CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney

Mr. Steve Easterbrook President and Chief Executive Officer McDonald's Corporation 2111 McDonald's Drive Oak Brook, IL 60523

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

Direct Dial: (415) 554-4748 Email: brittany .feitelberg@sfgov.org

May 12, 2015

Re: Public Nuisance at 730 Stanyan Street in San Francisco, California

Dear Mr. Easterbrook:

This office has received numerous complaints regarding narcotics trafficking in and around a McDonald's restaurant located on your property at 730 Stanyan Street in San Francisco, California (the "Property''). As you know, 730 Stanyan Street is located in San Francisco's historic Haight-Ashbury neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood includes San Francisco's largest public park, a local children's playground, housing for senior citizens, and at least eight schools or daycare centers within half of a mile. Our office and the San Francisco Police Department ("SFPD") have repeatedly contacted the :franchisee regarding the drug activity at the Property seeking simple solutions to the problem. The :franchisee has refused to address the issues, and the drug activity persists.

As outlined in detail in the attached draft complaint, in the past seven months alone SFPD officers have arrested individuals on at least 11 separate occasions selling or possessing illegal narcotics on or directly in front of your Property. In the last six months the police have recovered more than 100 doses of LSD, over two pounds of marijuana, 88.5 grams ofpsilocybin (psychedelic mushrooms), more than half of a pound of marijuana edibles, and hashish from drug dealers selling their products on your Property.

The drug activity at the Property has given rise to other public nuisance conditions. For instance, between January 1, 2014 and April 22, 2015 the Property generated 641 calls for ~ervice to SFPD which included reports of 32 fights, assaults, and/or batteries, consumption of alcohol in public (in the parking lot), two dog attacks, and at least eight auto burglaries. The Property has generated nearly 1,100 calls for service to SFPD since January 2012. The problems caused by the illegal activity at your Property require constant police attention, thereby draining valuable police resources that cannot be devoted elsewhere. No other business in the area has generated nearly the same number of calls for service to SFPD. We firmly believe that, in its current condition, your Property threatens the health and safety of the surrounding neighborhood.

Under California Health and Safety Code section 11570 et seq. (also known as the Drug Abatement Act), "every building or place used for the purpose of unlawfully selling, serving, storing, keeping, manufacturing or giving away any controlled substance .. . and every building or place wherein or upon which those acts take place, is a nuisance which shall be enjoined,

• CITY HALL 1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, ROOM 234 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-5408 RECEPTION: (415) 554-4700 · FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4715

C ITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Letter to Mr. Steve Easterbrook President and Chief Executive Officer McDonald's Corporation Page2 May 12, 2015

OFFICE OF THE C ITY ATIORNEY

abated, and prevented, and for which damages may be recovered ... " (Emphasis added.) In addition, California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. ("Unfair Competition Law") defines ''unfair competition" as "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." McDonald's maintenance of this commercial Property in violation of the Drug Abatement Act also violates the Unfair Competition Law.

As the City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, I have the authority to file a civil action to abate the public nuisance conditions at your Property and to seek civil penalties, injunctive relief and attorney's fees. See CA Health and Safety Code sections 11573.S(f)(l), 11581; CA Business and Professions Code sections 17203, 17206.

I hope to enlist your assistance to resolve the public nuisance conditions at your Property as soon as possible. Please contact my office by the close of business on May 18, 2015 to schedule a meeting. We look forward to your full cooperation, and thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

cc. Yin McDonald's Chief Greg Suhr

Very truly yours,

~~t ~~ CityAtt~

1 DENNIS J. HERRERA, StateBar#l39669 City Attorney ,

2 YVONNE R. MERE, State Bar #173594 Chief Attorney

3 Neighborhood and Resident Safety Division MEGAN CESARE-EASTMAN, State Bar #253845

4 Depµty City Attorney 1390 Market Street, Seventh Floor

5 San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Telephone: (415) 554-3800

6 Facsimile: (415) 437-4644 E-Mail: megan.cesare@sfgov.org

7

8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

9 and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALzy'ORNIA

IO

11

12

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

13 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a Municipal Corporation, and

14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through Dennis J. Herrera, City

15 Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco,

16

17 Plaintiffs,

18 vs.

