Preview
1 Mark J. Dillon (State Bar No. 108329) (Exempt from Filing Fees
Yana Ridge (State Bar No. 306532) Pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103)
2 Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
2762 Gateway Road
3
Carlsbad, California 92009
4 Telephone: (760) 431-9501
Facsimile: (760) 431-9512
5 Email: mdillon@gdandb.com
yridge@gdandb.com
6
Attorneys for County of Riverside
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
10
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, ) Case No.:
11 )
12 Plaintiff, )
) COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND
13 v. ) DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A
) PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER
14 TWISTED TENDRIL VINEYARD, LLC, a) SE
California limited liability company; )
15 TWISTED VALLEY VINEYARDS, ) (DEEMED VERIFIED PURSUANT TO
16 WINERY & DISTILLERY, LLC, a) CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION
California limited liability company; ) 446)
17 HEINER WINERY VINEYARDS &)
DISTILLERY, LLC, a California limited )
18 liability company; JULIE’S DREAM )
VINEYARDS, WINERY & DISTILLERY, )
19 LLC, a California limited liability company; )
20 and DOES 1-25, )
)
21 Defendants. )
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 Plaintiff County of Riverside (County) alleges as follows:
2 PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
3 1. The County is, and at all times relevant herein was, a general law county and a
4 political subdivision of the State of California. The County has a duty and interest in protecting the
5 public safety and welfare within its jurisdiction through enactment of ordinances that apply to all
6 persons and entities within the County and to all persons and entities that own property or do
7 business within the County. The County has the right, pursuant to the California Constitution,
8 Article XI, Section 7, to ensure that property and businesses located within the County
9 unincorporated areas comply with the County’s ordinances.
10 2. The County is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant Twisted
11 Tendril Vineyard, LLC is, and at all times relevant herein was, the record owner of the real property
12 located at 39788 Calle Contento, Temecula, California 92591, located within the County and also
13 known as Assessor’s Parcel No. 943-210-013 (Property). By Grant Deed recorded in the official
14 records of the County as Document No. 2019-0160032 on May 8, 2019, the Property was
15 transferred to Defendant Twisted Tendril Vineyard, LLC. According to public records, the Property
16 has not transferred ownership since then.
17 3. The County is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that in or about November
18 2020, Defendant Twisted Tendril Vineyard, LLC changed its entity name to Twisted Valley
19 Vineyards, Winery & Distillery, LLC. The County is further informed and believes, and thereon
20 alleges, that in or about December 2020, Defendant Twisted Valley Vineyards, Winery & Distillery,
21 LLC changed its entity name to Heiner Winery Vineyards & Distillery, LLC. The County is further
22 informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that in or about January 2021, Defendant Heiner Winery
23 Vineyards & Distillery, LLC changed its entity name again to its current name of Julie’s Dream
24 Vineyards, Winery & Distillery, LLC.
4. The County is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant Julie’s
25
Dream Vineyards, Winery & Distillery, LLC is a California limited liability company duly
26
organized and doing business under the laws of the State of California, with its principal business
27
address of 12 Colonial Drive, Rancho Mirage, California 92270. Defendant Julie’s Dream
28
2
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 Vineyards, Winery & Distillery, LLC’s managers and/or members are Julie Heiner Damewood and
2 Gerald Heiner.
3 5. The Property is approximately a 14-acre lot with land use designation of AG
4 (Agricultural) and zoning classification C/V-10 (Citrus/Vineyard), located within the County. With
5 Defendants’ knowledge and consent, and/or under their control and/or at their direction, the
6 Property is unlawfully being used and operated for unpermitted wedding and other large events, and
7 short-term rentals, and related activities, including advertising, selling, renting, taking reservations,
8 among others, as well as all unpermitted improvements associated with large events and rentals and
9 located at the Property.
10 6. Defendants’ use of the Property for unpermitted weddings, large events, rentals, and
11 associated activities and improvements, all of which generate noise and traffic issues for the
12 community, constitutes a nuisance. As a result, the County files this action to enjoin Defendants
13 from using and maintaining, and operating such nuisance at the Property, to abate the nuisance, and
14 to obtain all additional relief to which the County is entitled on behalf of its residents.
15 7. The County is unaware of the true names and capacities of defendants sued as Does
16 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by these fictitious names. The County
17 will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when, and if, ascertained. The
18 County is informed and believe that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some
19 manner for the occurrences alleged in this Complaint.
20 8. Whenever in this Complaint reference is made to any act of Defendants, such
21 allegation shall be deemed to mean Defendants, Defendants’ officers, agents, managers,
22 representatives, employees, and/or DOES 1 through 25, who authorized such acts while actively
23 engaged in the operation, management, direction or control of the affairs of Defendants, at
24 Defendants’ direction, and/or while acting within the course and scope of their duties. Reference to
Defendants shall also mean each Defendant individually and collectively.
25
9. Defendants and each of them are directly responsible for the activities occurring on
26
the Property as set forth below, are responsible for continuing violations of the laws and public
27
policy of the State of California and/or local codes, regulations and/or requirements applicable to
28
3
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 Defendants’ operation and activities at the Property, and/or have permitted, allowed, caused, or
2 indirectly furthered the activities at the Property alleged herein, and Defendants’ use of and
3 activities at the Property, or allowance of such uses and activities, are inimical to the rights and
4 interests of the general public and constitute unlawful business practices, nuisances and/or
5 violations of law.
6 10. Venue is proper in this Judicial District because the subject Property is located in this
7 district.
8 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
9 11. As a result of a resident complaint about the noise at the Property, on October 8,
10 2022, the County Code Enforcement officer traveled to the Property and encountered approximately
11 10 vehicles parked at the front of the Property. From approximately 200 feet away from the site,
12 the officer could hear loud music over amplifying equipment, and it appeared that a wedding was in
13 progress at the Property. The officer photographed the activities at the Property and issued a $500
14 penalty for the noise violation.
15 12. Subsequent research of County records for the Property revealed that the Property is
16 located in C/V-10 zone (Citrus/Vineyard), which zone was created to “encourage agricultural
17 cultivation, vineyards, and wineries that would preserve the rural lifestyle, wine-making
18 atmosphere and long term viability of wine industry where such activities are occurring and that
19 would protect such areas from incompatible uses which could result in reduced agricultural
20 productivity and increased urbanization within the policy area.” (Riverside County Code (RCC)
21 section 17.136.010.) Limited incidental commercial uses (wine sales, sampling rooms,
22 restaurants, hotels) are permitted in this zone only when they are secondary and directly related to
23 the agricultural operations. (Ibid.)
