Preview
1 Mark J. Dillon (State Bar No. 108329) (Exempt from Filing Fees
Yana L. 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
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, County of Riverside
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
10
11 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, ) Case No.:
)
12
Plaintiff, )
13 ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
v. ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A
14 ) PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE
) PER SE
15 SAVANGVATHANA VANG, an individual; )
NICHOLAS MENG LOR, an individual; and ) (Deemed Verified Per CCP § 446)
16
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, )
17 )
Defendants. )
18 _____________________________________ )
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE
A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 Plaintiff, County of Riverside, a political subdivision of the State of California, on behalf of
2 the people of the State of California, alleges against Defendants, Savangvathana Vang and Nicholas
3 Meng Lor, individuals, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive (collectively, Defendants) as follows:
4 PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
5 1. Plaintiff County of Riverside (County) is, and at all times relevant herein was, a
6 general law county and a political subdivision of the State of California.
7 2. The real property, including all structures and buildings, which is the subject of this
8 action, is located at 2 P/S [parcels south] of 38160 Howard Road, Anza, California 92539, within
9 the unincorporated area of the County and more particularly described as Assessor’s Parcel No.
10 572-130-010 (Property). The Property is located within the R-R zone (Rural Residential).
11 3. Defendants Savangvathana Vang and Nicholas Meng Lor are, and at all times
12 relevant herein have been, individuals who are the owners of the Property and who are causing,
13 leasing, allowing, permitting, aiding, abetting, suffering or concealing the unlawful cannabis
14 cultivation at or from the Property, in violation of the Riverside County Ordinances. Public records
15 indicate that Defendants acquired the Property by the Grant Deed recorded in the official records of
16 the County of Riverside in July 2021, as Document No. 2021-0436882.
17 4. Each Defendant has actual or constructive knowledge of the unlawful use of the
18 Property.
19 5. Defendants named as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are sued and designated by
20 fictitious names pursuant to section 474 of the Code of Civil Procedure because their true names
21 and capacities are unknown to the County. The County will amend this Complaint to reflect the
22 true names and capacities of any fictitiously named defendants when ascertained. The County is
23 informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each DOE Defendant is responsible in some
24 manner for the nuisance and violation of the County’s land use ordinances herein alleged.
6. The County is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times
25
mentioned herein, each Defendant was, and now is, the agent, officer, employee, member,
26
representative, or alter ego of one or more of the remaining Defendants, and in engaging in
27
activities alleged herein, was acting within the scope of his, her or its authority as such agent,
28
2
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 officer, employee, member, representative, or alter ego with the permission and consent of the
2 remaining Defendants.
3 7. Defendants maintain and permit the nuisance at the Property, and, as a result, the
4 County files this action to enjoin Defendants from permitting and maintaining the nuisance, to abate
5 the nuisance, and to obtain all additional relief to which the County is entitled on behalf of its
6 residents.
7 8. Defendants and each of them are directly responsible for the activities occurring on
8 the Property as set forth below, are responsible for continuing violations of the laws and public
9 policy of the State of California and/or local codes, regulations and/or requirements applicable to
10 Defendants’ operation and activities at the Property, and/or have permitted, allowed, caused, or
11 indirectly furthered the activities at the Property alleged herein, and Defendants’ use of and
12 activities at the Property, or allowance of such uses and activities, are inimical to the rights and
13 interests of the general public and constitute unlawful business practices, nuisances and/or
14 violations of law.
15 9. Venue is proper in this Judicial District because the subject Property is located in this
16 district.
17 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
18 10. The County has a duty and interest in protecting the public health, safety, and
19 welfare within its jurisdiction through enactment of ordinances which apply to all persons and
20 entities within the County and to all persons and entities that own property or do business within the
21 County. The County has the right, pursuant to the California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, to
22 ensure that property and businesses located within the unincorporated areas of the County comply
23 with the County’s ordinances.
24 11. The County has a well-established right to control land uses within the
unincorporated areas of the County and to enforce its zoning and other land use ordinances.
25
Specifically, this right has been held to apply to local government bans on cannabis businesses and
26
cannabis activities. (City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health & Wellness Center (2013)
27
56 Cal.4th 729, 738.) The Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act
28
3
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 (MAUCRSA) also recognizes local control and the ability of local governments to prohibit or
2 regulate cannabis businesses or cannabis activities. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26200, 26055.)
3 12. Riverside County Ordinance (RCO) No. 348.4898, which amended RCO No. 348
4 and became effective on December 23, 2018, establishes a regulatory system for cannabis
5 businesses and cannabis activities, including cannabis cultivation, within the unincorporated areas
6 of the County of Riverside.
7 13. RCO No. 348 provides the following definitions:
8 a. “Cannabis Cultivation” is “Any activity involving the planting,
9 growing harvesting, drying, curing, grading or trimming of cannabis.”
10 b. “Commercial Cannabis Activities” is the “cultivation, possession,
11 manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing,
12 packaging, labeling, transportation, delivery or sale of Cannabis and
13 cannabis products as provided for in this division.”
14 c. “Indoor Cannabis Cultivation” is the “cultivation of Cannabis within a
15 permanent structure using exclusively artificial light or within any type
16 of structure using artificial light at a rate of twenty-five (25) watts per
17 square foot.”
18 d. “Mixed Light Cannabis Cultivation” is the “cultivation of Mature
19 Cannabis Plants in a greenhouse, hoop structure, glasshouse,
20 conservatory, hothouse, or other similar structure.”
21 e. “Outdoor Cannabis Cultivation” is the “cultivation of Mature Cannabis
22 Plants without the use of artificial lighting in a Canopy area at any
23 point in time. The growing of only immature cannabis plants at a
24 legally permitted Cannabis Wholesale Nursery is not considered
Outdoor Cannabis Cultivation.”
25
14. RCO No. 348 prohibits any Commercial Cannabis Activity within the
26
unincorporated area of the County without an approved conditional use permit issued by the County
27
and a valid cannabis license issued by the State of California. RCO No. 348 declares any
28
4
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 Commercial Cannabis Activity conducted in the unincorporated areas of the County of Riverside
2 without an approved conditional use permit and a valid state cannabis license to be a public
3 nuisance which the County may abate by any means permitted by law.
4 15. RCO No. 348 continues to prohibit all Outdoor Cannabis Cultivation in the
5 unincorporated areas of the County, subject to limited exemptions and exceptions.
6 16. RCO No. 348 prohibits all Commercial Cannabis Activity, which includes Cannabis
7 Cultivation, in the following zones: R-R, R-R-O, R-1, R-1A, R-A, R-2, R2-A, R-3, R-3A, R-T, R-
8 T-R, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7, C/V, C-C/V, WC-R, WC-W, WC-WE, WC-E, W-2, R-D, N-A, W-2-M,
9 W-1, W-E, M-R, M-R-A and MU.
10 17. RCO No. 348 provides that the procedures, remedies, and penalties for violation of
11 RCO No. 348 and for recovery of costs related to enforcement are governed by RCO No. 725,
12 which is incorporated herein by this reference.
