C A D HERRERA NEWS RELEASE · HERRERA, City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, Plaintiffs, vs. RAUL AMILCAR VASQUEZ, individually and d/b/a Brother’s Auto Body Shop,

CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA

NEWS RELEASEFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: MATT DORSEY THURSDAY, DEC. 6, 2012 (415) 554-4662

[MORE]

Herrera sues defiant auto shop and landlord for code violations, illegal business practices

Flouting repeated notices and orders, Brother’s Auto Body owner ‘found

new laws to violate, and new ways to victimize neighbors and tenants’ SAN FRANCISCO (Dec. 6, 2012)—City Attorney Dennis Herrera today filed suit against a scofflaw business owner and landlord for an astonishing array of legal violations and public nuisances that center on the operation of Brother’s Auto Body, an illegal and unlicensed automotive repair shop in San Francisco’s Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood. According to the complaint filed in San Francisco Superior Court this morning, Raul Amilcar Vasquez, owner of the property at 1270 Thomas Avenue, has for years operated the automotive repair business without requisite permits and in defiance of multiple notices of violation and orders of abatement from city inspectors. But rather than addressing known violations over the years, Vasquez aggressively pursued new ones—expanding his lawless enterprise to include unpermitted construction, assorted public nuisances, and illegally leasing unsafe and uninspected residential housing units to tenants. Herrera’s 177-page pleading documents numerous disputes between Vasquez and City agencies that include the Department of Building Inspection, Planning Department, Department of Parking and Traffic, Police Department and Fire Department. “Brother’s Auto Body is a scofflaw enterprise that was extended every reasonable opportunity to address its legal violations, and to begin operating as a good neighbor and good corporate citizen,” said Herrera. “Instead, its owner, Raul Vasquez, found new laws to violate, and new ways to victimize neighbors and tenants. Now, he’s poised to pay the price for it. Today’s litigation signifies the end of the City’s patience, and a get-tough approach by my office that seeks to halt the lawlessness and compensate the City for its efforts, or to shutter this public nuisance once and for all. As always on cases such as these, I’m very grateful to my client departments, including the Department of Building Inspection, Planning Department, Police Department and Fire Department. Their assistance has been instrumental in helping us build the strong case we’re filing today.” Herrera’s litigation details multiple violations by the defendant of San Francisco’s Housing Code, Building Code and Planning Code; and California’s State Housing Law, General Public Nuisance Statute, and Unfair Competition Law. If successful, the action could result in civil penalties of $1000 per day for each Housing Code violation; $500 per day for each Building Code violation; $2,500 for each act of unfair and unlawful competition; an additional $2,500 for each act of unfair and unlawful competition against elderly or disabled persons; disgorgement of all profits obtained through unlawful business

CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA NEWS RELEASE PAGE 2 OF 2 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2012

practices; and attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. Injunctive relief could additionally include a court order to pay relocation costs to tenants, and to abate all violations and public nuisances. The case is: City and County of San Francisco and People of the State of California v. Raul Amilcar Vasquez d/b/a Brother’s Auto Body Shop et al., San Francisco Superior Court, filed Dec. 6, 2012.

# # #

1 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CCSF v. VASQUEZ

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

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney YVONNE R. MERÉ, State Bar #173594 Chief Attorney Neighborhood and Resident Safety Division CELIA W. LEE, State Bar #172981 NICHOLAS S. COLLA, State Bar #278792 Deputy City Attorneys Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Telephone: (415) 554-3819 Facsimile: (415) 437-4644 E-Mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a Municipal Corporation, and the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through DENNIS J. HERRERA, City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, Plaintiffs, vs. RAUL AMILCAR VASQUEZ, individually and d/b/a Brother’s Auto Body Shop, and DOE ONE THROUGH DOE FIFTY Defendants.

Case No. COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF Type of Case: (42) Other Complaint

The CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (“City”), a municipal corporation, and

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through San Francisco City Attorney

Dennis J. Herrera (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), file their complaint against RAUL AMILCAR


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

VASQUEZ, an individual and d/b/a Brother’s Auto Body Shop, and DOE ONE through DOE FIFTY

(collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiffs hereby allege as set forth below:

INTRODUCTION

1. This action arises out of Defendants’ ownership, maintenance, operation, and use of the

property located at 1266-1278 Thomas Avenue, San Francisco, California (hereinafter the “Property”).