24 13. The County records further show that in 2005 the Property was entitled for a winery
tasting room and wine production. That entitlement described the use as conversion of an existing
25
barn on the Property into a 2,000 SF commercial winery with retail wine sales and tasting room,
26
with four parking spaces to accommodate 180 SF tasting room to be open to the public. That
27
project was conditioned for exterior noise levels and hours of operation Monday through Sunday
28
4
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 8am to 10pm. That entitlement did not permit events or lodging, and no permit for events and/or
2 short-term rentals has been obtained.
3 14. General research of the Property online showed that the Property is being advertised
4 as Julie’s Dream Winery – a wedding venue that also hosts wedding showers, rehearsal dinners, and
5 other prenuptial events, as well as a short-term rental, allowing the public to rent several of its
6 dwelling units per night (main house and three separate suites). The Property is advertised as such
7 on several websites (Airbnb.com, theknot.com, etc.) and social media accounts (Instagram,
8 Facebook, TikTok), with customer reviews going back to early 2021 and future wedding
9 announcements for March and April 2023.
10 15. As a result of the activities observed at the Property on October 8, 2022, which were
11 confirmed by online advertisements and posts about the Property’s use as a wedding venue and
12 short-term rental, the County opened Code Enforcement Case Nos. CVZO221069 (zoning violation
13 of Riverside County Ordinance (RCO) No. 348) and CVCR220119 (noise violation of RCO No.
14 847).
15 16. On October 14, 2022, Supervising Code Enforcement Officer visited the Property
16 where he found the gate to the residence open. He observed approximately 30 cars parked in the
17 small parking lot. He then drove up the driveway and observed an event in progress. Attendees
18 were dressed in formal attire as if they were in a wedding. The Officer took photographs of the
19 event.
20 17. On October 15, 2022, Supervising Officer traveled to the Property again and
21 observed another event occurring, with 15-20 cars parked in the front and a large white canopy/tent
22 set up with string lights. On October 21, 2022, Supervising Officer spoke with Ms. Julie
23 Damewood about the occurring violations. Ms. Damewood admitted to having held over 100
24 weddings at the site and that they were not even operating a winery.
18. As a result of unpermitted uses and operations at the Property, on November 9, 2022,
25
the County caused a Notice of Pendency of Administrative Proceeding (NOP) to be recorded
26
against the Property in the official records of the County of Riverside, as a Document No. 2022-
27
0466423, for the zoning violation of RCO No. 348 (unpermitted use). The NOP referenced the
28
5
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 Property address and Defendant Twisted Tendril Vineyard as the property owner and provided
2 notice that the County had commenced administrative proceedings to abate a public nuisance taking
3 place at the Property.
4 19. On November 10, 2022, the County also posted a cease and desist notice at the
5 Property, citing violations of County of Riverside Ordinance (RCO) No. 348 and directing
6 Defendants to immediately discontinue the violations at the Property and contact Code Enforcement
7 to schedule a compliance inspection on or before November 20, 2022.
8 20. On November 19, 2022, Ms. Damewood contacted the County in response to the
9 cease and desist notice and was advised over the phone that no compliance inspection could be
10 scheduled until all online advertising was removed. The County then gave Defendants an extension
11 on the compliance inspection deadline to December 1, 2022. However, on the same day, November
12 19, 2022, the Code Enforcement officer observed an event taking place at the Property, with loud
13 amplified music and loud guests, as well as numerous vehicles parked on the Property.
14 21. On November 26, 2022, in response to two neighbor complaints, the Code
15 Enforcement officer traveled to the Property where an event was in progress. There were 15-20
16 vehicles parked, and extremely loud music was playing.
17 22. A neighbor complaint that the County received on November 28, 2022 stated that
18 events are held at the Property every weekend and loud music and guest screaming is heard half a
19 mile away, all of which is having a negative impact on the neighborhood.
20 23. On December 1, 2022, the County confirmed that the Property’s online
21 advertisements have not been removed. Defendants continue to advertise the Property as a wedding
22 venue and a short-term rental. Following the officers’ observations of unpermitted events held at
23 the Property despite the cease and desist notice, Defendants continue to refuse to bring the Property
24 into compliance with County ordinances.
24. The use and operation of the Property for unpermitted large events and rental
25
business within the agricultural area of the County cause irreparable injury to the County and its
26
residents because the Property has not undergone the County’s necessary zoning and building and
27
safety application and review processes, creating a danger to neighbors as well as nearby school(s),
28
6
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 detrimental impact to the natural environment and surrounding properties, and danger to persons
2 doing business nearby, and to the persons, employees, and contractors patronizing the Property and
3 business at issue. Moreover, the nature of the unpermitted commercial activity taking place on the
4 Property is particularly harmful to the surrounding community. A high volume of vendor and guest
5 vehicles, moving to and from the Property, poses a clear health and safety risk in the form of high
6 traffic volume, traffic accidents, noise pollution, environmental pollution, and air quality
7 degradation. Such activity is particularly harmful when it takes place in a zone for which it is not
8 properly zoned, such as an agricultural community.
9 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
PUBLIC NUISANCE
10 (Against All Defendants)
11 25. The County realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in the
12 preceding paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein.
13 26. Civil Code section 3479 defines a nuisance as including “[a]nything which is...
14 offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the
15 comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free ... use, in the customary
16 manner, of any ... public ... street, or highway ....”
17 27. Civil Code section 3480 defines a public nuisance as “one which affects at the same
18 time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the
19 extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.”
20 28. Riverside County Code (RCC) section 1.16.020 defines a nuisance as follows: “Any
21 condition on public or private property located within the unincorporated areas of the County of
22 Riverside which is caused, maintained or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of a land
23 use ordinance shall be and the same is hereby declared unlawful and a public nuisance that may be
24 abated consistent with the procedures provided for in this chapter, or in any other manner provided
25 by law.”
26 29. “[A]n affected party need not wait until actual injury occurs before bringing an
27 action to enjoin a nuisance” (Beck Development Co., Inc. v. Southern Pacific Transportation
28 Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1213); “mere apprehension of injury from a dangerous condition
7
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 may constitute a nuisance where it interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of property ....”