19 YIN MCDONALD'S, BETTY LIN Individually and dba Yin McDonald's, CHEI

20 CHEN YIN, ~.k.a. C.C. YIN, Individually and dba Yin McDonald's, MCDONALD'S

21 CORPORATION, Individually and dba Franchise Realty Interstate Corp.,

22 FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORP., and DOE 1 through DOE 50,

23

24 Defendants.

25

Case No. - .

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF

Type of Case: ( 42) Other Complaint

26 The CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, and the PEOPLE

27 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through San Francisco City Attorney DENNIS J.

28 1 COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:\users\bfeitelb\appdata\local\temp\notesc7a

056\draft complainldoc

1 HERRERA (collectively "PLAINTIFFS"), file their Complaint against Defendants YIN

2 MCDONALD'S, BETTY LIN Individually and dba Yin McDonald's, CHEI CHEN YIN Individually

3 and dba Yin McDonald's, MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, Individually and dba Franchise Realty

4 Interstate Corp., FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORP., and DOE 1 through DOE 50

5 (collectively "DEFENDANTS"). PLAINTIFFS hereby allege as set forth below:

6 INTRODUCTION

7 1. This action arises out of DEFENDANTS' operation of McDonald's, a commercial

8 business located at 730 Stanyan Street in San Francisco, California (''MCDONALD'S") and/or

9 ownership or management ofreal property located at 730 Stanyan Street, Assessor's Block 1249, Lot

1 O 024, San Francisco, California (the "PROPERTY") where MCDONALD'S is located:.

11 MCDONALD'S is located at the northwest comer of the PROPERTY, at the comer of Haight and

12 Stanyan Streets, across from the entrance to Golden Gate Park, in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury

13 neighborhood. The remaining portion of the PROPERTY consists of a large parking lot used by

14 MCDONALD'S customers and the general public.

15 2. DEFENDANTS permit the PROPERTY to be used as a safe haven for drug dealers and

16 users by allowing the sale, storage, and possession of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia on

17 the PROPERTY. Drug dealers routinely sell drugs in the PROPERTY's parking lot, and directly in

18 front of the MCDONALD'S store, attracting large groups of drug users to this area.

19 3. DEFENDANTS' ongoing violations of law contribute to an increased neighborhood

20 presence of illicit drug users and dealers and a panoply of related general public nuisance conditions

21 such as assaults, dog attacks, car thefts, vehicle break-ins, and loitering. DEFENDANTS'

22 maintenance of the PROPERTY as a public nuisance threatens the health and safety of the surrounding

23 neighborhood which includes San Francisco's largest public park, a local children's playground, at

24 least eight schools or daycare centers within half of a mile, housing for senior citizens, and a host of

25 families with small children who live nearby. Individuals walking by the PROPERTY must maneuver

26 around drug dealers who approach passersby offering drugs for sale.

27

28

4. By allowing controlled substances to be sold, served, stored, kept, manufactured, or

2 COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:\userslbfeitelb\appdata\localltemplnotesc7a

056\draft complainldoc

1 given away at the PROPERTY, DEFENDANTS also have maintained the PROPERTY in violation of

2 California's Drug Abatement Law, Health and Safety Code Sections 11570-11587, and California

3 Civil Code Sections 3479, 3480, 3491, and 3494.

4 5. By maintaining the PROPERTY in repeated violation of applicable state and local laws

5 and as a public nuisance, DEFENDANTS have demonstrated a pattern and practice of, engaging in

6 unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California

7 Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-17210.

8

9 6.

PARTIES AND SUBJECT PROPERTY

Plaintiff CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (the "CITY") is a municipal

1 O corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, and is a

11 city and county. Plaintiff CITY brings this action pursuant to California Civil Code Sections 3479,

12 3480,_3491, 3494; and California Code of Civil Procedure Section 731.

13 7. Plaintiff PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (the ''PEOP.LE"), by and

14 through Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, brings ~s action '

15 pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Sections 11570-11587.(the ~'Drug Abatement Act'.~).

16 Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-17210 (the "Unfair Competition Law"), Civil Code

17 S~ctions 3479, 3480, 3491, 3494, and Code of Civil Procedure Section 731.

18 8. From at least 2013 to the present, Defendants YIN MCDONALD'S, BETTY LIN, and

19 CHE! CHEN YIN have been the owners and managers ofMCDONALD'S, a commercial business '

20 located in the City and County of San Francisco. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that

21 Defendants YIN MCDONALD'S, BETTY LIN and CHEI CHEN YIN lease the entire PROPERTY

22 from Defendants MCDONALD'S CORPORATION and/or FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE

23 CORPORATION.

24 9. Since at least 1978, Defendant FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE

25 CORPORATION has been the owner of the real property located at 730 Stanyan Street in San

26 Francisco, California, Assessor's Block 1249, Lot 024. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE

27 CORPORATION is a former California business entity which was surrendered in 1980.

28 3 COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:\uscrs\bfcitclb\appdata\localltemp\notesc7a

056\draft complainldoc

1 10. Defendant MCDONALD'S CORPORATION does business in San Francisco as '

2 FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION.

3 11. Defendants YIN MCDONALD'S, BETTY LIN, and CHEI CHEN YIN operate

4 MCDONALD'S,a fast food restaurant, engaging in the sale of items such as hamburgers, french fries,

5 and non-alcoholic beverages, and provide a large parking lot for use by MCDONALD'S customers

6 and others.

7 12. Defendants DOE ONE through DOE FIFTY are sued herein under fictitious names.

8 PLAINTIFFS do not at this time know the true names or capacities of said defendants, but pray that

9 the same may be alleged herein when ascertained.

10 13. At all times herein mentioned, each Defendant was an agent, servant, employee,

11 partner, franchisee and joint venturer of each other Defendant and at all times was acting within the

12 course and scope of said agency, service, employment, partnership, franchise and joint venture.

13 Actions taken, or omissions made, by DEFENDANTS' employees or agents in the course of their

14 employment or agency at MCDONALD'S or the PROPERTY are considered to be actions or

15 omissions ofDEFENDANTS for the purposes ofthis Complaint.

16

17

18

14.

15.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

MCDONALD'S is open and operates from 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m., seven days a week.

MCDONALD'S has a reputation in the community and among the San Francisco

19 Police Department ("SFPD") as a location where people come to buy, sell, and use illegal narcotics.

20 16. Drug dealers and users loiter persistently in front ofMCDONALD'S, and in the

21 MCDONALD'S parking lot.

22 17. On numerous occasions, when police officers have visibly approached

23 MCDONALD'S, dealers loitering in front of MCDONALD'S attempt to evade police by entering the

24 MCDONALD'S store or the PROPERTY's parking lot.

25 18. On numerous occasions police have made drug arrests for possession for sale of illegal

26 narcotics on the PROPERTY itself, or directly in front ofMCDONALD'S.

27

28

19. On numerous occasions police have recovered illegal narcotics from the PROPERTY.

4 COMPLAINf - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:luserslbfeitelb\appdata\localltemplnotesc7a

056\draft complaint doc

1 20. DEFENDANTS have permitted MCDONALD'S to be used for the storage and sale of

2 narcotics, including the following incidents since September 1, 2014:

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

•

•

•

•

On April 19, 2015 an undercover SFPD officer entered approached a suspect in the

PROPERTY's parking lot who sold the officer marijuana. He was apprehended with

11 tabs of LSD and 48.5 grams of marijuana divided into separate plastic bags and

containers, and $300 in U.S. currency in mostly small denominations. He was arrested

for sale of marijuana, and possession for sale of marijuana and hallucinogenics.