Defendants have and continue to maintain an automotive repair business at the Property without

requisite permits. The operation of an automotive repair business at the Property violates municipal

and state laws and constitutes a public nuisance. Further, Defendants have converted a single family

residence into multi-unit housing without requisite permits or approvals, have erected unsafe and

unpermitted additions at the Property, and have also begun leasing these unsafe and illegal additions to

tenants. Despite several warnings to abate the ongoing nuisances, the Defendants continue to operate

an automotive repair business at the Property and continue to build additions at the Property without

building permits.

2. By owning, operating, maintaining, and using the Property as a public nuisance in the

above manner, Defendants are violating San Francisco Housing Code Sections 301, 701, 908, 911,

1001, and 1306; San Francisco Building Code Sections 102A, 103A, and 106A, San Francisco

Planning Code Section 223; California Health and Safety Code Sections 17910-17998.3 (the “State

Housing Law”); California Civil Code Section 3479 and 3480; and engaging in unfair and unlawful

business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-17210 (the “Unfair

Competition Law”).

3. The Property is a public nuisance that substantially endangers the health, welfare, and

safety of individual tenants, the residents of the City and County of San Francisco, and the People of

the State of California.

4. Plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin Defendants’ future violations of law and for penalties

against Defendants for past and ongoing violations of law.

PARTIES AND SUBJECT PROPERTY


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

5. Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco (“City”) is a municipal corporation

organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, and is a city and

county.

6. The City brings this action under the State Housing Law, the San Francisco Building

Code, California Civil Code Sections 3479, 3480, 3491, 3494, and California Code of Civil Procedure

Section 731.

7. Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, by and through Dennis J. Herrera, City

Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco (“People”) brings this action pursuant to the State

Housing Law; California Civil Code Sections 3479, 3480, 3491 and 3494; Code of Civil Procedure

Section 731; and the Unfair Competition Law.

8. At all relevant times herein, Defendant RAUL AMILCAR VASQUEZ, an individual

and d/b/a Brother’s Auto Body Shop, has been the owner, operator, manager, maintainer, or agent

thereof of the real property and all buildings and other improvements located at 1266-1278 Thomas

Avenue, Block 4792, Lots 14, 15, and 16, in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California

(“the Property”). The Property is more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and

incorporated as part of this Complaint.

9. From at least August 2004 to the present, Defendant RAUL AMILCAR VASQUEZ, an

individual and d/b/a Brother’s Auto Body Shop, and DOES 1-50 has been the owner and manager of

Brother’s Auto Body Shop, an unlicensed commercial business located at 1266-1278 Thomas Ave.

10. 1266-1278 Thomas is located within a RH-1 zoning area and must comply with the

regulations under San Francisco Planning Code section 223.

11. Any renovations or additions to the building structure at the Property are subject to San

Francisco Building Code sections 102A, 103A, and 106A; San Francisco Housing Code sections 301,

701, 908, 911, 1001, and 1306; as well as Health and Safety Code sections 17910-17998.3.

12. Defendants, as operators of a commercial auto repair shop, are subject to the

regulations under the Unfair Competition Law.


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

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

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

same may be alleged herein when ascertained.

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

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

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

Actions taken, or omissions made, by Defendants’ employees or agents in the course of their

employment or agency at Brother’s Auto Body Shop are considered to be actions or omissions of

Defendants for the purposes of this Complaint.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

15. Defendants have been operating an unlicensed auto repair shop at the Property since at

least August of 2004.

16. Defendants’ operation of an unlicensed auto repair shop at the Property violates the

zoning law set forth in San Francisco Planning Code section 223 in addition to the Unfair Competition

laws set forth in Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-17210. Defendants’ operation of a

commercial business in a RH-1 residential area has caused numerous nuisance issues in the

surrounding neighborhood.

17. Defendants have built substandard additions to the existing structure at the Property

without building permits, a violation of San Francisco Building Code sections 102A, 103A, and 106A;

San Francisco Housing Code Sections 301, 701, 908, 911, 1001, and 1306; and Health and Safety

Code Sections 17910-17998.3. DBI issued several notices of violations to Defendants, providing

Defendants with ample time to cure the code violations. Rather than take the necessary measures to

comply with the building code, Defendants have ignored the notices of violations and continued to

build without permits and lease rooms to tenants at the Property.

I. INCIDENTS OF DEFENDANTS’ BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS AT THE

PROPERTY.

