michael n. feuer (sbn 111529), city attorney deputy chief ... s. main complai… · michael n....

COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT AND INJUNCTION

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

MICHAEL N. FEUER (SBN 111529), City Attorney ARTURO A. MARTINEZ (SBN 180355) Deputy Chief, Safe Neighborhoods & Gang Div. JONATHAN CRISTALL (SBN 191935) Supervising Assistant City Attorney LIORA FORMAN-ECHOLS (SBN 184135) Asst. Superv. Deputy City Attorney MARIA AGUILLON, (SBN 199851) Deputy City Attorney SIREEN SAWAF (SBN 276750) Deputy City Attorney OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY 200 N. Main St., Rm. 966, Los Angeles, California 90012 Tel. (213) 978-6923; Fax (213) 978-8717; [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff NO FEE – GOV’T CODE § 6103

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FRONTIER HOLDINGS EAST, LLC, a limited liability company; REGAL GROUP, LLC, a limited liability company; YVES OSCAR JR. (aka OSCAR YVES, JR.), an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

))))))))))))))))

Case No.:

COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT AND INJUNCTION

[CIVIL CODE SECTION 3479, ET SEQ.; BUS. & PROF. CODE SECTION 17200, ET SEQ.]

[Unlimited Action]

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 11/25/2020 09:41 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Perez,Deputy Clerk

Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Holly Fujie

20STCV45255

1 COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT AND INJUNCTION

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

PLAINTIFF, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, alleges as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This action (“Action”) is brought and prosecuted by Plaintiff, the People of the

State of California (“People”), for the purpose of abating, preventing, and enjoining a

dangerous public nuisance that exists at a commercial storefront located in the Fashion District

area of downtown Los Angeles with an address commonly known as 1114 S. Main Street, Los

Angeles, CA 90015 (the “Property”). Defendants Frontier Holdings East, LLC and Regal

Group, LLC have owned the Property since at least August 6, 2015. These corporate entities

are managed by a sophisticated real estate investor, David Taban,1 who is currently being

prosecuted in two separate criminal cases for the operation of illegal marijuana dispensaries at

two other real properties, one of which is adjacent to the Property and also owned by

Defendants Frontier Holding East, LLC and Regal Group, LLC. The Property, where an

underground nightclub operates without any of the many requisite permits and licenses

needed by law, has been the site of multiple shootings--including three people shot--robberies,

and other violent acts in just the last few months. Defendant Yves Oscar Jr., also known as

Oscar Yves Jr., Oscar Rico, Rico Oscar, Oscar Rico Yves and Eve Oscar (“Defendant Oscar”),

owns and/or operates the illegal nightclub, which is the catalyst and venue for the violence.

This Action is brought pursuant to the Public Nuisance Law (“PNL”), California Civil Code

sections 3479-3480, and; the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), California Business and

Professions Code section 17200, et seq.

2. In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the operation of the nightclub has been

in blatant disregard of mandatory health orders issued by the City of Los Angeles that prohibit

“non-essential public gatherings” among other restrictions.2 Defendants Frontier Holdings East,

LLC and Regal Group, LLC have turned a blind eye to the ongoing operation of the nightclub,

1 David Taban is the sole manager and/or an officer of over two dozen corporate entities that each individually own real property. He is also the sole manager of four limited liability companies (Frontier Holdings East, LLC; Regal Group, LLC; Frontier Holdings South, LLC; and Walnut Investment, LLC), which own all but two of the commercial properties on this same block.

2 SAFER AT HOME Executive Order, Issued 03/19/2020, Rev. 04/01/2020, Based on Ord. No. 97,600.


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

despite having actual and/or constructive notice of its illegality and the crime it generates. The

nightclub, which uses the social media handle “LAPartySociety,” advertises through Instagram

and other social media outlets and attracts patrons by offering performances by rap artists,

exotic pole dancers, music, hookah smoking, and alcohol sales from a “full bar,” for a “total

experience” social lounge. With a metal pull down front gate and no exterior signage

identifying the business, the front of the Property appears to be nothing but a closed storefront.

However, after midnight, club patrons access the nightclub through its back door, entering

through a gated, rear parking lot controlled by Defendants that is only accessible from an alley

that runs east of Main Street between 11th and 12th Streets. “LA Party Society” is painted on

almost the entire south wall of the Property’s parking lot, along with images of a liquor bottle, a

marijuana joint, music notes, and two pairs of buttocks, each with the words “Tap In” scrawled

across “booty shorts,” clearly and boldly advertising the illegal nightclub. (Exhibit 1.)