13 18. RCO No. 348 section 3.3 provides in relevant part, “When a use is not specifically
14 listed as permitted or conditionally permitted in a zone classification, the use is prohibited unless, in
15 circumstances where this ordinance empowers them to do so, the Planning Director makes a
16 determination that the use is substantially the same in character and intensity as those uses permitted
17 or conditionally permitted in the zone classification.”
18 19. At all times relevant herein, RCO No. 725 has been in full force and effect. RCO No.
19 725 provides that any condition on public or private real property within the unincorporated areas of
20 the County which is caused, maintained or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of the
21 County’s Land Use Ordinance(s), including violations of RCO No. 348, shall be and the same is
22 declared unlawful and a public nuisance.
23 20. Among other non-exclusive remedies, RCO No. 725 authorizes the Riverside County
24 Counsel to commence judicial proceedings for the abatement, removal, correction, and enjoinment
of any act or practice which constitutes a violation of any provision of the County’s Land Use
25
Ordinances.
26
27
28
5
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 21. RCO No. 725 further mandates civil penalties against violators of up to One
2 Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each day or portion thereof that a violation of any Land Use
3 Ordinance continues to exist, providing:
4 Any person, whether acting as principal, agent, employee, owner, lessor, lessee,
tenant, occupant, operator, contractor or otherwise, who willfully violates the
5 provisions of any Land Use Ordinance or any rule, regulation, order or conditions
of approval issued thereunder by committing, causing, allowing, maintaining,
6
continuing or otherwise permitting a violation of any Land Use Ordinance shall
7 be liable for a civil Penalty not to exceed $1,000.00 for each day or portion
thereof, that the violation continues to exist.
8
22. In addition, RCO No. 725 and Government Code sections 25845(a) and (c) authorize
9
an award of abatement costs, including attorneys’ fees, to the County for abatement of nuisances
10
committed within its jurisdiction.
11
23. RCO No. 803 section 5 states that “[w]henever in the ordinances of the County any
12
act or omission is made unlawful, it shall include causing, allowing, permitting, aiding, abetting,
13
suffering, or concealing the fact of such act or omission.” At all times relevant herein, RCO No.
14
803 has been in full force and effect.
15
RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
16
24. On July 20, 2023, during the field investigation, Riverside County Code
17
Enforcement personnel detected a strong odor of cannabis in the area and tracked it to the Property.
18
From the adjacent parcel, the Officer observed cannabis cultivation at the Property hidden among
19
natural vegetation. Based on his training and experience, the Officer estimated Defendants are
20
cultivating approximately 200 cannabis plants at the Property.
21
25. RCO NO. 348 expressly prohibits cannabis cultivation in residential zones, in which
22
the Property is located. As a result of the discovery of the unlawful cannabis operations at the
23
Property, Code Enforcement posted at the Property a cease and desist notice, notifying Defendants
24
that cannabis cultivation at the Property was unlawful and requiring immediate compliance. The
25
notice was also mailed to Defendants. The deadline for the compliance inspection was set for
26
September 5, 2023.
27
26. However, Defendants failed to contact the County in response to the notice and did
28
not schedule a compliance inspection as requested.
6
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 27. As a result of Defendants’ refusal to abate the violations of RCO No. 348, despite the
2 cease and desist notice, the County has no other option but to pursue this action to enjoin
3 Defendants from causing, allowing, permitting, aiding, abetting, suffering, or concealing the
4 unlawful Cannabis Cultivation at or from the Property.
5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
PUBLIC NUISANCE
6 (Against All Defendants)
7
28. The County realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
8 contained in the preceding paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein.
9 29. Civil Code section 3479 defines a nuisance as including “[a]nything which is...
10 offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the
11 comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free ... use, in the customary
12 manner, of any ... public ... street, or highway ....”
13 30. Civil Code section 3480 defines a public nuisance as “one which affects at the same
14 time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the
15 extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.”
16 31. RCO No. 725 defines a nuisance as follows: “Any condition on public or private
17 property located within the unincorporated areas of the County of Riverside which is caused,
18 maintained or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of a land use ordinance shall be and
19 the same is hereby declared unlawful and a public nuisance that may be abated consistent with the
20 procedures provided for in this chapter, or in any other manner provided by law.”
21 32. “[A]n affected party need not wait until actual injury occurs before bringing an
22 action to enjoin a nuisance” (Beck Development Co., Inc. v. Southern Pacific Transportation
23 Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1213); “mere apprehension of injury from a dangerous condition
24 may constitute a nuisance where it interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of property ....”
25 (Mclvor v. Mercer-Fraser Co. (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 247, 254.) It is sufficient, therefore, “that a
26 defendant’s acts are likely to cause a significant invasion of a public right” (In re Firearms
27 Cases (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 959, 988), such as “where acts which create a public nuisance are
28 about to be committed....” (McClatchy v. Laguna Lands Ltd. (1917) 32 Cal.App. 718, 725.)
7
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 33. “Public nuisance liability ‘does not hinge on whether the defendant owns, possesses
2 or controls the property, nor on whether he is in a position to abate the nuisance; the critical
3 question is whether the defendant created or assisted in the creation of the nuisance.’ [Citation].”
4 (Melton v. Boustred (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 521, 542; see also County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic
5 Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 306; City of Modesto Redevelopment Agency v. Superior
6 Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 28, 38; Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d
7 1125, 1137; California Department of Toxic Substances v. Payless Cleaners (E.D. Cal. 2005) 368
8 F.Supp.2d 1069, 1081.)
9 34. Civil Code section 3491 provides in relevant part that the “remedies against a public
10 nuisance are indictment or information, a civil action or abatement.” Abatement typically is
11 “accomplished by a court of equity by means of an injunction proper and suitable to the facts of
12 each case.” (Sullivan v. Royer (1887) 72 Cal. 248, 249; see also People v. Selby Smelting and Lead
13 Co. (1912) 163 Cal. 84, 90.)
14 35. Code of Civil Procedure section 731 authorizes a city attorney to bring an action to
15 enjoin or abate a public nuisance. It provides, in relevant part, that “[a] civil action may be brought
16 in the name of the people of the State of California to abate a public nuisance ... by the city attorney
17 of any town or city in which such nuisance exists ....”
18 36. From an exact date unknown, and at all times herein mentioned, Defendants have
19 been causing, allowing, permitting, aiding, abetting, suffering, or concealing the unlawful Cannabis
20 Cultivation at or from the Property, in violation of RCO No. 348.
21 37. RCO No. 348 section 3.3 provides that “when a use is not specifically listed as
22 permitted or conditionally permitted in a zone classification, the use is prohibited[.]” The research
23 of County records indicate that the Property did not possess a County permit or a state license for
24 cannabis activities, and the visual observation revealed that cannabis was cultivated at the Property,
which is expressly prohibited by RCO No. 348 in residential zones, in which the Property is located.
25
38. Defendants have willfully been in violation of RCO No. 348 since, at a minimum,
26
the first date that Code Enforcement personnel observed the violation of RCO No. 348 giving rise to
27
this Complaint.