On April 19, 2015 an SFPD undercover officer approached a suspect in the

PROPERTY's parking lot who indicated he was selling "doses" of LSD. After selling

two doses of LSD and some marijuana to the undercover officer, the suspect was

arrested for sale and posession for sale of hallucinogenics and marijuana. He was also I

in possession of more than 100 additional doses of LSD, small scissors used to cut tabs

of LSD, 63.4 grams of marijuana divided into several containers, and $274 in U.S.

currency in small denominations.

On February 19, 2015 SFPD executed a warrant arrest of a known drug dealer in front

ofMCDONALD'S for possession of22.8 grams of marijuana.

On January 27, 2015 SFPD officers observed a suspect standing near the PROPERTY~s

parking lot with three other people who were leaning over.the suspect's backpack.

When the suspect saw the officers approach he ran through the parking lot to evade

police. He was arrested for possession of 466.1 grams of marijuana, which officers

found in his backpack.

5 COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONAID'S, et al. c:\users\bfeitelblappdata\localltemplnotesc7a

056\draft complaintdoc

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

On January 22, 2015 SFPD arrested a suspect standing in front of the MCDONALD'S

rear entrance on Stanyan Street for possession for sale of737.8 grams of marijuana.

On December 24, 2014, SFPD officers arrested a suspect in the PROPERTY's parking

lot for possession of narcotics paraphernalia (six crack pipes).

On November 18, 2014 SFPD officers observed a group of people in the PROPERTY's

parking lot, including a suspect carrying ajar of marijuana. He was arrested for

possession of 35.6 grams of marijuana.

Also on November 18, 2014 SFPD observed a group of people in the PROPERTY's

parking lot. SFPD observed a narcotics sale take place in the parking lot, and arrested

two suspects for possession for sale of 139.9 grams of marijuana divided into 11 bags,

233.~ grams of marijuana edibles, 27 individually-packaged marijuana gummies

(1,571.6 grams), 12 4-ounce bottles and one 2.1-ounce bottle of marijuana drink, and

marijuana baked goods. The suspects also possessed $230 in U.S. currency in small

denominations.

On October 8, 2014 SFPD observed a group of four people huddled together in front of

MCDONALD'S, one of whom was holding ajar of marijuana. SFPD arrested the

suspect for possession for sale of 65 .1 total grams of marijuana packaged in four clear

plastic bags, 3.6 total grams hashish packaged in two clear plastic bags, 88.5 total

grams mushrooms (psilocybin) packaged in four clear plastic bags. The suspect also

possessed empty plastic sandwich bags, a marijuana pipe, a manual for a digital scale, a

100 gram weight, and $166 in U.S. currency in small denominations.

On September 12, 2014 SFPD approached a suspect in front ofMCDONALD'S. The

suspect attempted to evade police by entering the MCDONALD'S store from Haight

Street and exiting into the PROPERTY's parking lot, where he was arrested for

possession of 22 grams of marijuana.

On September 9, 2014 SFPD arrested a known drug dealer in front ofMCDONALD'S

for possession for sale of 10.3 total grams of marijuana packaged in two bags. The

6 COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:\users\bfeitelb\appdata\localltemp\notesc7a

056\draft complaint.doc

1

2 21.

suspect also possessed $86.00 in U.S. currency in small denominations.

"Mushrooms" or psilocybin is a controlled substance as defined by the Drug Abatement

3 Act. (Health & Saf. Code§§ 11007, 11054(d)(18), 11570.)

4 22. Marijuana or cannabis is a controlled substance as defined by the Drug Abatement Act.

5 (Health & Saf. Code§§ 11007, 11054(d)(13), 11570.) Hashish is a concentrated form of cannabis.

6 23. Lysergic acid diethylamide or "LSD" is a controlled substance as defined by the Drug

7 Abatement Act. (Health & Saf. Code§§ 11007, 11054(d)(12), 11570.)

8 24. Between January 1, 2014 and April 22, 2015, the PROPERTY generated 641 calls for

9 service to SFPD which included reports of 32 fights, assaults, and/or batteries, two dog attacks,

10 consuming alcohols in public, and eight auto burglaries. The PROPERTY has generated nearly 1,100

11 calls for service to SFPD since January 2012.