First Notice of Violation and Order of Abatement (Complaint No. 200120414)


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

18. On August 28, 2001, DBI issued a Notice of Violation to Defendants for erecting a

fence over 8’ in height in front of the Property without a permit. The Defendants were required to

correct the violation within thirty (30) days. A true and correct copy of the August 28, 2001 Notice of

Violation is attached as Exhibit B and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.

19. On November 20, 2001, DBI issued a Second Notice of Violation to Defendants for

failing to correct the violations noted in the August 28, 2001 Notice of Violation. A true and correct

copy of the November 20, 2001 Notice of Violation is attached as Exhibit C and incorporated as a part

of this Complaint.

20. On January 9, 2002, DBI issued Defendants a Notice of Director’s Hearing for January

24, 2002 with regard to Complaint No. 200120414. A Director’s Hearing is a hearing before the

Director of Building Inspection or the Director’s designee, to determine whether the property owner

has complied with the issued Notice of Violation. On January 9, 2002, the Notice of Director’s

Hearing was mailed via certified mail to the Defendants at the Property. The Notice of Director’s

Hearing was also posted at the Property on January 9. 2002. A true and correct copy of the Notice of

Director’s Hearing, including the Declaration of Service by Mail and Declaration of Posting, is

attached as Exhibit D and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.

21. On or about January 23, 2002, Defendants, through their attorney at the time, sent a

letter to DBI via facsimile requesting a continuance of the Director’s Hearing scheduled for January

24, 2002. A true and correct copy of the January 23, 2002 fax letter requesting a continuance is

attached hereto as Exhibit E. DBI granted the request and rescheduled the Director’s Hearing for

February 21, 2002. DBI issued a Notice of Continued Director’s Hearing dated January 24, 2002,

resetting the hearing for February 21, 2002. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Continued

Director’s Hearing is attached as Exhibit F and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.

22. On or about February 21, 2002, DBI held the noticed Director’s Hearing. The

Defendants did not attend. On or about February 24, 2002, DBI issued Order of Abatement No. 8021-

A. The Order declared the Property a public nuisance and ordered Defendants to complete all work

within sixty (60) days. On or about February 24, 2002, DBI sent a copy of Order of Abatement No.


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

8021-A by certified mail to Defendants at their address of record. The Order of Abatement was also

posted at the Property on February 28, 2002. A true and correct copy of the Order of Abatement No.

8021-A , including the Declaration of Service by Mail and Declaration of Posting, is attached hereto as

Exhibit G and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.

23. On or about March 1, 2002, DBI caused Order of Abatement No. 8021-A to be

recorded against the title to the Property. A true and correct copy of the recorded first page of Order

of Abatement No. 8021-A is attached as Exhibit H and incorporated herein.

24. As of September 2012, the violation remains outstanding.

Second Notice of Violation and Order of Abatement (Complaint No. 200453122)

25. On August 31, 2004, DBI issued a Notice of Violation to Defendants for an

unpermitted change of occupancy at the Property from a residential property to a commercial auto

repair shop. The Defendants were required to submit plans to correct the violation within thirty (30)

days. A true and correct copy of the August 31, 2004 Notice of Violation is attached as Exhibit I and

incorporated as a part of this Complaint.

26. On October 12, 2004, DBI issued a second Notice of Violation to Defendants for

failing to take steps to correct the violations noted in the August 31, 2004 Notice of Violation. The

second Notice of Violation noted that abatement proceedings had been initiated due to Defendants’

failure to rectify the problem. A true and correct copy of the October 12, 2004 Notice of Violation is

attached as Exhibit J and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.

27. On January 8, 2007, DBI issued Defendants a Notice of Director’s Hearing, set for

January 25, 2007, regarding the Notices of Violations stemming from Complaint No. 200453122. On

January 9, 2007, the Notice of Director’s Hearing was mailed via certified mail to the Defendants at

the Property. The Notice of Director’s Hearing was also posted at the Property on January 11. 2007.

A true and correct copy of the Notice of Director’s Hearing, including the Declaration of Service by

Mail, is attached as Exhibit K and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.