28
8
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 39. The County has sustained and will continue to sustain great and irreparable injury
2 because the unlawful Cannabis Cultivation at or from the Property violates zoning laws intended to
3 protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the public, and constitutes a continuing public
4 nuisance.
5 40. The County cannot be fully compensated in damages and is without a plain, speedy,
6 or adequate remedy at law because the exact amount of the damages to the general public’s health,
7 safety and welfare are unascertainable.
8 41. Unless each Defendant is restrained and enjoined by order of this court and/or the
9 court provides other equitable relief permissible by law, Defendants will continue to cause, lease,
10 allow, permit, aid, abet, suffer, or conceal the unlawful Cannabis Cultivation in violation of RCO
11 No. 348, as evidenced by their continuing actions and knowing refusal to comply with the County’s
12 Ordinance(s).
13 42. Accordingly, the County seeks injunctive relief: (1) abate the unlawful Cannabis
14 Cultivation, (2) remove all tenant improvements or construction performed on the Property without
15 the necessary building permits, (3) remove and sell all fixtures and equipment on the Property used
16 in aiding or abetting the nuisance, and (4) remove and turnover to a law enforcement agency —
17 including but not limited to the Riverside County Sheriff Department and/or the Cannabis
18 Regulation Task Force — for destruction, all cannabis plants, portions thereof, or products thereof,
19 as necessary to secure compliance with the County laws and to abate the public nuisance caused by
20 the acts complained of herein.
21 43. The County has incurred, and continues to incur, investigative fees and costs,
22 attorneys’ fees, and abatement costs as defined in RCO No. 725, in investigating and abating the
23 violations of RCO No. 348 at the Property.
24 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
PUBLIC NUISANCE PER SE
25 (Against All Defendants)
26 44. The County realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
27 contained in the preceding paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein.
28
9
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 45. “A legislatively declared public nuisance constitutes a nuisance per se against which
2 an injunction may issue without allegation or proof of irreparable injury.” (People ex rel.
3 Department of Public Works v. Adco Advertisers (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 507, 511-512.)
4 46. “The concept of a nuisance per se arises when a legislative body with appropriate
5 jurisdiction, in the exercise of police power, expressly declares a particular object or substance,
6 activity, or circumstance, to be a nuisance.” (Beck Development Co. Inc., supra, 44 Cal.App.4th
7 1160, 1206; Jones v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1053, 1068; Amusing
8 Sandwich, Inc. v. City of Palm Springs (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1129.)
9 47. “By ordinance the city legislative body may declare what constitutes a nuisance.”
10 (Government Code section 38771; see also City of Bakers field v. Miller (1966) 64 Cal.2d 93,
11 100; People ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Outdoor Media Group (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th
12 1067, 1076-1077; City of Costa Mesa v. Soffer (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 378, 382-383.)
13 48. RCO No. 725 defines a nuisance as follows: “Any condition on public or private
14 property located within the unincorporated areas of the County of Riverside which is caused,
15 maintained or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of a land use ordinance shall be and
16 the same is hereby declared unlawful and a public nuisance that may be abated consistent with the
17 procedures provided for in this chapter, or in any other manner provided by law.” RCO No. 725
18 further provides: “Each and every day, or any portion thereof, during which any violation of a land
19 use ordinance or the rules, regulations, orders, permits or conditions of approval issued thereunder
20 is committed, continued, or permitted by such person, shall be deemed a separate and distinct
21 offense.”
22 49. With respect to the nuisance abatement process, RCO No. 725 specifically provides:
23 “All remedies and penalties for the abatement of public nuisances provided for in this chapter shall
24 be cumulative and not exclusive. Enforcement by use of any administrative, criminal or civil
action, citation or administrative proceeding or abatement remedy does not preclude the use of
25
additional citations or other remedies as authorized by other ordinance or law. Enforcement
26
remedies may be employed concurrently or consecutively.”
27
28
10
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 50. “Nuisances per se are so regarded because no proof is required, beyond the actual
2 fact of their existence, to establish the nuisance.” (City of Claremont v. Kruse (2009) 177
3 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1164 [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]; see also City of Costa
4 Mesa, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 382; McClatchy, supra, 32 Cal.App. 718, 725.) “[W]here the law
5 expressly declares something to be a nuisance, then no inquiry beyond its existence need be made
6 and in this sense its mere existence is said to be a nuisance per se.” (Beck Development Co. Inc.,
7 supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 1207.) “No ill effects need to be proved.” (McClatchy, supra, 32
8 Cal.App. at p. 725.)
9 51. “[A]ll parties to a nuisance per se, he who creates it and he who maintains it, are
10 responsible for its effect, without limitations of conditions or time.” (Id.; see also City of
11 Bakersfield, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 100; Amusing Sandwich, Inc, supra, 165 Cal.App.3d at p. 1129.)
12 52. “The abatement of a public nuisance pursuant to a reasonable exercise of the police
13 power does not require the payment of compensation at all.” (People ex rel. Department of
14 Transportation v. Hadley Fruit Orchards, Inc. (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 49, 53.)
15 53. Commercial Cannabis Activity, observed by Code Enforcement at the Property, is
16 expressly prohibited in residential zones. Pursuant to the RCO Nos. 348 and 725, Defendants’ use
17 of and operations at the Property in violation of its zoning requirements constitute a public nuisance
18 per se. Defendants’ continued use of the Property for unlawful Commercial Cannabis Activity
19 adversely affects and impacts the entire community and neighborhood, and the current illegal
20 condition of the Property is injurious to the health and safety of members of the community.
21 54. As a proximate result of the public nuisance and nuisance per se conditions, alleged
22 herein or to be shown by evidence, which conditions have been maintained and/or permitted by
23 Defendants, and each of them, at the Property, the public health, welfare, and safety have been, and
24 continue to be, severely jeopardized.
55. Defendants will, unless restrained by this Court, continue to operate, maintain, or
25
allow the public nuisance and nuisance per se conditions and activities at the Property to continue in
26
violation of the rights of the County and the public.
27
28
11
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 56. The County has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law. A temporary
2 injunction to prohibit Defendants from maintaining and operating the Property for the use expressly
3 prohibited in the R-R zone is immediately necessary to abate and prevent the continuance and/or
4 recurrence of the nuisance and nuisance per se and violations of the County Ordinances presented
5 by the current and continuing conditions and activities at the Property.
6 57. Pursuant to Civil Code section 3496 and County Ordinances, or as otherwise may be
7 provided by law, the County is entitled to recover its costs, including law enforcement costs and
8 attorneys’ fees, and/or penalties for prevailing on the nuisance claim.
9 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
10 (Against All Defendants)
11 58. The County realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
12 contained in the preceding paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein.
13 59. Defendants’ use and operations at the Property as alleged above is illegal, is a public
14 nuisance, and poses an immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare of the community.
15 60. RCO Nos. 348 and 725 declare such actions by Defendants to be illegal and a public
16 nuisance, and specifically authorize the County to commence an action for injunctive relief for the
17 abatement, removal, and enjoinment of public nuisances.