Defendant Oscar is depicted in a recent, 2020 Instagram post crouching in front of the sign

counting a large amount of cash. (Exhibit 1.)

3. Beyond the health hazards of large, indoor social gatherings during the

pandemic, violence originates at or is directly connected to the nightclub and often spills out

into the public alley behind the Property. Below is a summary of the latest documented

incidents of violence by the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) involving the Property, all

of which occurred within just the last few months. The incidents described below reflect only a

fraction of the unlawful activity at the Property since many crimes go unreported:

• On September 4, 2020, while breaking up an altercation between two club-

goers, a security guard working the nightclub’s door was shot after the two club-

goers brandished firearms and fired multiple shots, one yelling “Rolling 60’s

Neighborhood”3 before fleeing.

• On August 16, 2020, a patron was physically assaulted inside the nightclub after

confronting a man who stole her cellphone. When she sought help from an

3 This statement appears to reference allegiance to the “Rollin 60's Neighborhood Crips” a street gang based in South Los Angeles.


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

apparent club manager, he extorted her, telling her “he could get her phone back

for $500.00.”

• On August 8, 2020, a patron was leaving the nightclub when he was pistol-

whipped and robbed at gun point by two men in the alley behind the club. One of

the men placed a gun to the victim’s head while the other rifled through his

pockets. The victim escaped, but as he fled, he turned around to see one of his

assailants point a gun at him, and then heard two gunshots.

• On August 7, 2020, a patron was inside the nightclub when he was accused by

three men of selling fake ecstasy. The trio punched and kicked him in the face.

The patron ran out of the nightclub to escape his assailants, but they followed

him and continued to beat him, eventually stealing two of his cellular phones.

The patron’s injuries, including an orbital fracture, were so severe, that he sought

immediate medical attention at a nearby emergency room.

• On July 16, 2020, a shootout occurred involving three different guns with shots

fired to and from the Property’s parking lot and into the alley. One bullet struck a

nightclub bouncer in the neck and another bullet hit a second victim in the leg as

he fled down the alley away from the shootout. The bouncer, who was standing

next to Defendant Oscar when he was shot, told police that the shooting might

have been the result of an altercation between Defendant Oscar and a patron

who was kicked out of the nightclub by Defendant Oscar a couple days prior to

the shooting. Spent casings from three different handguns, live ammunition,

bullet fragments, a vaping pen with marijuana, and alcohol containers were

recovered from the Property’s parking lot and in the alley following the shootout.

4. Defendant Oscar has admitted to law enforcement that he is the business owner

of “LA Party Society” and Plaintiff is informed and believes, that he has operated the nightclub

at the Property since at least January 27, 2020. He charges a cover fee for entrance into the

nightclub and is frequently seen on Youtube and other social media platforms advertising and

promoting the nightclub. Flyers posted on the business’s Instagram account reflect themes for


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

particular days of the week and regularly advertise “Guys $20,” and “Ladies Free Until 2 AM.”

(Exhibit 2.) Some Instagram flyers also advertise bottle service for $100.4 (Exhibit 3.)

5. Law enforcement has observed large crowds walking to and entering the

nightclub, with victims and witnesses referring to the location as an “underground club.” Some

videos posted on the LA Party Society Instagram account depict the interior of the nightclub

with flashing strobe lights, music playing, alcohol consumption, people smoking what appears

to be cannabis, and scantily clad women dancing as patrons throw cash on them. A

promotional video uploaded to Youtube advertises a special performance by a popular local

rapper that occurred at the nightclub on October 3, 2020.5 This live entertainment was also

promoted on the business’s Instagram account. (Exhibit 3.)

6. Since the July 16, 2020 shooting, LAPD officers have spoken multiple times with

Jacob Marvizi, who identifies himself as the Property manager, about the illegal nightclub and

dangerous crimes occurring there. Marvizi told LAPD that there was a dispute with the tenant

and subtenants (including Defendant Oscar) at the Property and that he was relying upon the

tenant to resolve the matter. Upon further investigation by LAPD and discovery of a failed

unlawful detainer action by the tenant against the subtenants,6 LAPD officers communicated

again with Marvizi requesting that ownership handle the ongoing issues at the Property. To

date, the Property owner defendants have taken no meaningful action to abate the nuisance at

the Property and the operation of the nightclub continues.