28. On or about January 25, 2007, DBI held a duly noticed Director’s Hearing regarding

the violations contained in Complaint No. 200453122. The Defendants did not attend. On or about


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

January 30, 2007, DBI issued Order of Abatement No. 102164-A. The Order declared the Property a

public nuisance and ordered Defendants to complete all work within thirty (30) days. On or about

January 30, 2007, DBI sent a copy of the Order of Abatement by certified mail to Defendants at the

Property. The Order of Abatement was also posted at the Property on February 16, 2007. A true and

correct copy of the Order of Abatement 102164-A, including the Declaration of Service by Mail and

Declaration of Posting, is attached hereto as Exhibit L and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.

29. Defendants did not appeal Order of Abatement No. 102164-A to the San Francisco

Abatement Appeals Board, and on February 8, 2007, DBI caused it to be recorded against the title to

the Property. A true and correct copy of the recorded first page of Order of Abatement No. 102164-A

is attached as Exhibit M and incorporated herein.

Third Notice of Violation and Order of Abatement (Complaint No. 200455083)

30. On November 8, 2004, DBI issued a Notice of Violation to Defendants for constructing

the following at the Property without permits: a bathroom and kitchen for an unpermitted third unit;

installation of 10 doors and 10 windows; installation of 450 sq. ft. dry wall in rear garage; and a

remodel of the kitchen in the second unit. The Defendants were required to obtain permits to correct

the violations within fifteen (15) days. A true and correct copy of the November 8, 2004 Notice of

Violation is attached as Exhibit N and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.

31. On November 24, 2004, DBI issued a second Notice of Violation to Defendants for

failing to obtain permits to correct the violations noted in the November 8, 2004 Notice of Violation.

A true and correct copy of the November 24, 2004 second Notice of Violation is attached as Exhibit O

and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.

32. On December 6, 2004, DBI issued Defendants a Notice of Director’s Hearing, set for


December 7, 2004, the Notice of Director’s Hearing was mailed via certified mail to the Defendants at

the Property. The Notice of Director’s Hearing was also posted at the Property on December 7, 2004.

A true and correct copy of the Notice of Director’s Hearing, including the Declaration of Service by

Mail and Declaration of Posting, is attached as Exhibit P and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.


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

33. On or about January 6, 2005, DBI held a duly noticed Director’s Hearing regarding the

violations contained in Complaint No. 200455083. The Defendants were represented at the hearing.

On or about January 12, 2005, DBI issued Order of Abatement No. 9767-A. The Order declared the

Property a public nuisance and ordered Defendants to complete all work within thirty (30) days. On or

about January 14, 2005, DBI sent a copy of the Order of Abatement by certified mail to Defendants at

their address of record. On or about January 18, 2005, DBI posted a copy of Order of Abatement

9767-A in a conspicuous spot at the Property. A true and correct copy of Order of Abatement No.

9767-A, including the Declaration of Service by Mail and Declaration of Posting, is attached hereto as

Exhibit Q and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.

34. Defendants did not appeal Order of Abatement 9767-A to the San Francisco Abatement

Appeals Board, and on January 18, 2005, DBI caused it to be recorded against the title to the Property.

A true and correct copy of the recorded first page of Order of Abatement no. 9767-A is attached as

Exhibit R and incorporated herein.

Fourth Notice of Violation and Order of Abatement (Complaint No. 200455038)

35. On November 17, 2004, DBI issued a Notice of Violation to Defendants stating that the

building at the Property was unsafe and would require DBI access. The Notice of Violation instructed

Defendants to contact DBI to schedule an inspection appointment. A true and correct copy of the

November 17, 2004 Notice of Violation is attached as Exhibit S and incorporated as a part of this

Complaint.

36. On January 18, 2005, DBI issued a “Notice to Abate Plumbing Nuisance” to

Defendants. Among other things, the Notice noted that there was a complaint on file regarding a

bathroom installed without permits, referenced Notice of Violation 200455038, and requested that

Defendants call to make an appointment for investigation. A true and correct copy of the January 18,

2005 Notice to Abate Plumbing Nuisance is attached as Exhibit T and incorporated herein.

37. On March 14, 2005, DBI issued a “Final Notice” as a follow-up to the previous Notice

to Abate Plumbing Nuisance dated January 18, 2005. The Final Notice again noted that there was a

complaint on file regarding a bathroom installed without permits, and directed Defendants to call and


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

schedule an appointment for investigation. The Final Notice also directed Defendants to immediately

put the premises into sanitary condition. A true and correct copy of the March 14, 2005 Final Notice

is attached as Exhibit U and incorporated herein.