2 (Mclvor v. Mercer-Fraser Co. (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 247, 254.) It is sufficient, therefore, “that a
3 defendant's acts are likely to cause a significant invasion of a public right” (In re Firearms
4 Cases (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 959, 988), such as “where acts which create a public nuisance are
5 about to be committed....” (McClatchy v. Laguna Lands Ltd. (1917) 32 Cal.App. 718, 725.)
6 30. “Public nuisance liability ‘does not hinge on whether the defendant owns, possesses
7 or controls the property, nor on whether he is in a position to abate the nuisance; the critical
8 question is whether the defendant created or assisted in the creation of the nuisance.’ [Citation].”
9 (Melton v. Boustred (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 521, 542; see also County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic
10 Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 306; City of Modesto Redevelopment Agency v. Superior
11 Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 28, 38; Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d
12 1125, 1137; California Department of Toxic Substances v. Payless Cleaners (E.D. Cal. 2005) 368
13 F.Supp.2d 1069, 1081.)
14 31. Civil Code section 3491 provides in relevant part that the “remedies against a public
15 nuisance are indictment or information, a civil action or abatement.” Abatement typically is
16 “accomplished by a court of equity by means of an injunction proper and suitable to the facts of
17 each case.” (Sullivan v. Royer (1887) 72 Cal. 248, 249; see also People v. Selby Smelting and Lead
18 Co. (1912) 163 Cal. 84, 90.)
19 32. Code of Civil Procedure section 731 authorizes a city attorney to bring an action to
20 enjoin or abate a public nuisance. It provides, in relevant part, that “[a] civil action may be brought
21 in the name of the people of the State of California to abate a public nuisance ... by the city attorney
22 of any town or city in which such nuisance exists ....”
23 33. Since at least October 2022, Defendants have continuously violated and acted in
24 defiance of the County ordinances and zoning requirements by using the Property for unpermitted
events and rentals to the public. Despite the NOP and the cease and desist notice, Defendants have
25
failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to comply with County ordinances. Defendants
26
have not obtained a permit to hold large events at the Property or to rent the Property and have not
27
28
8
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 discontinued advertising, promoting, taking reservations, and holding such unpermitted activities at
2 the Property.
3 34. Defendants’ unpermitted operations and activities at the Property constitute a
4 continuing public nuisance that adversely affects and impacts the entire community and
5 neighborhood; is injurious to the public’s health, safety, and welfare as well as the health, safety,
6 and welfare of the County residents due to the large number of people, vehicles, event equipment,
7 and loud noise and music that large weddings and other events bring to the Property; and obstructs
8 the free use and enjoyment of the properties in the community.
9 35. Specifically, unpermitted large events and short-term rentals held at the Property
10 located in an agricultural area negatively impact the community in that they (a) overwhelm with
11 excessive traffic the road infrastructure not developed to accommodate such high volume of
12 vehicles and people; (b) cause air and noise pollution as a result of extra traffic, amplified
13 equipment, and associated operations at the Property; and (c) increase likelihood of traffic accidents
14 and disturbance of peace in the neighborhood due to drunk and loud guests. The County has a
15 strong interest in bringing about immediate compliance with its zoning laws. Each day these
16 unpermitted events at the Property remain ongoing constitutes additional harm to the health and
17 safety of the County’s residents.
18 36. Unless and until these activities are restrained by this Court, they will continue to
19 cause great and irreparable injury to the residents of the neighborhood, in that their peace and
20 tranquility are being, and have been, disturbed, and the health and safety of the public is jeopardized
21 by Defendants’ engaging, and continuing to engage, in activities at and/or in connection with the
22 Property that are a detriment to the public and neighborhood because they constitute a nuisance.
23 37. The County has no plain, adequate, or speedy remedy at law in that the level and
24 frequency of unpermitted activities is of such a magnitude as to create an immediate, permanent,
and perpetual risk of the health and welfare of the public and of residents of the neighborhood
25
surrounding the Property and the whole of the community of the County; and Defendants have
26
demonstrated a clear unwillingness and/or inability to manage and/or operate the Property in a
27
manner that is compliant with the law and/or which is not injurious to the public health, welfare and
28
9
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 safety. Instead, Defendants have engaged in, furthered, contributed to, fostered, encouraged,
2 conspired to do the same, or have otherwise allowed, or participated in such harmful and unlawful
3 activities and operations to continue at the Property.
4 38. Therefore, the County requests a temporary restraining order be issued forthwith, as
5 well as a preliminary and permanent injunction, prohibiting Defendants from using and operating
6 the Property for unpermitted purposes.
7 39. Pursuant to Civil Code section 3496, or as otherwise may be provided by law, the
8 County is entitled to recover its costs, including law enforcement costs and attorneys’ fees, and/or
9 penalties in prevailing in this action.
10 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
NUISANCE PER SE
11 (Against All Defendants)
12 40. The County realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in the
13 preceding paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein.
14 41. “A legislatively declared public nuisance constitutes a nuisance per se against which
15 an injunction may issue without allegation or proof of irreparable injury.” (People ex rel.
16 Department of Public Works v. Adco Advertisers (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 507, 511-512.)
17 42. “The concept of a nuisance per se arises when a legislative body with appropriate
18 jurisdiction, in the exercise of police power, expressly declares a particular object or substance,
19 activity, or circumstance, to be a nuisance.” (Beck Development Co. Inc., supra, 44 Cal.App.4th
20 1160, 1206; Jones v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1053, 1068; Amusing
21 Sandwich, Inc. v. City of Palm Springs (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1129.)
22 43. “By ordinance the city legislative body may declare what constitutes a nuisance.”
23 (Government Code section 38771; see also City of Bakers field v. Miller (1966) 64 Cal.2d 93,
24 100; People ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Outdoor Media Group (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th
25 1067, 1076-1077; City of Costa Mesa v. Soffer (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 378, 382-383.)