12 25. SFPD has made seven arrests for auto burglaries, and recovered two stolen vehicles in

13 the PROPERTY's parking lot since September 9, 2014.

14 26. The problems caused by DEFENDANTS' illegal activities require constant police

15 attention, thereby draining valuable police resources that cannot be devoted to other areas.

16 27. DEFENDANTS' maintenance of the PROPERTY as a public nuisance threatens the

17 health and safety of the surrounding neighborhood.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR VIOLATION OF THE DRUG ABATEMENT ACT BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

(Health And Safety Code Sections 11570-11587)

PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 above, as

though fully set forth herein.

29. Since at least September 2014 DEFENDANTS and their employees and agents have

permitted the unlawful storage or sales of controlled substances at their PROPERTY. Such conduct

constitutes a nuisance as a matter oflaw pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 11570.

30. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 11581, PLAINTIFFS request

that the Court close the PROPERTY, including MCDONALD'S, for one year and impose civil

7 COMPLAINT- CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:\uscrs\bfcitclb\appdata\local\tcmp\notcsc7a

056\draft complainldoc

1 penalties of $25,000.00 against each Defendant to prevent DEFENDANTS from continuing to

2 maintain a nuisance at the PROPERTY.

3 31. Unless said nuisance is abated, the PEOPLE and the residents and citizens of the CITY

4 will suffer irreparable injury and damage, in that said conditions will continue to be dangerous to the

5 life, safety or health of those who live and work near the PROPERTY and the general public.

6 32. PLAINTIFFS have no adequate remedy at law in that damages alone are insufficient to

7 protect the public from the present injury and harm caused by the conduct described above.

8

9

10

11

12

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFFS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AND CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

(Civil Code Section 3479 et seq.)

33. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 as though fully

13 set forth herein.

14 34. PLAINTIFFS bring this action pursuant to Civil Code sections 3479, 3480, 3491, 3494

15 and Code of Civil Procedure section 731.

16 35. By permitting the above described injurious, illegal, annoying and disruptive activities

17 to occur and exist at the PROPERTY, DEFENDANTS have caused and maintained a continuing

18 public nuisance within the meaning of California Civil Code sections 34 79 and 3480. These activities

19 are injurious to health and offensive to the senses so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of

20 life or property in an entire community or neighborhood.

21 36. At all times herein mentioned, DEFENDANTS had notice and knowledge that the

22 PROPERTY constituted a public nuisance.

23 37. PLAINTIFFS have no adequate remedy at law in that damages are insufficient to

24 protect the public from the present danger and harm caused by the conditions described above.

25 38. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that DEFENDANTS will continue to maintain

26 the PROPERTY in the above-described condition as a public nuisance.

27

28

39. Unless said nuisance is abated the surrounding community and neighborhood, the

8 COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:\userslbfeitelb\appdata\localltemp\notcsc7a

056\draft complaintdoc

1 PEOPLE, and the residents and citizens of the CITY will suffer irreparable injury and damage, in that

2 said conditions will continue to be injurious to the enjoyment and the :free use of the life and property

3 to those who live and work near the PROPER IT and the general public.

4

5

6

7

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNFAIR AND UNLAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES

BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF'. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

(California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-172~0)

40. Plaintiff PEOPLE hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1through39 as though

8 fully set forth herein.

9 41. Plaintiff PEOPLE brings this cause of action in the public interest in the name of the

1 O People of the S_tate of California, pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., in

11 order to protect consumers and competitors of the services provided by DEFENDANTS, from the

12 unlawful and unfair business practices committed by DEFENDANTS in the operation of

13 MCDONALD'S and management of the PROPER IT within the City and County of San Francisco,

14 State of California.

15 42. The violations oflaw described herein have been and are being carried out wholly or in

16 part Within the. City and County of San Francisco. The actions of DEFENDANTS are in violation of

17 the laws and public policies of the City and County of San Francisco and the State of California, and

18 are inimical to the rights and interest of the general public.