18 61. The County has demanded that Defendants bring the Property into compliance with
19 applicable ordinances. Defendants have had, and continue to have, the ability to maintain and
20 operate the Property in compliance with the above referenced code and ordinances. Defendants
21 have not abated the nuisance and continue to fail and refuse to bring the Property into compliance.
22 62. Defendants’ wrongful conduct, unless and until enjoined, will cause great and
23 irreparable injury to the County in that the public will be subject to the unlawful nuisances and the
24 public’s health, safety, and welfare will continue to be threatened thereby.
25 63. The County does not have a plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, in that
26 monetary damages do not compensate for the unlawful maintenance and use of the Property as
27 alleged herein, and money damages will not alleviate the dangers to health and safety risks posed
28 thereby to members of the public.
12
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 64. Injunctive and abatement relief is necessary to enjoin and abate the continuing
2 violations of RCO Nos. 348 and 725, as set forth above, and to ensure that the use of the Property is
3 in compliance with the law, and not a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. Injunctive
4 relief is additionally expressly authorized by the Code of Civil Procedure.
5 65. In maintaining the public nuisance complained of herein, Defendants are acting with
6 full knowledge of the consequences and provisions of the law, and their conduct is willful,
7 malicious, and intentional.
8 66. Preliminary and permanent injunctions are necessary to abate and prevent
9 continuance of the public nuisances described above.
10 67. Pursuant to RCO No. 725 and as authorized by other applicable law, the County will
11 seek recovery of its attorney’s fees for enforcing its Code and Ordinances.
12 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
13 WHEREFORE, the County prays for judgment against all Defendants, and each of them, as
14 follows:
15 AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION:
16 1. For a judicial declaration that the Property and the existing conditions and activities
17 thereon are in violation of RCO No. 348, and are a public nuisance and public nuisance per se.
18 2. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction
19 enjoining and prohibiting each Defendant, as well as all of their agents, officers, employees,
20 representatives, members, volunteers, cultivators, assignees, successors, and all persons acting for
21 or in concert with them, from causing, leasing, allowing, permitting, aiding, abetting, suffering, or
22 concealing the unlawful Cannabis Cultivation at the Property — including buildings and structures
23 thereon, which include but are not limited to any permanent structures, accessory structures,
24 greenhouses, hoop structures, glasshouses, conservatories, hothouses, enclosures, as well as
shipping containers, recreational vehicles, trailers, modular, motorhomes, and/or mobile units, or
25
other similar structures, buildings, and items (collectively referred to as “structures” and/or
26
buildings”) — or at any other property located within the unincorporated areas of the County of
27
Riverside in the absence of all required County and State permits and licenses;
28
13
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 3. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction
2 enjoining and requiring each Defendant, as well as all of their agents, officers, employees,
3 representatives, members, volunteers, cultivators, successors, assignees, and all persons acting for
4 or in concert with them, immediately to cease committing further violations of RCO Nos. 348 and
5 725, and specifically and immediately require them to:
6 a. Permanently cease the unlawful Cannabis Cultivation at or from the
7 Property or any other property within the unincorporated areas of the
8 County, whether fixed or mobile or delivery.
9 b. Permanently remove all cannabis, cannabis plants, cannabis-related
10 equipment and supplies, and any and all personal property related to
11 and/or used in conjunction with the unlawful Cannabis Cultivation
12 (collectively referred to as Personal Property or Inventory) at the Property.
13 c. Remove any room additions and/or any modifications to the structures of
14 the Property, as related to the unlawful Cannabis Cultivation.
15 d. Notify all persons with an interest in the unlawful Cannabis Cultivation of
16 the Court orders.
17 4. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction (Injunctive
18 Order) authorizing the County and its personnel — including employees of the County Code
19 Enforcement Department accompanied by employees of the Sheriff’s Department, Cannabis
20 Regulation Task Force, the Department of Environmental Health, the Fire Department and other
21 applicable governmental agencies and departments, their court-appointed receiver, contractors,
22 representatives, and employees — to enter onto the Property to do all of the following, including the
23 use of such force as reasonably necessary in so doing:
24 a. At least eight (8) hours prior to carrying out the remaining provisions of
the Injunctive Order:
25
i. Post notice of the Injunctive Order in visible locations at the
26
Property and distribute the Injunctive Order to any persons present
27
on the Property.
28
14
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 b. After at least eight (8) hours have elapsed from the posting of the