38. On March 24, 2005, DBI issued a Second Notice of Violation to Defendants for failing

to comply with the instructions in the November 17, 2004 Notice of Violation. A true and correct

copy of the March 24, 2005 Second Notice of Violation is attached as Exhibit V and incorporated as a

part of this Complaint.

39. On April 30, 2012, DBI issued to Defendants a Notice of Director’s Hearing, set for

May 17, 2012, regarding the Notices of Violations stemming from Complaint No. 200455038. On

May 1, 2012, the Notice of Director’s Hearing was mailed via certified mail to the Defendants at the

Property. The Notice of Director’s Hearing was also posted at the Property on May 2, 2012. A true

and correct copy of the Notice of Director’s Hearing, including Declaration of Service by Mail and

Declaration of Posting, is attached as Exhibit W and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.

40. Upon request by Defendants’ representative, the May 17, 2012 Director’s Hearing was

continued to June 19, 2012. On June 7, 2012, DBI continued the Director’s Hearing once again,

scheduling it for July 24, 2012. DBI sent a Notice of Continued Director’s Hearing on June 7, 2012.

A true and correct copy of the Notice of Continued Director’s Hearing setting the hearing for July 24,

2012 is attached as Exhibit X and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.

41. On or about July 24, 2012, DBI held a duly noticed Director’s Hearing regarding the


On or about August 27, 2012, DBI issued Order of Abatement No. 104631-A. The Order declared the

Property a public nuisance and ordered Defendants to complete all work within thirty (30) days. On or

about August 28, 2012, DBI sent a copy of the Order of Abatement by certified mail to Defendants at

the Property. On or about August 29, 2012, DBI posted a copy of the Order of Abatement in a

conspicuous spot at the Property. A true and correct copy of Order of Abatement No. 104631-A ,

including the Declaration of Service by Mail and Declaration of Posting, is attached hereto as Exhibit

Y and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.


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

42. Defendants did not appeal the Order of Abatement to the San Francisco Abatement

Appeals Board and on October 1, 2012, DBI caused it to be recorded against the title to the Property.

A true and correct copy of the recorded first page of Order of Abatement No. 104631-A is attached as

Exhibit Z and incorporated herein.

Fifth Notice of Violation and Order of Abatement (Complaint No. 200669380)

43. On May 5, 2006, DBI sent a Notice of Violation to Defendants stating that the

following changes were required to be made at the property: provide a barrier/guard rail on a second

floor exit which opens to a 10 to 15 foot drop, post a sign to warn occupants of the lack of such barrier

until one can be installed, place the water heater in an approved location and reattach its flue, provide

waste piping and flooring in the upstairs bathroom, repair damaged walls in the upstairs bathroom,

provide heat to all habitable rooms and obtain all necessary permits to complete the required work. A

true and correct copy of the May 5, 2006 Notice of Violation is attached as Exhibit AA and


44. On June 13, 2006, DBI issued Defendants a Notice of Director’s Hearing, set for June

29, 2006, regarding the violations stemming from Complaint No. 200669380. On June 14, 2006, the

Notice of Director’s Hearing was mailed via certified mail to the Defendants at the Property. The

Notice of Director’s Hearing was also posted at the Property on June 14, 2006. A true and correct

copy of the Notice of Director’s Hearing, including Declaration of Service by Mail and Declaration of

Posting, is attached as Exhibit BB and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.

45. On or about June 29, 2006, DBI held a duly noticed Director’s Hearing regarding the


On or about July 3, 2006, DBI issued Order of Abatement No. 200669380-A. The Order declared the

Property a public nuisance and ordered Defendants to complete all work within fourteen (14) days.

On or about July 5, 2006, DBI sent a copy of the Order of Abatement by certified mail to Defendants

at their address of record. On or about July 11, 2006, DBI posted a copy of the Order of Abatement in

a conspicuous spot at the Property. A true and correct copy of Order of Abatement No. 200669380-A,


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


CC and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.


Appeals Board, and on August 11, 2006, DBI caused it to be recorded against the title to the Property.

A true and correct copy of the first page of the recorded Order of Abatement No. 200669380-A is

attached hereto as Exhibit DD.

