2014-00159935-CU-OR

City of Sacramento vs. Veronica M. Palacio

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Filed By: Parkhurst, Beau E.

The OSC re Preliminary Injunction against Veronica M. Palacio and in favor of City of
Sacramento’s is GRANTED.

The City has filed the timely proof of service of the OSC on defendant Veronica M.
Palacio. After a continuance, the Court has received and considered the defendant’s
opposition papers.

Plaintiff City of Sacramento’s Complaint for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction,
Abatement, Civil Penalties, Damages, and Other Equitable Relief, alleges three
st
causes of action against Defendant Veronica M. Palacio: the 1 for Uniform Controlled
Substances Abatement Act, Health & Safety Code §11570, et seq.; the 2nd for Public

rd
Nuisance, Civil Code §§3479, 3480 and the 3 for. Social Nuisance- Sacramento City
Code, Sec. §8.08.080.

On March 12, 2014, this Court granted a TRO and issued an Order to Show Cause to
defendant Veronica M. Palacio regarding the use of her residence as a drug house
and public nuisance.

Defendant City submitted evidence that the conduct and activity occurring at the
Subject Property constitutes as a nuisance per se under Health and Safety Code
section 11570. The Legislature has resolved any doubt as to the question of whether a
so-called “drug house” is a nuisance through the enactment of section 11570. Lew v.
Superior Court (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 866, 871. That section provides:
“Every building or place used for the purpose of unlawfully selling, serving, storing,
keeping, manufacturing or giving away any controlled substance, precursor, or analog
specified in this division, and every building or place wherein or upon which those acts
take place, is a nuisance which shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented, and for
which damages may be recovered, whether it is a public or private nuisance.”

[Section 11570] “does not require that the unlawful activity which makes the building a
nuisance be conducted by the owner of the building, a tenant of the building, or a
person entering with permission.” Lew v. Superior Court (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 866,
871

Since August 2012, there have been no less than six arrests involving the possession
of a controlled substance or paraphernalia, or possession of a controlled substance
with intent to sell on the Subject Property. (Lt. Rogers Decl. 8(c)-(e); and Officer Surjan
Decl., para. 9(b)-(d).) Further, on August 15, 2013, Defendant’s son, Jerry Brooks,
admitted to Sacramento Police Officers that he was selling the methamphetamine
found in his bedroom at the Subject Property. (Officer Surjan Decl., para. 9(c).)

Second, many of the 37 calls for service pertaining to the Subject Property have
involved either arrests for possession/possession with intent to sell or suspected
narcotics activity. (See Lt. Rogers Decl., paras. 7, 9.) Further, there have been six
arrests involving the possession of a controlled substance or paraphernalia on the
Subject Property. (Lt. Rogers Decl. para. 8(c)-(e); Officer Surjan Decl. para. 9(b)-(d).)
Both before and after Jerry Brooks’ August 15, 2013 arrest, officers have found
methamphetamine and other indicia of narcotic sales.

The City Attorney’s Office has the authority to bring a civil action for the People of the
State of California to abate public nuisances. (Code Civ. Proc., § 731; see City of Lodi
v. Randtron (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 337, 344, n. 1.) California courts have consistently
approved injunctive relief as a proper remedy for a nuisance.

In any action for abatement instituted pursuant to this article, all evidence otherwise
authorized by law, including evidence of reputation in a community, as provided in the
Evidence Code, shall be admissible to prove the existence of a nuisance. Health &
Safety Code § 11575.5

The City has met its burden of proof of showing that defendant’s residence is a “drug
house” under Health and Safety Code section 11570.

In opposition, defendant argues against a permanent injunction. However, the motion
before the Court at this time is not one for a permanent injunction, which can only be
issued after trial, but for a preliminary injunction, pending trial.

Plaintiff contends that the officers’ declarations are insufficient to establish the
reputation of the defendant’s house in the community, as the officers are not members
of the community. However, the officers have declared that they have received
information from individuals in the surrounding neighborhood, including confidential
informants and have responded to multiple calls regarding complaints at that address.

Defendant further contends that the standard for finding that the house is currently a
drug house requires a finding that the owner allows persons who may sell drugs. As defendant’s son has admitted to selling drugs, and is a resident of the house, there is
no question that this contention has been satisfied.

The sole evidence offered by defendant in opposition is her one and half page
declaration, consisting primarily of “I don’t recall” or “I was asleep” to negate the
evidence provided by moving party city.

The Court finds that the City has met its initial burden of proof that the subject
residence is a “drug house” frequented by gang members, probationers and parolees,
creating a public nuisance.

The Court grants the preliminary injunction, pending trial in this action.

No undertaking is required, as the plaintiff is a governmental entity. C.C.P. section 529
(b).

Counsel for the City shall provide a formal order for the Court’s signature.