People v. Schlimbach
193 Cal. App. 4th 1132
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Schlimbach operates Le Blanc Café, a restaurant/bar in LA; City Attorney sues to abate nuisance under Penal Code 11200 and for unlawful business practices after seven undercover incidents showing alcohol sold to obviously intoxicated patrons (2007–2008).
- LAPD STAR training was provided to Le Blanc staff; undercover investigations led to seven arrests of employees for selling to intoxicated patrons on five days.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the People, finding the bar a nuisance and upholding unlawful business practices; injunction limited future conduct and imposed penalties/fees.
- Schlimbach moved for summary adjudication and opposed, relying on declarations from staff; most of her testimony about patrons not intoxicated was excluded or found incredible.
- Judgment entered with six injunction terms (e.g., training, not serving to intoxicated patrons, security, hours/food, age/inebriation signage) and monetary penalties; Schlimbach appeals; ABC invited to brief amicus curiae.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment. | Schlimbach argues no triable issue of fact; evidence shows seven incidents. | Schlimbach contends conflicting evidence/credibility should create triable issues. | Yes; court properly granted summary judgment; credibility weighed against inadmissible evidence and remaining evidence supported no triable issues. |
| Whether facts support nuisance under Unlawful Liquor Sale Abatement Law. | Five undisputed unlawful sales plus complaints show use of premises for unlawful sales. | Isolated incidents not constituting nuisance; statute intended for unlicensed premises. | Yes; sufficient to deem Le Blanc a nuisance under 11200. |
| Whether injunction terms infringe ABC's exclusive jurisdiction. | Injunctions permissible to abate nuisance; do not directly regulate license. | Restrictions interfere with ABC licensing/regulation. | No preemption; injunctions that prevent future unlawful sales do not directly control licensing. |
| Whether the action improperly restricted ABC’s regulatory authority. | ABC has exclusive power to regulate sale of alcohol; nuisance action unnecessary. | Nuisance abatement is a separate remedy addressing premises, not license directly. | No improper interference; remedies under 11200 and ABC regulation coexist. |
| Whether attorney fees were properly awarded. | Fees justified under Civil Code 3496; lodestar method appropriate. | Hours and rates contested; partial reductions appropriate. | Fees upheld; not an abuse of discretion given adjustments and record. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Robin, 56 Cal.App.2d 885 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943) (unlawful sales include conduct violating law beyond licensing status)
- Hammond v. McDonald, 32 Cal.App.2d 187 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939) (context for use of unlawful-liquor-sale abatement law)
- Covert v. State Bd. of Equalization, 29 Cal.2d 125 (Cal. 1946) (unlawful-liquor-sale abatement does not attack license itself)
- California Restaurant Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 192 Cal.App.3d 405 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (preemption considerations and regulatory interplay with ABC)
- Korean American Legal Advocacy Foundation v. City of Los Angeles, 23 Cal.App.4th 376 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (local nuisance regulation with indirect impact on alcohol sales not precluded)
- City of Oakland v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.App.4th 740 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (nuisance regulation related to alcohol establishments not preempted by ABC)
- Hood v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.App.4th 319 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (summary judgment standards and burden-shifting framework)
- City of Santa Rosa v. Patel, 191 Cal.App.4th 65 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (lodestar method for attorney fees under Civil Code 3496)