26 44. RCC section 1.16.020 defines a nuisance as follows: “Any condition on public or
27 private property located within the unincorporated areas of the County of Riverside which is caused,
28 maintained or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of a land use ordinance shall be and
10
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 the same is hereby declared unlawful and a public nuisance that may be abated consistent with the
2 procedures provided for in this chapter, or in any other manner provided by law.” RCC section
3 1.16.030 further provides: “Each and every day, or any portion thereof, during which any violation
4 of a land use ordinance or the rules, regulations, orders, permits or conditions of approval issued
5 thereunder is committed, continued, or permitted by such person, shall be deemed a separate and
6 distinct offense.”
7 45. With respect to the nuisance abatement process, the County Code specifically
8 provides: “All remedies and penalties for the abatement of public nuisances provided for in this
9 chapter shall be cumulative and not exclusive. Enforcement by use of any administrative, criminal
10 or civil action, citation or administrative proceeding or abatement remedy does not preclude the use
11 of additional citations or other remedies as authorized by other ordinance or law. Enforcement
12 remedies may be employed concurrently or consecutively.” (RCC, section 1.16.030.)
13 46. “Nuisances per se are so regarded because no proof is required, beyond the actual
14 fact of their existence, to establish the nuisance.” (City of Claremont v. Kruse (2009) 177
15 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1164 [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]; see also City of Costa
16 Mesa, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 382; McClatchy, supra, 32 Cal.App. 718, 725.) “[W]here the law
17 expressly declares something to be a nuisance, then no inquiry beyond its existence need be made
18 and in this sense its mere existence is said to be a nuisance per se.” (Beck Development Co. Inc.,
19 supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 1207.) “No ill effects need to be proved.” (McClatchy, supra, 32
20 Cal.App. at p. 725.)
21 47. “[A]ll parties to a nuisance per se, he who creates it and he who maintains it, are
22 responsible for its effect, without limitations of conditions or time.” (Id.; see also City of
23 Bakersfield, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 100; Amusing Sandwich, Inc, supra, 165 Cal.App.3d at p. 1129.)
24 48. “The abatement of a public nuisance pursuant to a reasonable exercise of the police
power does not require the payment of compensation at all.” (People ex rel. Department of
25
Transportation v. Hadley Fruit Orchards, Inc. (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 49, 53.)
26
49. By holding large events and rentals at the Property with AG land designation (C/V-
27
10 zone), Defendants violated RCC section 17.12.040 (RCO No. 348 section 3.3), which provides:
28
11
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 “When a use is not specifically listed as permitted or conditionally permitted in a zone
2 classification, the use is prohibited unless, in circumstances where this ordinance empowers them
3 to do so, the planning director makes a determination that the use is substantially the same in
4 character and intensity as those uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the zone
5 classification.” RCC section 17.136.030 lists the allowed uses in the zone, in which the Property
6 is located. Large events and weddings, and short-term rentals, are not listed in section 17.136.030
7 as a permitted use in this zone.
8 50. Defendants also violated RCC section 17.172.020, which states: “All land,
9 buildings and structures in the unincorporated area of the county of Riverside shall be used only
10 as hereinafter provided;” and section 17.172.020(A)(2), which provides: “No use that requires a
11 permit or approval of any kind under the provisions of this title shall be established or operated
12 until the permit or approval is finally granted and all required conditions of the permit or approval
13 have been completed.” Large events and short-term rentals are not a permitted use at the
14 Property, and Defendants are prohibited from holding such activities and operations at the
15 Property until they request and are granted a permit for such use. Defendants have failed to apply
16 for and obtain a permit before holding large events at the Property.
17 51. Pursuant to the RCC and RCO No. 348, Defendants’ use of and operations at the
18 Property in violation of its zoning requirements constitute a public nuisance per se. The use of the
19 Property for unpermitted events and rentals adversely affects and impacts the entire community and
20 neighborhood, and the current illegal operations at the Property are injurious to the health and safety
21 of community members.
22 52. The County notified Defendants that the Property is not in compliance with the
23 County ordinances and attempted to work with Defendants to bring the Property into compliance
24 with its zoning requirements and resolve the continued violations at the Property.
25 53. Defendants have been ordered to comply with the County ordinances by
discontinuing the unpermitted events and rentals and obtaining a permit to use the Property for such
26
activities, but have failed and refused to comply, and continue to fail and refuse to comply
27
therewith.
28
12
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 54. As a proximate result of the nuisance and nuisance per se conditions, alleged herein
2 or to be shown by evidence, which conditions have been maintained and/or permitted by
3 Defendants, and each of them, at the Property, the public health, welfare, and safety have been, and
4 continue to be, severely jeopardized.
5 55. Defendants will, unless restrained by this Court, continue to operate, maintain, or
6 allow the nuisance and nuisance per se conditions and activities at the Property to continue in
7 violation of the rights of the County and the public.
8 56. The County has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law. A temporary
9 injunction to prohibit Defendants from maintaining and operating the Property for the unpermitted
10 use is immediately necessary to abate and prevent the continuance and/or recurrence of the nuisance
11 and nuisance per se and violations of the County Code presented by the current and continuing
12 conditions and activities at the Property.
13 57. Pursuant to Civil Code section 3496 and RCC, or as otherwise may be provided by
14 law, the County is entitled to recover its costs, including law enforcement costs and attorneys’ fees,
15 and/or penalties for prevailing on the nuisance claim.
16 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
17 (Against All Defendants)
18 58. The County realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in the
19 preceding paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein.
20 59. Defendants’ use and operations at the Property as alleged above is illegal and a
21 public nuisance, and poses an immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare of the
22 community.
23 60. The RCC declares such actions by Defendants to be illegal and a public nuisance,
24 and specifically authorizes the County to commence an action for injunctive relief for the
25 abatement, removal, and enjoinment of public nuisances.
26 61. On numerous occasions, the County has demanded that Defendants bring the
27 Property into compliance with the RCC and applicable ordinances. Defendants have had, and
28 continue to have, the ability to use, maintain, and operate the Property in compliance with the above
13
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 referenced code and ordinances. Defendants have not abated these nuisances and continue to fail
2 and refuse to bring the Property into compliance.
3 62. Defendants’ wrongful conduct, unless and until enjoined, will cause great and
4 irreparable injury to the County in that the public will be subject to the unlawful nuisances and the
5 public’s health, safety, and welfare will continue to be threatened thereby.
6 63. The County does not have a plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, in that
7 monetary damages do not compensate for the unlawful use, maintenance, and operation of the
8 Property as alleged herein, and money damages will not alleviate the dangers to health and safety
9 risks posed thereby to members of the public.