2 Injunctive Order:
3 i. Immediately confiscate, abate, destroy, and dispose of all cannabis,
4 cannabis plants, cannabis products, marijuana, medical cannabis,
5 and/or medical marijuana, including all parts thereof (collectively,
6 Cannabis) remaining at the Property and related to the unlawful
7 Cannabis Cultivation in violation of the Injunctive Order.
8 ii. Immediately confiscate, abate, and remove any Personal Property
9 and/or Inventory remaining at the Property and related to the
10 unlawful Cannabis Cultivation in violation of the Injunctive Order
11 for the purpose of safekeeping and maintenance of such Personal
12 Property and/or Inventory for a period of thirty (30) calendar days.
13 If the responsible party does not claim the Personal Property and/or
14 Inventory confiscated by the County Sheriff’s Department within
15 thirty (30) calendar days, then the Personal Property and/or
16 Inventory will be deemed lawfully abandoned and the County
17 Sheriff’s Department is authorized to take possession, discard,
18 and/or destroy such confiscated Personal Property and/or
19 Inventory. The Cannabis is excepted from and shall not be subject
20 to the thirty (30) calendar days of safekeeping and maintenance of
21 Personal Property and/or Inventory.
22 iii. Padlock, board up, or otherwise secure the Property so as to
23 prohibit the operating, causing, allowing, permitting, aiding,
24 abetting, suffering, concealing, or granting permission to use the
Property for an Unlawful Cannabis Cultivation in violation of
25
RCO Nos. 348 and 725 and the Injunctive Order. The padlock,
26
board up, or otherwise securing of the Property so as to prohibit
27
the operating, causing, allowing, permitting, aiding, abetting,
28
15
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
1 suffering, concealing, or granting permission to use the Property
2 for an unlawful Cannabis Cultivation in violation of RCO Nos. 348
3 and 725 shall remain in place only until such time as the Property
4 owners or occupants remove any remaining Personal
5 Property/Inventory and the Riverside County Code Enforcement
6 Department conducts a final inspection for compliance.
7 5. For individual and separate liability of civil penalties as to each Defendant pursuant
8 to RCO No. 725 not to exceed the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per violation per
9 day accruing from the date of discovery of the violation until such time as the public nuisance in
10 violation of RCO No. 348 is permanently abated;
11 6. For joint and several liability for abatement costs not to exceed $500,000.00 pursuant
12 to RCO No. 725 and Government Code Section 25845, including investigation costs, enforcement
13 costs, collection and administrative costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses, costs of suit, and
14 costs associated with removal or correction of violation, which are in addition to and separate from
15 all civil penalties; and
16 7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
17 September 18, 2023 Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
18 Attorneys for Plaintiff, County of Riverside
19
20 By: ____________________________________
Mark J. Dillon
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE
Preview
1 Mark J. Dillon (State Bar No. 108329) (Exempt from Filing Fees Yana L. 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 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, County of Riverside 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 10 11 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, ) Case No.: ) 12 Plaintiff, ) 13 ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR v. ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A 14 ) PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE ) PER SE 15 SAVANGVATHANA VANG, an individual; ) NICHOLAS MENG LOR, an individual; and ) (Deemed Verified Per CCP § 446) 16 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, ) 17 ) Defendants. ) 18 _____________________________________ ) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 Plaintiff, County of Riverside, a political subdivision of the State of California, on behalf of 2 the people of the State of California, alleges against Defendants, Savangvathana Vang and Nicholas 3 Meng Lor, individuals, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive (collectively, Defendants) as follows: 4 PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 5 1. Plaintiff County of Riverside (County) is, and at all times relevant herein was, a 6 general law county and a political subdivision of the State of California. 7 2. The real property, including all structures and buildings, which is the subject of this 8 action, is located at 2 P/S [parcels south] of 38160 Howard Road, Anza, California 92539, within 9 the unincorporated area of the County and more particularly described as Assessor’s Parcel No. 10 572-130-010 (Property). The Property is located within the R-R zone (Rural Residential). 11 3. Defendants Savangvathana Vang and Nicholas Meng Lor are, and at all times 12 relevant herein have been, individuals who are the owners of the Property and who are causing, 13 leasing, allowing, permitting, aiding, abetting, suffering or concealing the unlawful cannabis 14 cultivation at or from the Property, in violation of the Riverside County Ordinances. Public records 15 indicate that Defendants acquired the Property by the Grant Deed recorded in the official records of 16 the County of Riverside in July 2021, as Document No. 2021-0436882. 17 4. Each Defendant has actual or constructive knowledge of the unlawful use of the 18 Property. 19 5. Defendants named as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are sued and designated by 20 fictitious names pursuant to section 474 of the Code of Civil Procedure because their true names 21 and capacities are unknown to the County. The County will amend this Complaint to reflect the 22 true names and capacities of any fictitiously named defendants when ascertained. The County is 23 informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each DOE Defendant is responsible in some 24 manner for the nuisance and violation of the County’s land use ordinances herein alleged. 6. The County is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times 25 mentioned herein, each Defendant was, and now is, the agent, officer, employee, member, 26 representative, or alter ego of one or more of the remaining Defendants, and in engaging in 27 activities alleged herein, was acting within the scope of his, her or its authority as such agent, 28 2 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 officer, employee, member, representative, or alter ego with the permission and consent of the 2 remaining Defendants. 3 7. Defendants maintain and permit the nuisance at the Property, and, as a result, the 4 County files this action to enjoin Defendants from permitting and maintaining the nuisance, to abate 5 the nuisance, and to obtain all additional relief to which the County is entitled on behalf of its 6 residents. 7 8. Defendants and each of them are directly responsible for the activities occurring on 8 the Property as set forth below, are responsible for continuing violations of the laws and public 9 policy of the State of California and/or local codes, regulations and/or requirements applicable to 10 Defendants’ operation and activities at the Property, and/or have permitted, allowed, caused, or 11 indirectly furthered the activities at the Property alleged herein, and Defendants’ use of and 12 activities at the Property, or allowance of such uses and activities, are inimical to the rights and 13 interests of the general public and constitute unlawful business practices, nuisances and/or 14 violations of law. 15 9. Venue is proper in this Judicial District because the subject Property is located in this 16 district. 17 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 18 10. The County has a duty and interest in protecting the public health, safety, and 19 welfare within its jurisdiction through enactment of ordinances which apply to all persons and 20 entities within the County and to all persons and entities that own property or do business within the 21 County. The County has the right, pursuant to the California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, to 22 ensure that property and businesses located within the unincorporated areas of the County comply 23 with the County’s ordinances. 24 11. The County has a well-established right to control land uses within the unincorporated areas of the County and to enforce its zoning and other land use ordinances. 25 Specifically, this right has been held to apply to local government bans on cannabis businesses and 26 cannabis activities. (City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health & Wellness Center (2013) 27 56 Cal.4th 729, 738.) The Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act 28 3 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 (MAUCRSA) also recognizes local control and the ability of local governments to prohibit or 2 regulate cannabis businesses or cannabis activities. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26200, 26055.) 3 12. Riverside County Ordinance (RCO) No. 348.4898, which amended RCO No. 348 4 and became effective on December 23, 2018, establishes a regulatory system for cannabis 5 businesses and cannabis activities, including cannabis cultivation, within the unincorporated areas 6 of the County of Riverside. 7 13. RCO No. 348 provides the following definitions: 8 a. “Cannabis Cultivation” is “Any activity involving the planting, 9 growing harvesting, drying, curing, grading or trimming of cannabis.” 