19 43. DEFENDANTS are now engaging in and, for a considerable period of time and at ~l

20 times pertinent to the allegations of this Complaint, have engaged in, unfair and unlawful business '

21 practices prohibited by California's Unfair Competition Law by mana~g and operating

22 MCDONALD'S and/or the PROPER IT in violation of the following laws:

23

24

25

26

27

28

• _ California Health and Safety Code sections 11570 to 11587 by permitting the sale,

storage, possession, manufacture, consumption or distribution of controlle4 substances

at the PROPER1Y; and

• California Civil Code sections 34 79 and 3480 by maintaining a public nuisance at the

PROPER IT.

9 COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:\users\bfeitelblappdata\localltemp\notesc7a

056\draft complaintdoc

1 44. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and practices, DEFENDANTS

2 have received income, profits, and other benefits, which they would not have received if

3 DEFENDANTS had not engaged in the violations of the Unfair Competition Law described in this

4 Complaint.

5 45. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and practices, DEFENDANTS

6 have obtained a competitive unfair advantage over similar businesses that have not engaged in such

7 practices.

8 46. Plaintiff PEOPLE has no adequate remedy at law in that damages are insufficient to

9 protect the public from the harm caused by the conditions described in this Complaint.

10 47. Unless injunctive relief is granted to enjoin the unfair and unlawful business practices

11 of DEFENDANTS, Plaintiff PEOPLE will suffer irreparable injury and damage.

12 48. By engaging in unfair and unlawful business practices described herein,

13 DEFENDANTS are each subject to civil penalties in the amount of $2,500.00 per violation, pursuant

14 to California Business and Professions Code Section 17206.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray that:

Declaratory Relief

1. The PROPERTY be declared a public nuisance in violation of Civil Code Sections

3479 and 3480 and California Health and Safety Code Sections 11570 -11587;

2. DEFENDANTS be declared to have engaged in unfair and unlawful business acts and

practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-1721 O;

Injunctive Relief

3. The public nuisance be preliminarily and permanently abated in accordance with

California Civil Code Section 3480 et seq., California Code of Civil Procedure Section 731, and

California Health and Safety Code Sections 11570-11587;

4. The PROPERTY, including MCDONALD'S be closed for one year pursuant to

California Health and Safety Code Section 11581;

10 COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD 'S, et al. c:\users\bfeitelb\appdata\localltemp\notesc7a

056\draft complainldoc

..

1 5. In the event the Court decides that any vacancy resulting from closure will be harmful

2 to the community, in lieu of closing the PROPERTY, each DEFENDANT be ordered to pay damages

3 in an amount equal to the fair market rental value of the PROPERTY, including MCJ?ONALD'S, for

4 one year to the CITY for the purpose of carrying out drug abuse treatment, prevention, and education

5 programs pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 11581(c)(l);

6 6. In the event that the Court does not order the PROPERTY and/or MCDONALD'S

7 closed, all DEFENDANTS, their agents, officers, managers, representatives, employees, and anyone

8 acting on their behalf, and their heirs and assignees be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from

9 operating, conducting, using, occupying, or in any way permitting the use of any portion of the

1 O PROPER TY as a public nuisance pursuant to Civil Code section 3480 and California Health and

11 Safety Code sections 11570-11587;

12 7. DEFENDANTS be required to implement security me!iSures to prevent or reduce

13 further drug activity at the PROPERTY pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section

14 11573.5.

15 8. DEFENDANTS be enjoined and restrained from occupying or operating the

16 PROPERTY, including MCDONALD'S, while the conditions described in this Complaint exist and

17 until all of the violations at the PROPERTY have been abated;

18 9. DEFENDANTS be ordered to cause all portions of the PROPERTY to conform to law,

19 and maintain such structures and all parts thereof in accordance with law;

20 10. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code sections 17203-17204,

21 DEFENDANTS, their agents, officer8, managers, representatives, employees, and anyone acting on

22 their behalf, and their heirs, successors, and assignees be enjoined from operating, conducting, using,