10
Preview
1 Mark J. Dillon (State Bar No. 108329) (Exempt from Filing Fees Yana Ridge (State Bar No. 306532) Pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103) 2 Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP 2762 Gateway Road 3 Carlsbad, California 92009 4 Telephone: (760) 431-9501 Facsimile: (760) 431-9512 5 Email: mdillon@gdandb.com yridge@gdandb.com 6 Attorneys for County of Riverside 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 10 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, ) Case No.: 11 ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND 13 v. ) DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A ) PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER 14 TWISTED TENDRIL VINEYARD, LLC, a) SE California limited liability company; ) 15 TWISTED VALLEY VINEYARDS, ) (DEEMED VERIFIED PURSUANT TO 16 WINERY & DISTILLERY, LLC, a) CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION California limited liability company; ) 446) 17 HEINER WINERY VINEYARDS &) DISTILLERY, LLC, a California limited ) 18 liability company; JULIE’S DREAM ) VINEYARDS, WINERY & DISTILLERY, ) 19 LLC, a California limited liability company; ) 20 and DOES 1-25, ) ) 21 Defendants. ) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 Plaintiff County of Riverside (County) alleges as follows: 2 PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 3 1. The County is, and at all times relevant herein was, a general law county and a 4 political subdivision of the State of California. The County has a duty and interest in protecting the 5 public safety and welfare within its jurisdiction through enactment of ordinances that apply to all 6 persons and entities within the County and to all persons and entities that own property or do 7 business within the County. The County has the right, pursuant to the California Constitution, 8 Article XI, Section 7, to ensure that property and businesses located within the County 9 unincorporated areas comply with the County’s ordinances. 10 2. The County is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant Twisted 11 Tendril Vineyard, LLC is, and at all times relevant herein was, the record owner of the real property 12 located at 39788 Calle Contento, Temecula, California 92591, located within the County and also 13 known as Assessor’s Parcel No. 943-210-013 (Property). By Grant Deed recorded in the official 14 records of the County as Document No. 2019-0160032 on May 8, 2019, the Property was 15 transferred to Defendant Twisted Tendril Vineyard, LLC. According to public records, the Property 16 has not transferred ownership since then. 17 3. The County is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that in or about November 18 2020, Defendant Twisted Tendril Vineyard, LLC changed its entity name to Twisted Valley 19 Vineyards, Winery & Distillery, LLC. The County is further informed and believes, and thereon 20 alleges, that in or about December 2020, Defendant Twisted Valley Vineyards, Winery & Distillery, 21 LLC changed its entity name to Heiner Winery Vineyards & Distillery, LLC. The County is further 22 informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that in or about January 2021, Defendant Heiner Winery 23 Vineyards & Distillery, LLC changed its entity name again to its current name of Julie’s Dream 24 Vineyards, Winery & Distillery, LLC. 4. The County is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant Julie’s 25 Dream Vineyards, Winery & Distillery, LLC is a California limited liability company duly 26 organized and doing business under the laws of the State of California, with its principal business 27 address of 12 Colonial Drive, Rancho Mirage, California 92270. Defendant Julie’s Dream 28 2 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 Vineyards, Winery & Distillery, LLC’s managers and/or members are Julie Heiner Damewood and 2 Gerald Heiner. 3 5. The Property is approximately a 14-acre lot with land use designation of AG 4 (Agricultural) and zoning classification C/V-10 (Citrus/Vineyard), located within the County. With 5 Defendants’ knowledge and consent, and/or under their control and/or at their direction, the 6 Property is unlawfully being used and operated for unpermitted wedding and other large events, and 7 short-term rentals, and related activities, including advertising, selling, renting, taking reservations, 8 among others, as well as all unpermitted improvements associated with large events and rentals and 9 located at the Property. 10 6. Defendants’ use of the Property for unpermitted weddings, large events, rentals, and 11 associated activities and improvements, all of which generate noise and traffic issues for the 12 community, constitutes a nuisance. As a result, the County files this action to enjoin Defendants 13 from using and maintaining, and operating such nuisance at the Property, to abate the nuisance, and 14 to obtain all additional relief to which the County is entitled on behalf of its residents. 15 7. The County is unaware of the true names and capacities of defendants sued as Does 16 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by these fictitious names. The County 17 will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when, and if, ascertained. The 18 County is informed and believe that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some 19 manner for the occurrences alleged in this Complaint. 20 8. Whenever in this Complaint reference is made to any act of Defendants, such 21 allegation shall be deemed to mean Defendants, Defendants’ officers, agents, managers, 22 representatives, employees, and/or DOES 1 through 25, who authorized such acts while actively 23 engaged in the operation, management, direction or control of the affairs of Defendants, at 24 Defendants’ direction, and/or while acting within the course and scope of their duties. Reference to Defendants shall also mean each Defendant individually and collectively. 25 9. Defendants and each of them are directly responsible for the activities occurring on 26 the Property as set forth below, are responsible for continuing violations of the laws and public 27 policy of the State of California and/or local codes, regulations and/or requirements applicable to 28 3 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 Defendants’ operation and activities at the Property, and/or have permitted, allowed, caused, or 2 indirectly furthered the activities at the Property alleged herein, and Defendants’ use of and 3 activities at the Property, or allowance of such uses and activities, are inimical to the rights and 4 interests of the general public and constitute unlawful business practices, nuisances and/or 5 violations of law. 6 10. Venue is proper in this Judicial District because the subject Property is located in this 7 district. 8 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 9 11. As a result of a resident complaint about the noise at the Property, on October 8, 10 2022, the County Code Enforcement officer traveled to the Property and encountered approximately 11 10 vehicles parked at the front of the Property. From approximately 200 feet away from the site, 12 the officer could hear loud music over amplifying equipment, and it appeared that a wedding was in 13 progress at the Property. The officer photographed the activities at the Property and issued a $500 14 penalty for the noise violation. 