sanger, Miguel A. Avila, Sanger, Hanley, Sanger & Avila, LLP For Defendant Melinda Coggi: Philip D. Dracht, Dracht Law, PC RULING For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of plaintiffs Larry Lawson and Nancy Duong aka Nancy Lawson for leave to file an amended complaint is denied.

Background

On March 18, 2025, plaintiffs Larry Lawson and Nancy Duong aka Nancy Lawson (collectively, the Lawsons) filed their complaint in this action against defendants John Coggi and Melinda Coggi (collectively, the Coggis).

As alleged in the complaint: The Lawsons and the Coggis, respectively, own real property in the Shadow Hills Single Family Lot Owners Association (Shadow Hills SFLOA) in Santa Barbara. (Complaint, P. 7.)

On January 19, 2019, the Lawsons and the Coggis sued the Shadow Hills SFLOA and others alleging wrongs committed in their housing development (the Shadow Hills Action). (Complaint, P. 8.)

At about the same time, the Lawsons and the Coggis entered into an oral agreement by which the Lawsons agreed to pay some or all of the Coggis' legal fees and costs in connection with the Shadow Hills Action. (Complaint, P. 9.)

In May 2020, the Lawsons and the Coggis entered into a written agreement (Repayment Agreement) memorializing the oral agreement for the repayment of fees. (Complaint, P. 10 & exhibit A).

The Shadow Hills Action was settled by a settlement agreement on January 7, 2025. (Complaint, P. 13.)

The Lawsons advanced and paid $493,847.63 in legal fees billed to the Coggis. (Complaint, P. 14.)

The Coggis have paid only $15,000 to the Lawsons, in May 2024, leaving an unpaid balance of $478,847.63. (Ibid.)

In this action, the Lawsons now assert one cause of action for breach of contract based upon this nonpayment.

On August 26, 2025, the Lawsons requested, and the court entered, default against defendant John Coggi.

On September 3, 2025, Melinda Coggi (hereafter, Coggi) filed her answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 14 affirmative defenses.

On November 12, 2025, the court held a case management conference and set a trial date for September 2, 2026.

This trial date was confirmed at a case management conference held on April 8, 2026.

In the case management conference statement filed by the Lawsons on March 24, 2026, the only motion stated as contemplated was a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication.

On May 15, 2026, the Lawsons filed this motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.

The motion is opposed by Coggi.

Analysis

"The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (a)(1).)

"A motion to amend a pleading before trial must: "(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; "(2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and "(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)

"A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: "(1) The effect of the amendment; "(2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; "(3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and "(4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

Coggi argues that the motion seeks to expand a simple breach of contract action into a "sprawling fraud and asset-tracing suit" (Opposition, at p. 1) with a September 2 trial date, creating substantial prejudice to Coggi.

"Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only '[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party....' [Citation.] A different result is indicated '[w]here inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party' is shown. [Citation.]" (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

In addition to a variety of changes in non-substantive language, the proposed first amended complaint (PFAC) asserts three new causes of action: violation of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA, Civ. Code, Sec. 3439 et seq.), financial elder abuse (Welf. & Inst. Code, Sec. 15610.27), and contribution.

These new causes of action are based on three entirely different claims.

The claim for violation of the UVTA is based on allegations that the Coggis transferred assets, including encumbrances on real and personal property in 2022 and 2023 in favor of a Nevis limited liability company (NOV). (PFAC, P.P. 19-28, 36-42.)

NOV was allegedly formed by the Coggis for the purpose of hiding or transferring assets. (PFAC, P. 5.)

In support of the motion, counsel for the Lawsons states that after substituting in as counsel in January 2026, counsel discovered NOV, the recorded deed of trust, and UCC-1's filed in 2022 and 2023. (Avila decl., P.P. 2-6.)

These transactions were not known to the Lawsons at the time the lawsuit was filed. (Avila decl., P. 7.)