10 b. “Commercial Cannabis Activities” is the “cultivation, possession, 11 manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing, 12 packaging, labeling, transportation, delivery or sale of Cannabis and 13 cannabis products as provided for in this division.” 14 c. “Indoor Cannabis Cultivation” is the “cultivation of Cannabis within a 15 permanent structure using exclusively artificial light or within any type 16 of structure using artificial light at a rate of twenty-five (25) watts per 17 square foot.” 18 d. “Mixed Light Cannabis Cultivation” is the “cultivation of Mature 19 Cannabis Plants in a greenhouse, hoop structure, glasshouse, 20 conservatory, hothouse, or other similar structure.” 21 e. “Outdoor Cannabis Cultivation” is the “cultivation of Mature Cannabis 22 Plants without the use of artificial lighting in a Canopy area at any 23 point in time. The growing of only immature cannabis plants at a 24 legally permitted Cannabis Wholesale Nursery is not considered Outdoor Cannabis Cultivation.” 25 14. RCO No. 348 prohibits any Commercial Cannabis Activity within the 26 unincorporated area of the County without an approved conditional use permit issued by the County 27 and a valid cannabis license issued by the State of California. RCO No. 348 declares any 28 4 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 Commercial Cannabis Activity conducted in the unincorporated areas of the County of Riverside 2 without an approved conditional use permit and a valid state cannabis license to be a public 3 nuisance which the County may abate by any means permitted by law. 4 15. RCO No. 348 continues to prohibit all Outdoor Cannabis Cultivation in the 5 unincorporated areas of the County, subject to limited exemptions and exceptions. 6 16. RCO No. 348 prohibits all Commercial Cannabis Activity, which includes Cannabis 7 Cultivation, in the following zones: R-R, R-R-O, R-1, R-1A, R-A, R-2, R2-A, R-3, R-3A, R-T, R- 8 T-R, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7, C/V, C-C/V, WC-R, WC-W, WC-WE, WC-E, W-2, R-D, N-A, W-2-M, 9 W-1, W-E, M-R, M-R-A and MU. 10 17. RCO No. 348 provides that the procedures, remedies, and penalties for violation of 11 RCO No. 348 and for recovery of costs related to enforcement are governed by RCO No. 725, 12 which is incorporated herein by this reference. 13 18. RCO No. 348 section 3.3 provides in relevant part, “When a use is not specifically 14 listed as permitted or conditionally permitted in a zone classification, the use is prohibited unless, in 15 circumstances where this ordinance empowers them to do so, the Planning Director makes a 16 determination that the use is substantially the same in character and intensity as those uses permitted 17 or conditionally permitted in the zone classification.” 18 19. At all times relevant herein, RCO No. 725 has been in full force and effect. RCO No. 19 725 provides that any condition on public or private real property within the unincorporated areas of 20 the County which is caused, maintained or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of the 21 County’s Land Use Ordinance(s), including violations of RCO No. 348, shall be and the same is 22 declared unlawful and a public nuisance. 23 20. Among other non-exclusive remedies, RCO No. 725 authorizes the Riverside County 24 Counsel to commence judicial proceedings for the abatement, removal, correction, and enjoinment of any act or practice which constitutes a violation of any provision of the County’s Land Use 25 Ordinances. 26 27 28 5 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 21. RCO No. 725 further mandates civil penalties against violators of up to One 2 Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each day or portion thereof that a violation of any Land Use 3 Ordinance continues to exist, providing: 4 Any person, whether acting as principal, agent, employee, owner, lessor, lessee, tenant, occupant, operator, contractor or otherwise, who willfully violates the 5 provisions of any Land Use Ordinance or any rule, regulation, order or conditions of approval issued thereunder by committing, causing, allowing, maintaining, 6 continuing or otherwise permitting a violation of any Land Use Ordinance shall 7 be liable for a civil Penalty not to exceed $1,000.00 for each day or portion thereof, that the violation continues to exist. 8 22. In addition, RCO No. 725 and Government Code sections 25845(a) and (c) authorize 9 an award of abatement costs, including attorneys’ fees, to the County for abatement of nuisances 10 committed within its jurisdiction. 11 23. RCO No. 803 section 5 states that “[w]henever in the ordinances of the County any 12 act or omission is made unlawful, it shall include causing, allowing, permitting, aiding, abetting, 13 suffering, or concealing the fact of such act or omission.” At all times relevant herein, RCO No. 14 803 has been in full force and effect. 15 RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND 16 24. On July 20, 2023, during the field investigation, Riverside County Code 17 Enforcement personnel detected a strong odor of cannabis in the area and tracked it to the Property. 18 From the adjacent parcel, the Officer observed cannabis cultivation at the Property hidden among 19 natural vegetation. Based on his training and experience, the Officer estimated Defendants are 20 cultivating approximately 200 cannabis plants at the Property. 21 25. RCO NO. 348 expressly prohibits cannabis cultivation in residential zones, in which 22 the Property is located. As a result of the discovery of the unlawful cannabis operations at the 23 Property, Code Enforcement posted at the Property a cease and desist notice, notifying Defendants 24 that cannabis cultivation at the Property was unlawful and requiring immediate compliance. The 25 notice was also mailed to Defendants. The deadline for the compliance inspection was set for 26 September 5, 2023. 27 26. However, Defendants failed to contact the County in response to the notice and did 28 not schedule a compliance inspection as requested. 6 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 27. As a result of Defendants’ refusal to abate the violations of RCO No. 348, despite the 2 cease and desist notice, the County has no other option but to pursue this action to enjoin 3 Defendants from causing, allowing, permitting, aiding, abetting, suffering, or concealing the 4 unlawful Cannabis Cultivation at or from the Property. 5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION PUBLIC NUISANCE 6 (Against All Defendants) 7 28. The County realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation 8 contained in the preceding paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein. 9 29. Civil Code section 3479 defines a nuisance as including “[a]nything which is... 10 offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the 11 comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free ... use, in the customary 12 manner, of any ... public ... street, or highway ....” 13 30. Civil Code section 3480 defines a public nuisance as “one which affects at the same 14 time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the 15 extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.” 16 31. RCO No. 725 defines a nuisance as follows: “Any condition on public or private 17 property located within the unincorporated areas of the County of Riverside which is caused, 18 maintained or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of a land use ordinance shall be and 19 the same is hereby declared unlawful and a public nuisance that may be abated consistent with the 20 procedures provided for in this chapter, or in any other manner provided by law.” 21 32. “[A]n affected party need not wait until actual injury occurs before bringing an 22 action to enjoin a nuisance” (Beck Development Co., Inc. v. Southern Pacific Transportation 23 Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1213); “mere apprehension of injury from a dangerous condition 24 may constitute a nuisance where it interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of property ....” 25 (Mclvor v. Mercer-Fraser Co. (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 247, 254.) It is sufficient, therefore, “that a 26 defendant’s acts are likely to cause a significant invasion of a public right” (In re Firearms 27 Cases (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 959, 988), such as “where acts which create a public nuisance are 28 about to be committed....” (McClatchy v. Laguna Lands Ltd. (1917) 32 Cal.App. 718, 725.) 7 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 33. “Public nuisance liability ‘does not hinge on whether the defendant owns, possesses 2 or controls the property, nor on whether he is in a position to abate the nuisance; the critical 3 question is whether the defendant created or assisted in the creation of the nuisance.’ [Citation].” 4 (Melton v. Boustred (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 521, 542; see also County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic 5 Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 306; City of Modesto Redevelopment Agency v. Superior 6 Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 28, 38; Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 7 1125, 1137; California Department of Toxic Substances v. Payless Cleaners (E.D. Cal. 2005) 368 8 F.Supp.2d 1069, 1081.) 