City of Signal Hill v. Owens

California Court of Appeal Apr 4, 1984 No. Civ. 68156Published

Before: Roth

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the issuance of a preliminary injunction against a massage parlor, finding that the Red Light Abatement Act is constitutional and that the City provided sufficient evidence of prostitution to justify the injunction.

Issues

Whether the Red Light Abatement Act violates due process.
Whether the City provided sufficient evidence to justify a preliminary injunction.
Whether personal participation by the owner is required to enjoin a nuisance.
Whether the City's municipal ordinances regulating massage establishments are constitutional.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The law is settled that the Red Light Abatement Law conforms to the requirements of due process.”

“Ample evidence was presented to support the conclusion that the Circle Massage was used for prostitution.”

“Owens argues that the city had to show that she personally participated in the operation of the nuisance. That is not the law.”

Opinion

ROTH, P. J.

Appellant Owens appeals from an order granting the City of Signal Hill (City) a preliminary injunction against the Circle Massage. We affirm.

The Circle Massage has been a massage parlor in Signal Hill since 1970. In April 1979 Owens began operating the Circle Massage. On July 7, 1981, the City enacted Municipal Code chapters 5.16 and 5.17, which regulate massage establishments and massage technicians respectively. On February 23, 1982, the City filed a complaint against Owens. The City sought to enjoin the operation of the Circle Massage as a public nuisance under both the Red Light Abatement Act, Penal Code section 11225 et seq., and Civil Code section 3479 et seq.; and to enjoin violation of Municipal Code chapters 5.16 and 5.17. The court granted the preliminary injunction on July 23, 1982. Owens appeals to this court.

Owens’ first contention is that the Red Light Abatement Act is an unconstitutional violation of due process. Penal Code section 11225 states in part: “Every building or place used for the purpose of illegal gambling as defined by state law or local ordinance, lewdness, assignation or prostitution, and every building or place in or upon which acts of illegal gambling as defined by state law or local ordinance, lewdness, assignation, or prostitution, are held or occur, 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 11227 states: “Whenever the existence of a nuisance is shown in an action brought under this article to the satisfaction of the court or judge thereof, either by verified complaint or affidavit, the court or judge shall allow a temporary writ of injunction to abate and prevent the continuance or recurrence of such nuisance.”

[121]

The law is settled that the Red Light Abatement Law conforms to the requirements of due process.

(People

Casa Co.

(1917) 35 Cal.App. 194, 196 [169 P. 454].) It would violate due process to issue a preliminary injunction without providing notice and a hearing.

City of Signal Hill v. Owens

AI Brief

ROTH, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief