People v. Group IX BP Properties CA2/4, B337891

The City of Los Angeles, on behalf of the People of California, brought a nuisance action against Group IX BP Properties for alleged gang-related activities at a North Hollywood apartment complex, claiming persistent criminal activities on the property.
The People sought abatement of the nuisance, a permanent injunction, and civil penalties under the state Public Nuisance Law (PNL) and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), based mainly on police reports and expert declarations.
The trial court granted a preliminary injunction enforcing security measures and initially required background checks/evictions, later removing these requirements to align with new law.
Assembly Bill 1418 (AB 1418), effective Jan. 1, 2024, prohibits local governments from penalizing tenants/landlords solely due to contact with law enforcement, targeting so-called “crime-free housing ordinances.”
Defendants argued enforcement of the PNL violated AB 1418 because it relied on police reports of criminal activity; the trial court disagreed and maintained the injunction (minus the background check/eviction terms).
On appeal, defendants insisted the entire case should be dismissed as barred by AB 1418; the trial court's order was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §53165.1 bar enforcement of the state PNL?	Enforcing the PNL is enforcing state law, not a local policy/ordinance and thus falls outside §53165.1's scope.	The action is prohibited because it uses police reports as evidence, which they say makes it penalize landlords for police contact.	Enforcement of state law (PNL) is not barred by §53165.1; statute targets local ordinances only.
Are actions by city attorneys on behalf of the People "local government" enforcement under §53165.1?	Action is by the People of California, not by the city per se.	City attorney’s lawsuit on state’s behalf is still a local government action.	City attorney represents the People; not a local government enforcement for §53165.1 purposes.
Does using police reports as evidence make the action prohibited by §53165.1?	Submission of police evidence supports state law claims, but does not penalize solely for police contact.	Any reliance on police reports makes the penalty based on law enforcement contact.	Action is based on property mismanagement, not merely police contact; not barred by §53165.1.
Should the preliminary injunction be dissolved due to AB 1418?	Injunction, minus the background check/eviction terms, is valid and does not violate the new law.	Injunction should be voided entirely under AB 1418.	Modified injunction stands; no error by trial court.

City and County of San Francisco v. Post, 22 Cal.App.5th 121 (de novo review applied to pure legal issues in injunction appeals)
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (UCL borrows violations from other laws—explaining derivative claims)
Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 38 Cal.4th 1139 (distinguishing local ordinances from state laws)