9 34. Civil Code section 3491 provides in relevant part that the “remedies against a public 10 nuisance are indictment or information, a civil action or abatement.” Abatement typically is 11 “accomplished by a court of equity by means of an injunction proper and suitable to the facts of 12 each case.” (Sullivan v. Royer (1887) 72 Cal. 248, 249; see also People v. Selby Smelting and Lead 13 Co. (1912) 163 Cal. 84, 90.) 14 35. Code of Civil Procedure section 731 authorizes a city attorney to bring an action to 15 enjoin or abate a public nuisance. It provides, in relevant part, that “[a] civil action may be brought 16 in the name of the people of the State of California to abate a public nuisance ... by the city attorney 17 of any town or city in which such nuisance exists ....” 18 36. From an exact date unknown, and at all times herein mentioned, Defendants have 19 been causing, allowing, permitting, aiding, abetting, suffering, or concealing the unlawful Cannabis 20 Cultivation at or from the Property, in violation of RCO No. 348. 21 37. RCO No. 348 section 3.3 provides that “when a use is not specifically listed as 22 permitted or conditionally permitted in a zone classification, the use is prohibited[.]” The research 23 of County records indicate that the Property did not possess a County permit or a state license for 24 cannabis activities, and the visual observation revealed that cannabis was cultivated at the Property, which is expressly prohibited by RCO No. 348 in residential zones, in which the Property is located. 25 38. Defendants have willfully been in violation of RCO No. 348 since, at a minimum, 26 the first date that Code Enforcement personnel observed the violation of RCO No. 348 giving rise to 27 this Complaint. 28 8 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 39. The County has sustained and will continue to sustain great and irreparable injury 2 because the unlawful Cannabis Cultivation at or from the Property violates zoning laws intended to 3 protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the public, and constitutes a continuing public 4 nuisance. 5 40. The County cannot be fully compensated in damages and is without a plain, speedy, 6 or adequate remedy at law because the exact amount of the damages to the general public’s health, 7 safety and welfare are unascertainable. 8 41. Unless each Defendant is restrained and enjoined by order of this court and/or the 9 court provides other equitable relief permissible by law, Defendants will continue to cause, lease, 10 allow, permit, aid, abet, suffer, or conceal the unlawful Cannabis Cultivation in violation of RCO 11 No. 348, as evidenced by their continuing actions and knowing refusal to comply with the County’s 12 Ordinance(s). 13 42. Accordingly, the County seeks injunctive relief: (1) abate the unlawful Cannabis 14 Cultivation, (2) remove all tenant improvements or construction performed on the Property without 15 the necessary building permits, (3) remove and sell all fixtures and equipment on the Property used 16 in aiding or abetting the nuisance, and (4) remove and turnover to a law enforcement agency — 17 including but not limited to the Riverside County Sheriff Department and/or the Cannabis 18 Regulation Task Force — for destruction, all cannabis plants, portions thereof, or products thereof, 19 as necessary to secure compliance with the County laws and to abate the public nuisance caused by 20 the acts complained of herein. 21 43. The County has incurred, and continues to incur, investigative fees and costs, 22 attorneys’ fees, and abatement costs as defined in RCO No. 725, in investigating and abating the 23 violations of RCO No. 348 at the Property. 24 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION PUBLIC NUISANCE PER SE 25 (Against All Defendants) 26 44. The County realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation 27 contained in the preceding paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein. 28 9 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 45. “A legislatively declared public nuisance constitutes a nuisance per se against which 2 an injunction may issue without allegation or proof of irreparable injury.” (People ex rel. 3 Department of Public Works v. Adco Advertisers (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 507, 511-512.) 4 46. “The concept of a nuisance per se arises when a legislative body with appropriate 5 jurisdiction, in the exercise of police power, expressly declares a particular object or substance, 6 activity, or circumstance, to be a nuisance.” (Beck Development Co. Inc., supra, 44 Cal.App.4th 7 1160, 1206; Jones v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1053, 1068; Amusing 8 Sandwich, Inc. v. City of Palm Springs (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1129.) 9 47. “By ordinance the city legislative body may declare what constitutes a nuisance.” 10 (Government Code section 38771; see also City of Bakers field v. Miller (1966) 64 Cal.2d 93, 11 100; People ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Outdoor Media Group (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 12 1067, 1076-1077; City of Costa Mesa v. Soffer (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 378, 382-383.) 13 48. RCO No. 725 defines a nuisance as follows: “Any condition on public or private 14 property located within the unincorporated areas of the County of Riverside which is caused, 15 maintained or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of a land use ordinance shall be and 16 the same is hereby declared unlawful and a public nuisance that may be abated consistent with the 17 procedures provided for in this chapter, or in any other manner provided by law.” RCO No. 725 18 further provides: “Each and every day, or any portion thereof, during which any violation of a land 19 use ordinance or the rules, regulations, orders, permits or conditions of approval issued thereunder 20 is committed, continued, or permitted by such person, shall be deemed a separate and distinct 21 offense.” 22 49. With respect to the nuisance abatement process, RCO No. 725 specifically provides: 23 “All remedies and penalties for the abatement of public nuisances provided for in this chapter shall 24 be cumulative and not exclusive. Enforcement by use of any administrative, criminal or civil action, citation or administrative proceeding or abatement remedy does not preclude the use of 25 additional citations or other remedies as authorized by other ordinance or law. Enforcement 26 remedies may be employed concurrently or consecutively.” 27 28 10 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 50. “Nuisances per se are so regarded because no proof is required, beyond the actual 2 fact of their existence, to establish the nuisance.” (City of Claremont v. Kruse (2009) 177 3 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1164 [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]; see also City of Costa 4 Mesa, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 382; McClatchy, supra, 32 Cal.App. 718, 725.) “[W]here the law 5 expressly declares something to be a nuisance, then no inquiry beyond its existence need be made 6 and in this sense its mere existence is said to be a nuisance per se.” (Beck Development Co. Inc., 7 supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 1207.) “No ill effects need to be proved.” (McClatchy, supra, 32 8 Cal.App. at p. 725.) 9 51. “[A]ll parties to a nuisance per se, he who creates it and he who maintains it, are 10 responsible for its effect, without limitations of conditions or time.” (Id.; see also City of 11 Bakersfield, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 100; Amusing Sandwich, Inc, supra, 165 Cal.App.3d at p. 1129.) 12 52. “The abatement of a public nuisance pursuant to a reasonable exercise of the police 13 power does not require the payment of compensation at all.” (People ex rel. Department of 14 Transportation v. Hadley Fruit Orchards, Inc. (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 49, 53.) 15 53. Commercial Cannabis Activity, observed by Code Enforcement at the Property, is 16 expressly prohibited in residential zones. Pursuant to the RCO Nos. 348 and 725, Defendants’ use 17 of and operations at the Property in violation of its zoning requirements constitute a public nuisance 18 per se. Defendants’ continued use of the Property for unlawful Commercial Cannabis Activity 19 adversely affects and impacts the entire community and neighborhood, and the current illegal 20 condition of the Property is injurious to the health and safety of members of the community. 21 54. As a proximate result of the public nuisance and nuisance per se conditions, alleged 22 herein or to be shown by evidence, which conditions have been maintained and/or permitted by 23 Defendants, and each of them, at the Property, the public health, welfare, and safety have been, and 24 continue to be, severely jeopardized. 55. Defendants will, unless restrained by this Court, continue to operate, maintain, or 25 allow the public nuisance and nuisance per se conditions and activities at the Property to continue in 26 violation of the rights of the County and the public. 27 28 11 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 56. The County has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law. A temporary 2 injunction to prohibit Defendants from maintaining and operating the Property for the use expressly 3 prohibited in the R-R zone is immediately necessary to abate and prevent the continuance and/or 4 recurrence of the nuisance and nuisance per se and violations of the County Ordinances presented 5 by the current and continuing conditions and activities at the Property. 