15 12. Subsequent research of County records for the Property revealed that the Property is 16 located in C/V-10 zone (Citrus/Vineyard), which zone was created to “encourage agricultural 17 cultivation, vineyards, and wineries that would preserve the rural lifestyle, wine-making 18 atmosphere and long term viability of wine industry where such activities are occurring and that 19 would protect such areas from incompatible uses which could result in reduced agricultural 20 productivity and increased urbanization within the policy area.” (Riverside County Code (RCC) 21 section 17.136.010.) Limited incidental commercial uses (wine sales, sampling rooms, 22 restaurants, hotels) are permitted in this zone only when they are secondary and directly related to 23 the agricultural operations. (Ibid.) 24 13. The County records further show that in 2005 the Property was entitled for a winery tasting room and wine production. That entitlement described the use as conversion of an existing 25 barn on the Property into a 2,000 SF commercial winery with retail wine sales and tasting room, 26 with four parking spaces to accommodate 180 SF tasting room to be open to the public. That 27 project was conditioned for exterior noise levels and hours of operation Monday through Sunday 28 4 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 8am to 10pm. That entitlement did not permit events or lodging, and no permit for events and/or 2 short-term rentals has been obtained. 3 14. General research of the Property online showed that the Property is being advertised 4 as Julie’s Dream Winery – a wedding venue that also hosts wedding showers, rehearsal dinners, and 5 other prenuptial events, as well as a short-term rental, allowing the public to rent several of its 6 dwelling units per night (main house and three separate suites). The Property is advertised as such 7 on several websites (Airbnb.com, theknot.com, etc.) and social media accounts (Instagram, 8 Facebook, TikTok), with customer reviews going back to early 2021 and future wedding 9 announcements for March and April 2023. 10 15. As a result of the activities observed at the Property on October 8, 2022, which were 11 confirmed by online advertisements and posts about the Property’s use as a wedding venue and 12 short-term rental, the County opened Code Enforcement Case Nos. CVZO221069 (zoning violation 13 of Riverside County Ordinance (RCO) No. 348) and CVCR220119 (noise violation of RCO No. 14 847). 15 16. On October 14, 2022, Supervising Code Enforcement Officer visited the Property 16 where he found the gate to the residence open. He observed approximately 30 cars parked in the 17 small parking lot. He then drove up the driveway and observed an event in progress. Attendees 18 were dressed in formal attire as if they were in a wedding. The Officer took photographs of the 19 event. 20 17. On October 15, 2022, Supervising Officer traveled to the Property again and 21 observed another event occurring, with 15-20 cars parked in the front and a large white canopy/tent 22 set up with string lights. On October 21, 2022, Supervising Officer spoke with Ms. Julie 23 Damewood about the occurring violations. Ms. Damewood admitted to having held over 100 24 weddings at the site and that they were not even operating a winery. 18. As a result of unpermitted uses and operations at the Property, on November 9, 2022, 25 the County caused a Notice of Pendency of Administrative Proceeding (NOP) to be recorded 26 against the Property in the official records of the County of Riverside, as a Document No. 2022- 27 0466423, for the zoning violation of RCO No. 348 (unpermitted use). The NOP referenced the 28 5 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 Property address and Defendant Twisted Tendril Vineyard as the property owner and provided 2 notice that the County had commenced administrative proceedings to abate a public nuisance taking 3 place at the Property. 4 19. On November 10, 2022, the County also posted a cease and desist notice at the 5 Property, citing violations of County of Riverside Ordinance (RCO) No. 348 and directing 6 Defendants to immediately discontinue the violations at the Property and contact Code Enforcement 7 to schedule a compliance inspection on or before November 20, 2022. 8 20. On November 19, 2022, Ms. Damewood contacted the County in response to the 9 cease and desist notice and was advised over the phone that no compliance inspection could be 10 scheduled until all online advertising was removed. The County then gave Defendants an extension 11 on the compliance inspection deadline to December 1, 2022. However, on the same day, November 12 19, 2022, the Code Enforcement officer observed an event taking place at the Property, with loud 13 amplified music and loud guests, as well as numerous vehicles parked on the Property. 14 21. On November 26, 2022, in response to two neighbor complaints, the Code 15 Enforcement officer traveled to the Property where an event was in progress. There were 15-20 16 vehicles parked, and extremely loud music was playing. 17 22. A neighbor complaint that the County received on November 28, 2022 stated that 18 events are held at the Property every weekend and loud music and guest screaming is heard half a 19 mile away, all of which is having a negative impact on the neighborhood. 20 23. On December 1, 2022, the County confirmed that the Property’s online 21 advertisements have not been removed. Defendants continue to advertise the Property as a wedding 22 venue and a short-term rental. Following the officers’ observations of unpermitted events held at 23 the Property despite the cease and desist notice, Defendants continue to refuse to bring the Property 24 into compliance with County ordinances. 24. The use and operation of the Property for unpermitted large events and rental 25 business within the agricultural area of the County cause irreparable injury to the County and its 26 residents because the Property has not undergone the County’s necessary zoning and building and 27 safety application and review processes, creating a danger to neighbors as well as nearby school(s), 28 6 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 detrimental impact to the natural environment and surrounding properties, and danger to persons 2 doing business nearby, and to the persons, employees, and contractors patronizing the Property and 3 business at issue. Moreover, the nature of the unpermitted commercial activity taking place on the 4 Property is particularly harmful to the surrounding community. A high volume of vendor and guest 5 vehicles, moving to and from the Property, poses a clear health and safety risk in the form of high 6 traffic volume, traffic accidents, noise pollution, environmental pollution, and air quality 7 degradation. Such activity is particularly harmful when it takes place in a zone for which it is not 8 properly zoned, such as an agricultural community. 9 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION PUBLIC NUISANCE 10 (Against All Defendants) 11 25. The County realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in the 12 preceding paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein. 13 26. Civil Code section 3479 defines a nuisance as including “[a]nything which is... 14 offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the 15 comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free ... use, in the customary 16 manner, of any ... public ... street, or highway ....” 17 27. Civil Code section 3480 defines a public nuisance as “one which affects at the same 18 time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the 19 extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.” 20 28. Riverside County Code (RCC) section 1.16.020 defines a nuisance as follows: “Any 21 condition on public or private property located within the unincorporated areas of the County of 22 Riverside which is caused, maintained or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of a land 23 use ordinance shall be and the same is hereby declared unlawful and a public nuisance that may be 24 abated consistent with the procedures provided for in this chapter, or in any other manner provided 25 by law.” 26 29. “[A]n affected party need not wait until actual injury occurs before bringing an 27 action to enjoin a nuisance” (Beck Development Co., Inc. v. Southern Pacific Transportation 28 Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1213); “mere apprehension of injury from a dangerous condition 7 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 may constitute a nuisance where it interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of property ....” 