Lexplug logoLexplug

Benetatos v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal
235 Cal. App. 4th 1270, 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 313, 186 Cal. Rptr. 3d 46 (2015)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A lawful business may be deemed a public nuisance subject to abatement if its manner of operation, such as poor maintenance and failure to take reasonable preventative measures, creates an environment that facilitates or attracts criminal activity by third parties, thereby harming the surrounding community.


Facts:

  • Jack Benetatos and his son Nick Benetatos own and operate Tam’s Burgers No. 6, a fast-food restaurant located in Los Angeles adjacent to residential homes.
  • The restaurant property was poorly maintained, with persistent trash, debris, and extensive graffiti that the manager eventually stopped painting over.
  • The location became a hub for criminal activity, including prostitution, drug sales, assaults, loitering, and two homicides.
  • Between May 2009 and February 2012, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) received 58 service calls to the restaurant.
  • The owners were uncooperative with police suggestions to mitigate the problems, with Jack Benetatos stating that criminal issues outside the business were a 'police problem, not mine'.
  • The restaurant operated 24 hours a day, and over half of the police service calls occurred between 8:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.
  • A different Tam's Burgers restaurant, located in a similar high-crime area about 20 blocks away, was described as 'sparkling clean' and did not have the same nuisance problems.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Los Angeles Department of City Planning's zoning administrator held an administrative hearing and determined that Tam's Burgers was being operated as a public nuisance, imposing 22 operating conditions.
  • Plaintiffs Jack and Nick Benetatos appealed the determination to the Los Angeles City Council.
  • The Los Angeles City Council denied the appeal and adopted the zoning administrator's findings with minor modifications to the conditions.
  • Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the state trial court, seeking to set aside the City's nuisance determination.
  • The trial court denied the petition, concluding that the City's determination was supported by substantial evidence.
  • Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal, with the City of Los Angeles as the respondent.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is there substantial evidence to support a city's determination that a business's operation constitutes a public nuisance when the property is poorly maintained, attracts a high volume of criminal activity, and the owner fails to take reasonable measures to mitigate these issues?


Opinions:

Majority - Mosk, Acting P. J.

Yes. There is substantial evidence to support the City's determination that the manner in which the restaurant was operated constituted a public nuisance. A business that is not a nuisance per se can become one by the manner in which it is conducted. The court found that the plaintiffs' failure to maintain the property, their uncooperative attitude, and their 24-hour operation created an environment that was an 'anchor' for criminal activity. The comparison to another well-maintained Tam's restaurant in a similar high-crime area demonstrated that the plaintiffs' specific operational choices, not just the location, caused the nuisance. Therefore, the City was justified in imposing operating conditions to abate the nuisance created by the plaintiffs' failure to take reasonable actions to prevent criminal activity on their property.



Analysis:

This case solidifies the principle that a property owner's duty to prevent their property from becoming a public nuisance extends to controlling the criminal activities of third parties. The decision emphasizes that a causal link between a business's operation and a nuisance can be established by comparing it to similar, well-run businesses in the same vicinity. This provides municipalities with a strong legal tool to use nuisance abatement proceedings against businesses that act as magnets for crime due to neglect or indifference. It shifts a portion of the public safety burden from law enforcement to property owners who fail to take reasonable steps to manage their premises.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Benetatos v. City of Los Angeles (2015) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Benetatos v. City of Los Angeles