6 57. Pursuant to Civil Code section 3496 and County Ordinances, or as otherwise may be 7 provided by law, the County is entitled to recover its costs, including law enforcement costs and 8 attorneys’ fees, and/or penalties for prevailing on the nuisance claim. 9 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 10 (Against All Defendants) 11 58. The County realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation 12 contained in the preceding paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein. 13 59. Defendants’ use and operations at the Property as alleged above is illegal, is a public 14 nuisance, and poses an immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. 15 60. RCO Nos. 348 and 725 declare such actions by Defendants to be illegal and a public 16 nuisance, and specifically authorize the County to commence an action for injunctive relief for the 17 abatement, removal, and enjoinment of public nuisances. 18 61. The County has demanded that Defendants bring the Property into compliance with 19 applicable ordinances. Defendants have had, and continue to have, the ability to maintain and 20 operate the Property in compliance with the above referenced code and ordinances. Defendants 21 have not abated the nuisance and continue to fail and refuse to bring the Property into compliance. 22 62. Defendants’ wrongful conduct, unless and until enjoined, will cause great and 23 irreparable injury to the County in that the public will be subject to the unlawful nuisances and the 24 public’s health, safety, and welfare will continue to be threatened thereby. 25 63. The County does not have a plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, in that 26 monetary damages do not compensate for the unlawful maintenance and use of the Property as 27 alleged herein, and money damages will not alleviate the dangers to health and safety risks posed 28 thereby to members of the public. 12 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 64. Injunctive and abatement relief is necessary to enjoin and abate the continuing 2 violations of RCO Nos. 348 and 725, as set forth above, and to ensure that the use of the Property is 3 in compliance with the law, and not a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. Injunctive 4 relief is additionally expressly authorized by the Code of Civil Procedure. 5 65. In maintaining the public nuisance complained of herein, Defendants are acting with 6 full knowledge of the consequences and provisions of the law, and their conduct is willful, 7 malicious, and intentional. 8 66. Preliminary and permanent injunctions are necessary to abate and prevent 9 continuance of the public nuisances described above. 10 67. Pursuant to RCO No. 725 and as authorized by other applicable law, the County will 11 seek recovery of its attorney’s fees for enforcing its Code and Ordinances. 12 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 13 WHEREFORE, the County prays for judgment against all Defendants, and each of them, as 14 follows: 15 AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION: 16 1. For a judicial declaration that the Property and the existing conditions and activities 17 thereon are in violation of RCO No. 348, and are a public nuisance and public nuisance per se. 18 2. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction 19 enjoining and prohibiting each Defendant, as well as all of their agents, officers, employees, 20 representatives, members, volunteers, cultivators, assignees, successors, and all persons acting for 21 or in concert with them, from causing, leasing, allowing, permitting, aiding, abetting, suffering, or 22 concealing the unlawful Cannabis Cultivation at the Property — including buildings and structures 23 thereon, which include but are not limited to any permanent structures, accessory structures, 24 greenhouses, hoop structures, glasshouses, conservatories, hothouses, enclosures, as well as shipping containers, recreational vehicles, trailers, modular, motorhomes, and/or mobile units, or 25 other similar structures, buildings, and items (collectively referred to as “structures” and/or 26 buildings”) — or at any other property located within the unincorporated areas of the County of 27 Riverside in the absence of all required County and State permits and licenses; 28 13 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 3. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction 2 enjoining and requiring each Defendant, as well as all of their agents, officers, employees, 3 representatives, members, volunteers, cultivators, successors, assignees, and all persons acting for 4 or in concert with them, immediately to cease committing further violations of RCO Nos. 348 and 5 725, and specifically and immediately require them to: 6 a. Permanently cease the unlawful Cannabis Cultivation at or from the 7 Property or any other property within the unincorporated areas of the 8 County, whether fixed or mobile or delivery. 9 b. Permanently remove all cannabis, cannabis plants, cannabis-related 10 equipment and supplies, and any and all personal property related to 11 and/or used in conjunction with the unlawful Cannabis Cultivation 12 (collectively referred to as Personal Property or Inventory) at the Property. 13 c. Remove any room additions and/or any modifications to the structures of 14 the Property, as related to the unlawful Cannabis Cultivation. 15 d. Notify all persons with an interest in the unlawful Cannabis Cultivation of 16 the Court orders. 17 4. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction (Injunctive 18 Order) authorizing the County and its personnel — including employees of the County Code 19 Enforcement Department accompanied by employees of the Sheriff’s Department, Cannabis 20 Regulation Task Force, the Department of Environmental Health, the Fire Department and other 21 applicable governmental agencies and departments, their court-appointed receiver, contractors, 22 representatives, and employees — to enter onto the Property to do all of the following, including the 23 use of such force as reasonably necessary in so doing: 24 a. At least eight (8) hours prior to carrying out the remaining provisions of the Injunctive Order: 25 i. Post notice of the Injunctive Order in visible locations at the 26 Property and distribute the Injunctive Order to any persons present 27 on the Property. 28 14 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 b. After at least eight (8) hours have elapsed from the posting of the 2 Injunctive Order: 3 i. Immediately confiscate, abate, destroy, and dispose of all cannabis, 4 cannabis plants, cannabis products, marijuana, medical cannabis, 5 and/or medical marijuana, including all parts thereof (collectively, 6 Cannabis) remaining at the Property and related to the unlawful 7 Cannabis Cultivation in violation of the Injunctive Order. 8 ii. Immediately confiscate, abate, and remove any Personal Property 9 and/or Inventory remaining at the Property and related to the 10 unlawful Cannabis Cultivation in violation of the Injunctive Order 11 for the purpose of safekeeping and maintenance of such Personal 12 Property and/or Inventory for a period of thirty (30) calendar days. 13 If the responsible party does not claim the Personal Property and/or 14 Inventory confiscated by the County Sheriff’s Department within 15 thirty (30) calendar days, then the Personal Property and/or 16 Inventory will be deemed lawfully abandoned and the County 17 Sheriff’s Department is authorized to take possession, discard, 18 and/or destroy such confiscated Personal Property and/or 19 Inventory. The Cannabis is excepted from and shall not be subject 20 to the thirty (30) calendar days of safekeeping and maintenance of 21 Personal Property and/or Inventory. 22 iii. Padlock, board up, or otherwise secure the Property so as to 23 prohibit the operating, causing, allowing, permitting, aiding, 24 abetting, suffering, concealing, or granting permission to use the Property for an Unlawful Cannabis Cultivation in violation of 25 RCO Nos. 348 and 725 and the Injunctive Order. The padlock, 26 board up, or otherwise securing of the Property so as to prohibit 27 the operating, causing, allowing, permitting, aiding, abetting, 28 15 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE 1 suffering, concealing, or granting permission to use the Property 2 for an unlawful Cannabis Cultivation in violation of RCO Nos. 348 3 and 725 shall remain in place only until such time as the Property 4 owners or occupants remove any remaining Personal 5 Property/Inventory and the Riverside County Code Enforcement 6 Department conducts a final inspection for compliance. 7 5. For individual and separate liability of civil penalties as to each Defendant pursuant 8 to RCO No. 725 not to exceed the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per violation per 9 day accruing from the date of discovery of the violation until such time as the public nuisance in 10 violation of RCO No. 348 is permanently abated; 11 6. For joint and several liability for abatement costs not to exceed $500,000.00 pursuant 12 to RCO No. 725 and Government Code Section 25845, including investigation costs, enforcement 13 costs, collection and administrative costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses, costs of suit, and 14 costs associated with removal or correction of violation, which are in addition to and separate from 15 all civil penalties; and 16 7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 17 September 18, 2023 Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP 18 Attorneys for Plaintiff, County of Riverside 19 20 By: ____________________________________ Mark J. Dillon 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NUISANCE PER SE