Sixth Notice of Violation and Order of Abatement (Complaint No. 200669573)

47. On May 9, 2006, DBI sent a Notice of Violation to Defendant that DBI Permit

Application No. 200511288971, issued to Defendants for the purpose of returning the Property from a

commercial auto repair shop to a residential use property, had expired prior to the completion of the

necessary work. A true and correct copy of the May 9, 2006 Notice of Violation is attached as Exhibit

EE and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.

48. On June 12, 2006, DBI issued a Second Notice of Violation to Defendant warning that

failure to renew DBI Permit Application No. 200511288971 had initiated abatement proceedings. A

true and correct copy of the June 12, 2006 Notice of Violation is attached as Exhibit FF and


49. On January 8, 2007, DBI issued to Defendants a Notice of Director’s Hearing, set for


January 9, 2007, the Notice of Director’s Hearing was mailed via certified mail to the Defendants at

the Property. The Notice of Director’s Hearing was also posted at the Property on January 11, 2007.

A true and correct copy of the January 25, 2007 Notice of Director’s Hearing, including the

Declaration of Service by Mail and Declaration of Posting, is attached as Exhibit GG and incorporated

as a part of this Complaint.

50. On or about January 25, 2007, DBI held a duly noticed Director’s Hearing regarding

the violations contained in Complaint No. 200669573. The Defendants were not represented at the

hearing. On or about January 27, 2007, DBI issued Order of Abatement No. 102163-A. The Order

declared the Property a public nuisance and ordered Defendants to complete all work within thirty (30)


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

days. On or about January 29, 2007, DBI sent a copy of the Order of Abatement by certified mail to

Defendants at the Property. On or about February 16, 2007, DBI posted a copy of the Order of

Abatement in a conspicuous spot at the Property. A true and correct copy of Order of Abatement No.

102163-A, including the Declaration of Service by Mail and Declaration of Posting, is attached hereto

as Exhibit HH and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.


Appeals Board, and on February 8, 2007, DBI caused it to be recorded against the title to the Property.

A true and correct copy of the recorded first page of Order of Abatement No. 102163-A is attached

hereto as Exhibit II and incorporated herein.

Seventh Notice of Violation and Order of Abatement (Complaint No. 201252561)

52. On August 1, 2012, DBI sent a Notice of Violation to Defendants stating that the

following changes must be made at the property: repair broken windows in tenant’s room and other

areas of the Property, replace broken window frames in tenant’s room, provide a window in the

kitchen/dining area, provide smoke detectors in all bedrooms and the hallway, repair inoperable light

fixtures in the Property’s entryway, repair broken glass on the shower door, replace the kitchen sink

and the deteriorated cabinets in close proximity to the sink, repair damaged walls near the hallway

skylights, eliminate cockroach infestation and provide professional pest control in the tenant’s room,

and obtain all necessary permits to complete the required work. Defendant was given until September

7, 2012 to comply with this Notice of Violation. A true and correct copy of the August 1, 2012 Notice

of Violation is attached as Exhibit JJ and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.

53. On September 12, 2012, DBI issued to Defendants a Notice of Director’s Hearing, set

for September 27, 2012, regarding the Notices of Violations stemming from Complaint No.

201252561. On September 12, 2012, the Notice of Director’s Hearing was mailed via certified mail to

the Defendants at the Property. The Notice of Director’s Hearing was also posted at the Property on

September 13, 2012. A true and correct copy of the September 12, 2012 Notice of Director’s Hearing,

including the Declaration of Service by Mail and Declaration of Posting, is attached as Exhibit KK and



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

54. On or about September 27, 2012, DBI held a duly noticed Director’s Hearing regarding


hearing. On or about that same date, DBI issued Order of Abatement No. 201252561. The Order

declared the Property a public nuisance and ordered Defendants to complete all work within seven (7)

days. On or about October 31, 2012, DBI sent a copy of the Order of Abatement by certified mail to

Defendants at the Property and also posted a copy of the Order of Abatement in a conspicuous spot at

the Property. A true and correct copy of Order of Abatement No. 201252561, including the

Declaration of Service by Mail and Declaration of Posting, is attached hereto as Exhibit LL and


Eighth Notice of Violation and Order of Abatement (Complaint No. 201254741)

55. On August 6, 2012, DBI sent a Notice of Violation to Defendants stating that a

permanent heat source must be provided for the unit at the Property rented by a tenant. Defendant was

given until August 10, 2012 to comply with this Notice of Violation. A true and correct copy of the

August 6, 2012 Notice of Violation is attached as Exhibit MM and incorporated as a part of this

Complaint.


for September 20, 2012, regarding the Notices of Violations stemming from Complaint No.