2 (Mclvor v. Mercer-Fraser Co. (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 247, 254.) It is sufficient, therefore, “that a 3 defendant's acts are likely to cause a significant invasion of a public right” (In re Firearms 4 Cases (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 959, 988), such as “where acts which create a public nuisance are 5 about to be committed....” (McClatchy v. Laguna Lands Ltd. (1917) 32 Cal.App. 718, 725.) 6 30. “Public nuisance liability ‘does not hinge on whether the defendant owns, possesses 7 or controls the property, nor on whether he is in a position to abate the nuisance; the critical 8 question is whether the defendant created or assisted in the creation of the nuisance.’ [Citation].” 9 (Melton v. Boustred (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 521, 542; see also County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic 10 Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 306; City of Modesto Redevelopment Agency v. Superior 11 Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 28, 38; Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 12 1125, 1137; California Department of Toxic Substances v. Payless Cleaners (E.D. Cal. 2005) 368 13 F.Supp.2d 1069, 1081.) 14 31. Civil Code section 3491 provides in relevant part that the “remedies against a public 15 nuisance are indictment or information, a civil action or abatement.” Abatement typically is 16 “accomplished by a court of equity by means of an injunction proper and suitable to the facts of 17 each case.” (Sullivan v. Royer (1887) 72 Cal. 248, 249; see also People v. Selby Smelting and Lead 18 Co. (1912) 163 Cal. 84, 90.) 19 32. Code of Civil Procedure section 731 authorizes a city attorney to bring an action to 20 enjoin or abate a public nuisance. It provides, in relevant part, that “[a] civil action may be brought 21 in the name of the people of the State of California to abate a public nuisance ... by the city attorney 22 of any town or city in which such nuisance exists ....” 23 33. Since at least October 2022, Defendants have continuously violated and acted in 24 defiance of the County ordinances and zoning requirements by using the Property for unpermitted events and rentals to the public. Despite the NOP and the cease and desist notice, Defendants have 25 failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to comply with County ordinances. Defendants 26 have not obtained a permit to hold large events at the Property or to rent the Property and have not 27 28 8 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 discontinued advertising, promoting, taking reservations, and holding such unpermitted activities at 2 the Property. 3 34. Defendants’ unpermitted operations and activities at the Property constitute a 4 continuing public nuisance that adversely affects and impacts the entire community and 5 neighborhood; is injurious to the public’s health, safety, and welfare as well as the health, safety, 6 and welfare of the County residents due to the large number of people, vehicles, event equipment, 7 and loud noise and music that large weddings and other events bring to the Property; and obstructs 8 the free use and enjoyment of the properties in the community. 9 35. Specifically, unpermitted large events and short-term rentals held at the Property 10 located in an agricultural area negatively impact the community in that they (a) overwhelm with 11 excessive traffic the road infrastructure not developed to accommodate such high volume of 12 vehicles and people; (b) cause air and noise pollution as a result of extra traffic, amplified 13 equipment, and associated operations at the Property; and (c) increase likelihood of traffic accidents 14 and disturbance of peace in the neighborhood due to drunk and loud guests. The County has a 15 strong interest in bringing about immediate compliance with its zoning laws. Each day these 16 unpermitted events at the Property remain ongoing constitutes additional harm to the health and 17 safety of the County’s residents. 18 36. Unless and until these activities are restrained by this Court, they will continue to 19 cause great and irreparable injury to the residents of the neighborhood, in that their peace and 20 tranquility are being, and have been, disturbed, and the health and safety of the public is jeopardized 21 by Defendants’ engaging, and continuing to engage, in activities at and/or in connection with the 22 Property that are a detriment to the public and neighborhood because they constitute a nuisance. 23 37. The County has no plain, adequate, or speedy remedy at law in that the level and 24 frequency of unpermitted activities is of such a magnitude as to create an immediate, permanent, and perpetual risk of the health and welfare of the public and of residents of the neighborhood 25 surrounding the Property and the whole of the community of the County; and Defendants have 26 demonstrated a clear unwillingness and/or inability to manage and/or operate the Property in a 27 manner that is compliant with the law and/or which is not injurious to the public health, welfare and 28 9 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 safety. Instead, Defendants have engaged in, furthered, contributed to, fostered, encouraged, 2 conspired to do the same, or have otherwise allowed, or participated in such harmful and unlawful 3 activities and operations to continue at the Property. 4 38. Therefore, the County requests a temporary restraining order be issued forthwith, as 5 well as a preliminary and permanent injunction, prohibiting Defendants from using and operating 6 the Property for unpermitted purposes. 7 39. Pursuant to Civil Code section 3496, or as otherwise may be provided by law, the 8 County is entitled to recover its costs, including law enforcement costs and attorneys’ fees, and/or 9 penalties in prevailing in this action. 10 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION NUISANCE PER SE 11 (Against All Defendants) 12 40. The County realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in the 13 preceding paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein. 14 41. “A legislatively declared public nuisance constitutes a nuisance per se against which 15 an injunction may issue without allegation or proof of irreparable injury.” (People ex rel. 16 Department of Public Works v. Adco Advertisers (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 507, 511-512.) 17 42. “The concept of a nuisance per se arises when a legislative body with appropriate 18 jurisdiction, in the exercise of police power, expressly declares a particular object or substance, 19 activity, or circumstance, to be a nuisance.” (Beck Development Co. Inc., supra, 44 Cal.App.4th 20 1160, 1206; Jones v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1053, 1068; Amusing 21 Sandwich, Inc. v. City of Palm Springs (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1129.) 22 43. “By ordinance the city legislative body may declare what constitutes a nuisance.” 23 (Government Code section 38771; see also City of Bakers field v. Miller (1966) 64 Cal.2d 93, 24 100; People ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Outdoor Media Group (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 25 1067, 1076-1077; City of Costa Mesa v. Soffer (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 378, 382-383.) 26 44. RCC section 1.16.020 defines a nuisance as follows: “Any condition on public or 27 private property located within the unincorporated areas of the County of Riverside which is caused, 28 maintained or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of a land use ordinance shall be and 10 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 the same is hereby declared unlawful and a public nuisance that may be abated consistent with the 2 procedures provided for in this chapter, or in any other manner provided by law.” RCC section 3 1.16.030 further provides: “Each and every day, or any portion thereof, during which any violation 4 of a land use ordinance or the rules, regulations, orders, permits or conditions of approval issued 5 thereunder is committed, continued, or permitted by such person, shall be deemed a separate and 6 distinct offense.” 