23 occupying, or in any way permitting the use of any portion of the PROPER TY in the unfair and

24 unlawful business practices described in this Complaint;

25 11. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, inclusive, be enjoined from spending, transferring,

26 encumbering, or removing from California any money received from the PROPERTY or

27 MCDONALD'S or in payment for the unfair and unlawful acts alleged in the Complaint;

28 11 COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:\users\bfeitclb\appdata\Jocal\tcmp\notcsc7a

056\draft complaiotdoc

1 Penalties

2 12. The Court impose civil penalties of $25,000.00 against each Defendant to prevent them

3 from continuing to maintain a nuisance at the PROPERTY, pursuant to California Health and Safety

4 Code section 11581;

5 13. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17206, DEFENDANTS be ordered

6 to each pay a civil penalty of$2,500.00 for each act of unfair and unlawful competition in violation of

7 Business and Professions Code sections 1 7200-1721 O;

8 Fees and Costs

9 14. DEFENDANTS be ordered to pay PLAINTIFFS' reasonable attorney's fees and costs,

10 including the cost of investigation and discovery, pursuant to California Civil Code section 3496(c).

11 15. PLAINTIFFS be awarded their costs incurred herein pursuant to Code of Civil

12 Procedure section 1032; and

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16.

Dated:

The Court grant such other and further relief as this Court should find just and proper.

DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney YVONNE R. MERE Chief Attorney MEGAN CESARE-EASTMAN Deputy City Attorneys

By:.~~~~~~~~~~-­MEGAN CESARE-EASTMAN

Attorneys for Plaintiffs PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

12 COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:\userslbfeitelblappdata\localltemplnotesc7a

056\draft complaintdoc

L

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Morris Allen, declare as follows:

I am a citizen of the United States, over· the age of eighteen years and not a party to the above­entitled action. I am employed at the City Attorney's Office of San Francisco, 1390 Market Street Building, 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.

On May 12, 2015, I served the following document(s):

NAME OF DOCUMENT

on the following persons at the locations specified:

J. Scott Weaver, Esq. KevinK. Cholakian W artelle, Weaver & Schreiber Colin R. Hatcher 369 Pine Street, Suite 506 Richard Dana San Francisco, CA 94104 Cholakian and Associates

400 Oyster Point Blvd., Suite 415 South San Francisco, CA 94080

in the manner indicated below:

D

D

D

D

BY UNITED ST ATES MAIL: Following ordinary business practices, I sealed true and correct copies of the above documents in addressed envelope(s) and placed them at my workplace for collection and mailing with the United States Postal Service. I am readily familiar with the practices of the San Francisco City Attorney's Office for collecting and processing mail. In the ordinary course ofbusiness, the sealed envelope(s) that I placed for collection would be deposited, postage prepaid, with the United States Postal Service that same day.

BY PERSO~AL SERVICE: I sealed true and correct copies of the above documents in addressed envelope(s) and caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand at the above locations by a professional messenger service. A declaration from the messenger who made the delivery 0 is attached or 0 will be med separately with the court.

BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I sealed true and correct copies of the above documents in addressed envelope(s) and placed them at my workplace for collection and delivery by overnight courier service. I am readily familiar with the practices of the San Francisco City Attorney's Office for sending overnight deliveries. In the ordinary ~ourse of business, the sealed envelope(s) that I placed for collection would be collected by a courier the same day.

BY FACSIMILE: Based on a written agreement of the parties to accept service by fax, I transmitted true and correct copies of the above document(s) via a facsimile machine at telephone number Fax#' to the persons and the fax numbers listed above. The fax transmission was reported as complete and without error. The transmission report was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, and a copy of the transmission report 0 is attached or 0 will be illed separately with the court.

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the 24 foregoing is true and correct. ·

25 Executed May 12, 2015, at San Francisco, California.

26 Morris Allen

27

28

INSERT I LINE ONLY ABBREV DOC NAME & CASE CGC 09 495400 c:\users\bfeitelb\appdata\localltemp\notesc7a

056\draft complaintdoc