7. The numerous shootings, robberies and ongoing crimes occurring at and

emanating from the Property are injurious to the health and safety of both the nightclub patrons

and the surrounding community. At least three people have already been shot at the Property

and others have been threatened with guns and/or shot at. It is only a matter of time before

someone is killed by the flying bullets. Defendants Frontier Holdings East, LLC and Regal

4 A flyer for an October 3, 2020 live performance advertised $100 bottles before 1 AM next to an image of a variety of hard liquor in a tin bucket. (Exhibit 3) 5 Youtube, October 6, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFX6ftZwH7w. 6 Tenant Vara Johnson, in pro per, filed an unlawful detainer action against Nina Smith and Rico Oscar on January 24, 2020, Case Number 20STUD00845.


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, LLC, as the owners of the Property are required by law to abate the dangerous

nuisance there. Their failure to undertake reasonable efforts to responsibly manage the

Property has allowed a serious public nuisance to continue and flourish. Defendant Oscar has

directly participated in and/or facilitated the public nuisance activity at the Property by

operating an unpermitted nightclub there, and otherwise failing to manage the Property in any

reasonable and lawful manner. The People seek remedial measures, including the shuttering

of the Property, that are necessary to contain the threat to public safety the Property poses.

II. THE PARTIES AND THE PROPERTY

A. Plaintiff

8. Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, is the sovereign power of the State

of California designated in California Code of Civil Procedure section 731 to be the

complaining party in actions brought to abate, enjoin, and penalize public nuisances.

Furthermore, the City of Los Angeles has a population in excess of 750,000, and as such,

California Business and Professions Code section 17204 authorizes Plaintiff, the People, to

prosecute actions for relief under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et

seq.

B. Defendants

9. Defendants Frontier Holdings East, LLC and Regal Group, LLC, are limited

liability companies, which each have an ownership interest in the Property, and have owned

the Property since at least August 6, 2015. Both LLC defendants are managed by David

Taban, a real estate investor who owns dozens of properties through various corporate

entities. Taban is currently being prosecuted in two separate criminal cases (Los Angeles

Superior Court case numbers LAC9CJ00237 and LAC0CJ00267) for the operation of illegal

marijuana dispensaries at two other real properties, one of which is adjacent to the Property

and also owned by Defendants Frontier Holding East, LLC and Regal Group, LLC.

10. Defendant Oscar, aged 38, is a current tenant, or subtenant of the Property and

is the owner and/or operator of the illegal nightclub operating at the Property under the names

LAPartySociety and/or Booty Call Lounge. Defendant Oscar was arrested on August 20, 2020


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

in front of the Property for an outstanding warrant for sexual penetration with a foreign object.

During his arrest, over one pound of marijuana was recovered from his person (a violation of

Health and Safety Code section 11357).

11. The true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50

inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious

names. When the true names and capacities of said defendants have been ascertained,

Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this complaint and to insert in lieu of such fictitious

names the true names and capacities of said fictitiously named defendants.

C. The Property

12. The Property is located at the commonly known address of 1114 S. Main Street,

between 11th Street and 12th Street, in the Fashion District area in downtown Los Angeles. The

Property, which includes a commercial building and a gated rear parking lot is legally

described as: “PARCEL 1: A.P.N. [Assessor’s Parcel Number] # 5139-016-023. [¶] LOTS A

AND B OF TRACT 2837, IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 40 OF MAPS, IN

THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.”

III. THE PUBLIC NUISANCE LAW

13. “Abatement of nuisances is a long established and well recognized exercise of

the state’s police power.” (People ex. Rel. Hicks v. Sarong Gals (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 556,

563; People ex rel. Bradford v. Barbiere (1917) 33 Cal.App. 770, 775-778.) Civil Code section

3479 defines a public nuisance as “[a]nything which is injurious to health, including but not

limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or

an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of

life or property …” (Bakersfield v. Miller (1966) 64 Cal.2d 93, 99 [“The Legislature has defined

in general terms the word ‘nuisance’ in Civil Code section 3479….”].)

14. Civil Code section 3480 defines a public nuisance as “one which affects at the

same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons,

although the extent of the annoyance or damages inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.”


