Benetatos v. City of Los Angeles
235 Cal. App. 4th 1270
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Jack and Nick Benetatos operate Tam’s Burgers No. 6 in a residential area of Los Angeles; LAPD and community complaints led to a nuisance investigation due to crimes and loitering on or near the property.
- LAPD records showed 58 service calls to Tam’s from May 1, 2009 to Feb 13, 2012, including drug offenses, prostitution, assaults, and two homicides; the property was poorly maintained with extensive graffiti and trash.
- The City’s Planning Department (Zoning Administrator) held a section 12.27.1 hearing and found Tam’s operation constituted a public nuisance, imposing 22 operating conditions (e.g., graffiti abatement, hours limits, security guard, cameras, fencing, trespass enforcement).
- Plaintiffs appealed administratively to the City Council (PLUM committee recommended upholding with some modifications); the City Council denied the appeal and adopted the Zoning Administrator’s findings as amended.
- Plaintiffs petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate arguing the City lacked evidence of causation and that the court should review de novo because the imposed conditions would force them out of business; the trial court applied the substantial-evidence standard and denied the petition.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: it held the substantial-evidence standard governed and found substantial evidence that the manner of operating and maintaining Tam’s made it a public nuisance under the municipal procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for administrative mandamus | Plaintiffs: de novo review because conditions are so costly they implicate fundamental vested rights | City: substantial-evidence review because plaintiffs showed only economic impact, not extinction of the business | Substantial-evidence standard applies; plaintiffs failed to prove a fundamental vested right requiring independent judgment |
| Whether Tam’s operation constituted a public nuisance | Plaintiffs: crime was caused by the high-crime area and third parties, not by lawful restaurant operations; no causal nexus | City: evidence (calls, crimes, poor maintenance, comparison to nearby Tam’s) shows the restaurant’s operation/maintenance produced or attracted nuisance activity | Held: substantial evidence supports the City’s nuisance finding — manner of operation and maintenance contributed to nuisance |
| Whether owners can be held to abatement-based obligations for third-party criminal acts | Plaintiffs: cannot be held responsible for intervening acts of third parties; abatement improperly shifts policing duty to owner | City: abatement aims to make premises less attractive to criminal activity; liability arises where owner fails to take reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable third-party misconduct | Held: Court rejects Martinez-based argument; abatement conditions are proper to reduce criminal activity and are not an improper attempt to punish owner for third-party crimes |
| Whether operating conditions were unconstitutionally onerous or would force closure | Plaintiffs: costs (security, cameras, reduced hours) are prohibitive and will drive business out | City: plaintiffs produced no evidence proving closure or severe impairment; conditions are reasonable mitigation measures | Held: Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that conditions would force closure; economic impact alone does not require de novo review or invalidate conditions |
Key Cases Cited
- JKH Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 142 Cal.App.4th 1046 (discusses independent-judgment vs. substantial-evidence standards under CCP § 1094.5)
- Fukuda v. City of Angels, 20 Cal.4th 805 (describes limited-trial de novo review when fundamental vested rights are involved)
- Bixby v. Pierno, 4 Cal.3d 130 (framework for assessing whether a right is fundamental in economic and human terms)
- Interstate Brands v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 26 Cal.3d 770 (factors for determining fundamental vested rights)
- Amerco Real Estate Co. v. City of West Sacramento, 224 Cal.App.4th 778 (administrative restrictions that affect only economic interests are reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Lew v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.App.4th 866 (landlord/operator nuisance liability where owner fails to take reasonable measures to prevent drug activity)
- O’Hagen v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 19 Cal.App.3d 151 (a lawful business may become a nuisance by the manner of its operation)
- Martinez v. Pacific Bell, 225 Cal.App.3d 1557 (cited by plaintiffs on third-party-intervening-acts argument; court distinguishes and rejects its applicability)