201254741. On September 5, 2012, the Notice of Director’s Hearing was mailed via certified mail to

the Defendants at the Property. The Notice of Director’s Hearing was also posted at the Property on


including the Declaration of Service by Mail and Declaration of Posting, is attached as Exhibit NN and








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

Defendants at the Property and also posted a copy of the Order of Abatement in a conspicuous spot at

the Property. A true and correct copy of Order of Abatement No. 201254741, including the

Declaration of Service by Mail and Declaration of Posting, is attached hereto as Exhibit OO and


Ninth Notice of Violation and Order of Abatement (Complaint No. 201255265)

58. On August 6, 2012, DBI sent a Notice of Violation to Defendants stating that the

following changes must be made at the Property: remove loose cable wires in the side walkway of the

Property, replace uneven concrete at the side walkway to eliminate tripping hazard, replace the toilet

seat in the bathroom used by Defendants’ tenant and repair the floor covering at the kitchen entryway.

Defendant was given until September 5, 2012 to comply with this Notice of Violation. A true and

correct copy of the August 6, 2012 Notice of Violation is attached as Exhibit PP and incorporated as a

part of this Complaint.


for September 27, 2012, regarding the Notice of Violation stemming from Complaint No. 201255265.

On September 12, 2012, the Notice of Director’s Hearing was mailed via certified mail to the

Defendants at the Property. The Notice of Director’s Hearing was also posted at the Property on


including the Declaration of Service by Mail and Declaration of Posting, is attached as Exhibit QQ and







Defendants at the Property and on October 31, 2012, also posted a copy of the Order of Abatement in

a conspicuous spot at the Property. A true and correct copy of Order of Abatement No. 201255265,


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


RR and incorporated as a part of this Complaint.

II. INCIDENTS INVOLVING POLICE PRESENCE AT THE PROPERTY

61. The Defendants’ operation of a commercial vehicle repair business at the Property has

caused several disturbances in the area. Below is a subset of incidents at the Property involving the

need for police presence at Defendants’ unauthorized vehicle repair business.

First Incident at the Property (Call No. 0904091517)

62. On September 4, 2009, the San Francisco Police Department (hereinafter “SFPD”)

responded to a call at the Property. The woman who placed the call claimed that she paid Defendant

to fix her vehicle at the Property but that Defendant refused to return the vehicle to her possession.

The dispute was eventually resolved amicably on the same day.

Second Incident at the Property (Call No. 0118101930)

63. On January 18, 2010, the SFPD responded to a call at the Property placed by a

Department of Parking and Traffic (hereinafter “DPT”) employee. The DPT employee requested

police presence while he cited 15 to 16 vehicles illegally parked on the sidewalk in front of the

Property.

Third Incident at the Property (Call No. 0427101858)

64. On April 27, 2010, SFPD responded to a call at the Property. The woman who placed

the call claimed to have money to pay Defendant for servicing her vehicle at the Property but that

Defendant refused to return the vehicle to her possession.

Fourth Incident at the Property (Call No. 0710101752)

65. On July 10, 2010, the SFPD responded to a call at the Property. The caller was a

Brother’s Auto Body Shop customer who claimed that Defendant refused to return the customer’s

vehicle to his possession.

Fifth Incident at the Property (Incident Report No. 100884928)

66. On September 23, 2010, SFPD responded to a distress call at the Property placed by

Defendant Vasquez. Officers reported that Defendant Vasquez alleged he was a battery victim. The


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

incident stemmed from a dispute over vehicle repair service Defendant Vasquez provided the alleged

battery suspect at Brother’s Auto Body Shop.

Sixth Incident at the Property (Incident Report No. 120145302)

67. On February 14, 2012, SFPD conducted an undercover detail targeting Defendants’

unpermitted vehicle repair garage. An Undercover Officer (hereinafter “Officer”) obtained a

“Brother’s Auto Body Shop” business card from a café in San Francisco’s Bayview District. The

business card stated that Brother’s Auto Body Shop was located at 1270 Thomas Ave. The Officer

then approached Defendant Vasquez at the Property and asked him to replace the transmission in a

van. Defendant Vasquez agreed to perform the transmission work in exchange for a $750.00 fee.