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

15. In particular, drug dealing, loitering, consumption of alcohol and illegal drugs, and

boisterous conduct which creates a “hooligan-like atmosphere” constitutes a public nuisance.

(People ex. rel. Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1120.)

16. Civil Code section 3491 provides that the “remedies against a public nuisance

are indictment or information, a civil action or abatement.” Abatement is “accomplished by a

court of equity by means of an injunction proper and suitable to the facts of each case.”

(Sullivan v. Royer (1887) 72 Cal. 248, 249.)

17. Code of Civil Procedure section 731 authorizes a city attorney to bring an action

to enjoin or abate a public nuisance. It provides in relevant part “[a] civil action may be brought

in the name of the people of the State of California to abate a public nuisance …by the city

attorney of any town or city in which nuisance exists.”

18. Los Angeles Municipal Code (“L.A.M.C.”) section 11.00(l) provides that any

violation of the L.A.M.C. is a public nuisance that may be abated. L.A.M.C. section 103.102

states that no person shall engage in the cafe entertainment and shows business without a

written permit from the Board of Police Commissioners. In addition, L.A.M.C. section 103.106

also requires a permit for public dancing. Moreover, under the Safer at Home Executive

Order, which was issued March 19, 2020 by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, bars and

entertainment venues are to remain closed. Thus, violations of L.A.M.C. section 103.102,

103.106 and the Safer at Home Executive Order constitute a public nuisance under L.A.M.C.

section 11.00(l) that may be abated "by means of a restraining order, injunction or any other

order or judgment in law or equity issued by a court of competent jurisdiction."

IV. THE UNFAIR COMPETITON LAW

19. The practices forbidden by California’s Unfair Competition Law at Business and

Professions Code section 17200 et seq. include any practices forbidden by law, be they

criminal, federal, state, municipal, statutory, regulatory or court-made. As the California

Supreme Court has explained, the UCL “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as

unlawful practices independently actionable under section 17200 et seq.” (South Bay

Chevrolet v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 861, 880 (internal


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

citations and quotation marks omitted).) Indeed, the violation of a municipal code regulation is

unlawful conduct actionable under Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.

(Hewlett v. Squaw Valley (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 499, 532 - superseded on other grounds by

statute pursuant to UFW v. Dutra Farms (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1146). Under L.A.M.C. section

11.00(l) any violation of the L.A.M.C. is a public nuisance that may be abated. L.A.M.C.

section 103.102 states that no person shall engage in the cafe entertainment and shows

business without a written permit from the Board of Police Commissioners. L.A.M.C. section

103.106 also requires a permit for public dancing. Moreover, under the Safer at Home

Executive Order, which was issued March 19, 2020 by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, bars

and entertainment venues are to remain closed. Thus, violations of L.A.M.C. section 103.102,

103.106 and the Safer at Home Executive Order constitute violations of the UCL that may be

enjoined by the court.

20. As proscribed by the UCL, “[a]n ‘unlawful business activity’ includes anything that

can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.”

(People v. McKale (1979) 25 Cal.3d 626, 632.) Moreover, the UCL casts a broad net. “Any

person performing or proposing to perform an act of unfair competition may be enjoined . . . .”

(Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17203.) The term “person” includes “natural persons, corporations,

firms, partnerships, joint stock companies, associations and other organizations of persons.”

(Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17201.) The courts have expanded section 17200’s net beyond direct

liability to include common law doctrines of secondary liability where the liability of each

defendant is predicated on his or her personal participation in the unlawful practices. (People

v. Toomey (1985) 157 Cal.App.3d 1, 14; Emery v. Visa Int’l Service Ass’n (2002) 95

Cal.App.4th 952, 960.)

21. Civil actions under the UCL may be brought in the name of the People of the

State of California by any city attorney of a city having a population in excess of 750,000 (Bus.

& Prof. Code, § 17204), such as the City of Los Angeles. A public entity can sue pursuant to

section 17200 based on violations of its own municipal code, state law, or other local

ordinance. (People v. Thomas Shelton Powers, M.D., Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 330, 338-


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

339.) Defendants engaging in violations of the UCL may be enjoined in any court of

competent jurisdiction. (Bus. & Profs. Code, § 17203.) A court may make such orders or

judgments, including appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to prevent the use or

employment by any person of any practice constituting unfair competition. (Id.)