7 45. With respect to the nuisance abatement process, the County Code specifically 8 provides: “All remedies and penalties for the abatement of public nuisances provided for in this 9 chapter shall be cumulative and not exclusive. Enforcement by use of any administrative, criminal 10 or civil action, citation or administrative proceeding or abatement remedy does not preclude the use 11 of additional citations or other remedies as authorized by other ordinance or law. Enforcement 12 remedies may be employed concurrently or consecutively.” (RCC, section 1.16.030.) 13 46. “Nuisances per se are so regarded because no proof is required, beyond the actual 14 fact of their existence, to establish the nuisance.” (City of Claremont v. Kruse (2009) 177 15 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1164 [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]; see also City of Costa 16 Mesa, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 382; McClatchy, supra, 32 Cal.App. 718, 725.) “[W]here the law 17 expressly declares something to be a nuisance, then no inquiry beyond its existence need be made 18 and in this sense its mere existence is said to be a nuisance per se.” (Beck Development Co. Inc., 19 supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 1207.) “No ill effects need to be proved.” (McClatchy, supra, 32 20 Cal.App. at p. 725.) 21 47. “[A]ll parties to a nuisance per se, he who creates it and he who maintains it, are 22 responsible for its effect, without limitations of conditions or time.” (Id.; see also City of 23 Bakersfield, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 100; Amusing Sandwich, Inc, supra, 165 Cal.App.3d at p. 1129.) 24 48. “The abatement of a public nuisance pursuant to a reasonable exercise of the police power does not require the payment of compensation at all.” (People ex rel. Department of 25 Transportation v. Hadley Fruit Orchards, Inc. (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 49, 53.) 26 49. By holding large events and rentals at the Property with AG land designation (C/V- 27 10 zone), Defendants violated RCC section 17.12.040 (RCO No. 348 section 3.3), which provides: 28 11 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 “When a use is not specifically listed as permitted or conditionally permitted in a zone 2 classification, the use is prohibited unless, in circumstances where this ordinance empowers them 3 to do so, the planning director makes a determination that the use is substantially the same in 4 character and intensity as those uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the zone 5 classification.” RCC section 17.136.030 lists the allowed uses in the zone, in which the Property 6 is located. Large events and weddings, and short-term rentals, are not listed in section 17.136.030 7 as a permitted use in this zone. 8 50. Defendants also violated RCC section 17.172.020, which states: “All land, 9 buildings and structures in the unincorporated area of the county of Riverside shall be used only 10 as hereinafter provided;” and section 17.172.020(A)(2), which provides: “No use that requires a 11 permit or approval of any kind under the provisions of this title shall be established or operated 12 until the permit or approval is finally granted and all required conditions of the permit or approval 13 have been completed.” Large events and short-term rentals are not a permitted use at the 14 Property, and Defendants are prohibited from holding such activities and operations at the 15 Property until they request and are granted a permit for such use. Defendants have failed to apply 16 for and obtain a permit before holding large events at the Property. 17 51. Pursuant to the RCC and RCO No. 348, Defendants’ use of and operations at the 18 Property in violation of its zoning requirements constitute a public nuisance per se. The use of the 19 Property for unpermitted events and rentals adversely affects and impacts the entire community and 20 neighborhood, and the current illegal operations at the Property are injurious to the health and safety 21 of community members. 22 52. The County notified Defendants that the Property is not in compliance with the 23 County ordinances and attempted to work with Defendants to bring the Property into compliance 24 with its zoning requirements and resolve the continued violations at the Property. 25 53. Defendants have been ordered to comply with the County ordinances by discontinuing the unpermitted events and rentals and obtaining a permit to use the Property for such 26 activities, but have failed and refused to comply, and continue to fail and refuse to comply 27 therewith. 28 12 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 54. As a proximate result of the nuisance and nuisance per se conditions, alleged herein 2 or to be shown by evidence, which conditions have been maintained and/or permitted by 3 Defendants, and each of them, at the Property, the public health, welfare, and safety have been, and 4 continue to be, severely jeopardized. 5 55. Defendants will, unless restrained by this Court, continue to operate, maintain, or 6 allow the nuisance and nuisance per se conditions and activities at the Property to continue in 7 violation of the rights of the County and the public. 8 56. The County has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law. A temporary 9 injunction to prohibit Defendants from maintaining and operating the Property for the unpermitted 10 use is immediately necessary to abate and prevent the continuance and/or recurrence of the nuisance 11 and nuisance per se and violations of the County Code presented by the current and continuing 12 conditions and activities at the Property. 13 57. Pursuant to Civil Code section 3496 and RCC, or as otherwise may be provided by 14 law, the County is entitled to recover its costs, including law enforcement costs and attorneys’ fees, 15 and/or penalties for prevailing on the nuisance claim. 16 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 17 (Against All Defendants) 18 58. The County realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in the 19 preceding paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein. 20 59. Defendants’ use and operations at the Property as alleged above is illegal and a 21 public nuisance, and poses an immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare of the 22 community. 23 60. The RCC declares such actions by Defendants to be illegal and a public nuisance, 24 and specifically authorizes the County to commence an action for injunctive relief for the 25 abatement, removal, and enjoinment of public nuisances. 26 61. On numerous occasions, the County has demanded that Defendants bring the 27 Property into compliance with the RCC and applicable ordinances. Defendants have had, and 28 continue to have, the ability to use, maintain, and operate the Property in compliance with the above 13 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 referenced code and ordinances. Defendants have not abated these nuisances and continue to fail 2 and refuse to bring the Property into compliance. 3 62. Defendants’ wrongful conduct, unless and until enjoined, will cause great and 4 irreparable injury to the County in that the public will be subject to the unlawful nuisances and the 5 public’s health, safety, and welfare will continue to be threatened thereby. 6 63. The County does not have a plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, in that 7 monetary damages do not compensate for the unlawful use, maintenance, and operation of the 8 Property as alleged herein, and money damages will not alleviate the dangers to health and safety 9 risks posed thereby to members of the public. 10