2013-00152761-CU-MC

City of Sacramento vs. Maliheh H. Pakzat

Nature of Proceeding:      Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction

Filed By:    Parkhurst, Beau

The Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction is unopposed and is GRANTED.

The Court’s ex parte order of Nov. 12, 2013, reflects that counsel for defendant
Malieheh H. Pakzat, present at the hearing, agreed to accept service at the hearing of
the summons and complaint and the papers for the Order to Show Cause.

Plaintiff’s complaint for preliminary injunction,  abatement, civil penalties and other
st
equitable relief sets forth three causes of action against defendant: the 1   for public
nuisance, Civ. Code §§ 3479, 3480; the 2nd for dangerous building, Sacramento City

rd
Code § 8.96, et seq. and the 3   for  substandard housing, Sacramento City Code §
8.100, et seq.

The complaint alleges that the City brings this action to abate a public nuisance.
Defendant Pakzat is alleged to be the record owner and person responsible for and in
control of the 15 unit apartment complex located at 5218 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.,
Sacramento.

Plaintiff City has had an open and pending Housing and Dangerous Buildings case
since April 20, 2012 as the result of conditions at the subject property.  On June 1,
2012 the City issued a Notice and Order to repair or demolish the subject property
because of the numerous code violations that existed.  Defendant was served with the
Notice, the Notice was posted on June 5, 2012, defendant failed to appeal it, and it
became final on July 5, 2012.

In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two
“interrelated” factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on
the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance of the
injunction.  The greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the
th
other to support an injunction.   Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4   668, 677-
678.  A preliminary injunction may not be granted, regardless of the balance of interim
harm, unless it is reasonably probable that the moving party will prevail on the merits.
San Francisco Newspaper Printing Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal. App. 3d 438,
442.

“An abatement of a nuisance is accomplished by a court of equity by means of an
injunction proper and suitable to the facts of each case.” (County of Santa Clara v.
th
Richfield (2006) 137 Cal.App.4   292, 310.) Provisional, injunctive relief proper when
the evidence shows that the nuisance is likely to continue. (Rosicrucian Fellowship v.
Rosicrucian Non-Sectarian Church (1952) 39 Cal.2d 121, 144.) In statutory actions
where a municipality seeks to prevent violations of a statute that explicitly provides for
injunctive relief, the courts recognize a presumption in favor of the government that the
harm caused to the public outweighs the harm to the defendant. (IT Corporation v.
County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 72.) Thus, a municipality need only establish a              reasonable probability that it will prevail on the merits at trial to show it is entitled to
injunctive relief. Id.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 731, 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. (People ex rel Clancy v. Superior Court, (1985) 39 Cal.3d 740, 750 n.5.)
California Courts have consistently approved injunctive relief as a proper remedy for
abatement. (City and County of San Francisco v. City Investment Corp, (1971) 15
Cal.App.3d 1031; City and County of San Francisco v. Padilla (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d
388.

Here, moving party City has met its burden on a preliminary injunction. It has
established by admissible evidence that the subject property is a public nuisance.  The
harm to the public has been documented.  No opposition having been presented, there
is not showing of any relative harm to the defendant.

The City has shown that the subject property is in violation of numerous City codes,
making it a nuisance per se.  The admissible evidence shows that the subject property
is a public nuisance under Civil Code sections 3479 and 3480. As such, the City has
established that it is reasonably probable that the moving party will prevail on the
merits at the time of trial.

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

Moving party shall submit a formal order for the Court’s signature, pursuant to C.R.C.,
Rule 3.1150.