22. Although no case has specifically been called upon to define the term

“business” in section 17200, courts have frequently given a broad reading to the provisions of

the UCL so as to effect its broad remedial purposes. (See, e.g., Barquis v. Merchants

Collection Ass’n (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 111-113.) An enterprise engaged entirely in criminal

conduct such as the manufacture of illegal drugs or obscene matter is a business for purposes

of section 17200. (People v. EWAP, Inc. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 315, 320-321.) Moreover,

recent amendments to section 17200 make clear that even a one-time act of misconduct can

constitute a violation of the UCL. (Klein v. Earth Elements, Inc. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 965,

969.)

23. Further, the ownership and operation of a “nightclub” business, as well as

ownership of a property that is rented out to residential and commercial tenants is,

axiomatically, a business. (See Barquis v. Merchants Collection Ass’n, (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94,

111-113 (giving a broad meaning of the UCL so as to effect its broad remedial purposes).)

Thus, when a property or business owner conducts, maintains or permits a nuisance that is

unlawful to exist on the premises of such a property and business, it is a violation of the UCL.

(See San Francisco v. Sainez (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1323.)

V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUBLIC NUSIANCE

[Civil Code Section 3479, et seq. –

Against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 50]

24. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 23 of this Complaint and

makes them part of this First Cause of Action as though fully alleged herein.

25. From an exact date unknown but at least since July 16, 2020, the Property has

been owned, operated, occupied, used, and/or directly or indirectly permitted to be occupied

and used, in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance in violation of Civil Code


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

sections 3479 and 3480. The public nuisance, as described herein, is injurious to health,

indecent or offensive to the senses, and/or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to

substantially and unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by

those persons in the surrounding community. The public nuisance at or emanating from the

Property consists of, but is not limited to: shootings; robberies; assaults; batteries; large, indoor

social gatherings in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic; and operation of a nightclub

business without any of the required permits, including but not limited to, cafe entertainment

and dancing permits in violation of local ordinances, including and not limited to L.A.M.C.

sections 103.102 and 103.106 and the Safer At Home Executive Order.

26. Defendant Oscar, as owner and/or operator of the nightclub, and DOES 1

through 25 conducted and/or caused the nuisance activity at the Property. As a result of his

actions and failure to take reasonable steps to prevent or abate the nuisance activity,

Defendant Oscar caused and/or contributed to a serious threat to the general health, safety,

and welfare of persons at the Property and in the surrounding community.

27. Defendants Frontier Holdings East, LLC and Regal Group, LLC who own,

control, and/or operate the Property, and DOES 26 through 50, knew or should have known

about the nuisance activity at the Property, but nevertheless failed to take reasonable steps to

prevent or abate it. As a result of this failure and their mismanagement of the Property,

Defendants and DOES 26 through 50 have caused and/or contributed to a serious threat to the

general health, safety, and welfare of persons at the Property and in the surrounding

community.

28. Unless Defendants, and DOES 1 through 50, are restrained and enjoined by

order of this Court, they will continue to use, occupy, and maintain, and to aid, abet, or permit,

directly or indirectly, the use, occupation, and maintenance of the Property, together with the

fixtures and appurtenances located therein, for the purpose complained of herein, to the great

and irreparable damage of Plaintiff and in violation of California law.


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

VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION

[Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. --

Against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 50]

29. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint and

makes them part of this Second Cause of Action as though fully alleged herein.

30. Ownership and operation of commercial real estate is a business. Ownership

and/or operation of a nightclub is also a business. When the owners and/or operators of such

businesses violate the PNL and the Los Angeles Municipal Code, as alleged herein, it is also a

violation of the UCL.

31. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 50, have violated the UCL by engaging in the

following unlawful or unfair business acts and practices: conducting, maintaining, and/or

permitting, directly or indirectly nuisance activity at the Property, as alleged herein in violation

of the PNL; and/or conducting, maintaining, and/or permitting, directly or indirectly nuisance

activity at the Property, as alleged herein in violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code,

including and not limited to violations of L.A.M.C. sections 11.00(l), 103.102, 103.106 and the

Safer at Home Executive Order.

32. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and unless Defendants, and DOES 1

through 50, are restrained by this Court they will continue to commit unlawful business

practices or acts, thereby causing irreparable injury and harm to the public’s welfare.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS THAT THIS COURT ORDER, ADJUDGE AND

DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

1. That the Property, together with the fixtures and moveable property therein and

thereon, be declared a public nuisance and be permanently abated as such in accordance with

California Civil Code section 3491.

2. That each defendant and their agents, officers, employees and anyone acting on

their behalf, and their heirs and assignees, be preliminarily and perpetually enjoined from


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

operating, conducting, using, occupying, or in any way permitting the use of the Property as a

nightclub or in any way that is in violation of law, including as a public nuisance. Such orders

should include, but not be limited to physical and managerial improvements to the Property,

such as without limitation, terminating the tenancy of all individuals involved in the operation of

the illegal nightclub at the Property; prohibiting tenants of the Property or their agents or their

guests from operating any unlicensed or unpermitted business at the Property; removing all

signage, displays, and/or symbols referring to any unlicensed or unpermitted business

operating at the Property; implementing screening and application procedures for prospective

tenants and subtenants; use of written leases for tenants; improving lighting; removing graffiti

from the Property, and any such other orders as are appropriate to remedy the nuisance on

the Property and enhance the abatement process.

3. Such costs as may occur in abating said nuisance at the Property and such other

costs as the Court shall deem just and proper.

4. That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court deems just and

proper, including closure of the entire Property or portions thereon.

AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

1. That each defendant be declared in violation of Business and Professions Code

section 17200.

2. That each defendant, as well as their agents, heirs, successors, and anyone

acting on its behalf, be permanently enjoined from maintaining, operating, or permitting any

unlawful or unfair business acts or practices in violation of Business and Professions Code

section 17200.

3. That the Court grant a preliminary and/or permanent injunction prohibiting each

defendant, as well as their agents, heirs, successors, and anyone acting on their behalves,

from engaging in the unlawful or unfair acts and/or practices described herein at the Property

and in the City of Los Angeles. Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin Defendant Oscar from operating

any nightclub or any other business open to the public at the Property or anywhere else within

the City of Los Angeles without first obtaining written permission from the court.


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

4. That, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17206, each defendant

be assessed a civil penalty of $2,500 for each and every act of unfair competition. Since each

defendant has engaged in a continuing nuisance, each day constitutes an act of unfair

competition and each defendant should be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed $3.65

million.

5. That, pursuant to the Court’s equitable power and Business and Professions

Code section 17203, the Court make such orders or judgments, including appointment of a

receiver, to eliminate the unlawful or unfair competition alleged herein.

AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

1. That Plaintiff recover the amount of the filing fees and the amount of the fee for

the service of process or notices which would have been paid but for Government Code

section 6103.5, designating it as such. The fees may, at the Court’s discretion, include the

amount of the fees for certifying and preparing transcripts.

2. That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court deems just and

proper.

DATED: November 25, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney

By: /s/ Sireen Sawaf ______________

SIREEN SAWAF Attorneys for Plaintiff, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

EXHIBIT 1

Ver[z.on ·14:25

LA:PARTYSOClliETY

Posts.

-~ w lap·artys 10 1ciety Downtown Los Angeles

140 lik,es

lapartys 1ociety ~ti's a secret society, .al I we ask is trust. #lapartysoci·ety #lapartygirls #laps

View all 15 cornn1ents

5 ,days ago

.• w ., lap,artysio,ciety Downto\N'n Los Angel 1es

EXHIBIT 2

•• Ver[z.on ·~ ·

p I PRESENT'i•-:·_

6,Q; lik·es

·13.:4·1

LAPARTYSOCIETY

Posts.

lap.artys 1ociety Tonights Episod•e ·women Cru:sh W•ednesday Doors Open ·@ Midnight ·= 6AM4 .. t11ore

View all 3 cot11r11e11ts

October- 21

DOOR~ OPEN @Ml•N- H- -6 -M

LADIES FREE UiNT'IL 2AM

EXHIBIT 3

Complaint for Abatement and InjunctionI. IntroductionII. The Parties and the PropertyA. PlaintiffB. DefendantsC. The Property

III. The Public Nuisance LawIV. The Unfair Competition LawV. First Cause of Action for Public NuisanceVI. Second Cause of Action for Unfair CompetitionPrayer

michael n. feuer (sbn 111529), city attorney deputy chief ... s. main complai… · michael n....

Documents