Defendant Vasquez informed the officer that all work to the van would be done on sight at the

Property. Before the Officer left Brother’s Auto Body Shop, Defendant Vasquez offered to sell him

two vehicles parked on the street in front of the premises. Defendant Vaszquez also gave the Officer

an estimate of $2,500.00 to perform body work and a paint job on a Honda Accord.

Seventh Incident at the Property (Incident Report No. 120942697)

68. On November 21, 2012, SFPD responded to a 911 call at the property by Defendant,

who had been awakened by a neighbor who told him his carport was on fire. Officers noted that

Defendant had several vehicles in his carport, and they asked him if it was a business. Defendant

informed the officers that it was his auto body shop.

III. PLANNING DEPARTMENT INVOLVEMENT AT THE PROPERTY

69. The Defendants’ operation of an unpermitted commercial vehicle repair business at the

Property has drawn the attention of many other City Agencies as well. Below is a subset of incidents

at the Property involving the San Francisco Planning Department (hereinafter “Planning”) and the San

Francisco Fire Department (hereinafter “SFFD”).

Planning Complaint No. 6281

70. On May 27, 2004, a complaint was filed with Planning alleging that Defendants were

operating an auto repair shop at the Property. The complaint further alleged that Defendants were

storing and using toxic spray paint at the Property.


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

Planning Notice of Alleged Violation

71. On August 31, 2004, Planning issued a Notice of Alleged Violation to Defendants. The

Notice of Alleged Violation stated that operating an auto repair shop at the Property was a violation of

Planning Code Section 223. The letter also instructed Defendants to contact Planning within (15) days

to discuss the matter. Defendants failed to contact Planning within the requisite timeframe.

Planning Notice of Violation

72. On October 19, 2004, after Defendants failed to respond to the Notice of Alleged

Violation, Planning issued Defendants a Notice of Violation. The Notice of Violation reiterated that

operating an auto repair shop at the Property violated Planning Code Section 223. Defendants were

required to eliminate the illegal use at the Property and provide documentation that the violation had

been abated within (15) days. Defendants failed to contact Planning within the requisite timeframe.

73. In 2010, Planning was informed by the San Francisco Fire Department that Defendants

had applied for a fire permit (permit application 29545) to operate a vehicle repair garage. On October

7, 2010, Planning sent a letter to Defendants informing him that Planning had recommended

disapproval of Defendants’ application, as auto repair garages are not permitted to operate in

residential districts.

Planning Notice of Violation Reminder

74. On October 22, 2012, Planning sent a Notice of Violation Reminder to Defendants with

instructions to immediately abate the Planning Code Violation noted in the October 19, 2004 Notice of

Violation and provide evidence that the Property is no longer being used as an illegal automobile

repair business.

IV. SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT INVOLVEMENT AT THE PROPERTY

SFFD Inspection Nos. 66910 and 91139

75. On July 7, 2009, San Francisco Fire Department (hereinafter “SFFD”) received a

complaint that Defendants were operating an unlicensed vehicle repair shop at the Property. The


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

complaint noted that the operation included welding, cutting, car storage and that the Property emitted

an odor of flammable liquids.

76. On September 2, 2010, a SFFD Inspector noticed what appeared to be a vehicle repair

shop operating at the Property. The Inspector conducted research to uncover that Defendants did not

have the required permits to operate an auto repair shop at the Property. The Inspector informed

Defendant of these findings on September 8, 2010.

SFFD Inspection No. 91167

77. On October 5, 2010, a SFFD Inspector conducted an inspection at the Property that

revealed that Defendants had not ceased their vehicle repair operation. The report notes that the

unpermitted business was a major operation. The Inspector noted that over 20 vehicles were on the

premises at the time of the inspection as well as welding and vehicle repair equipment. The inspection

report also notes that Defendants would not be issued a permit to operate a vehicle repair garage at the

Property because it would violate Municipal Fire Code.

SFFD Engine Response on November 21, 2012

78. During the early morning hours of November 21, 2012, numerous SFFD engine trucks

responded to a fire of unknown origin at the Property. Three cars stored at the Property were burned

and damaged by the fire and required towing by the City.

79. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that all of the violations and illegal conditions

described in this Complaint continue to exist, despite the City’s numerous notices and orders issued to

Defendants. Defendants have ignored duly issued administrative Notices and Orders, have failed and

refused to abate the cited code violations, and have maintained, and continue to maintain, the Property

as a public nuisance and in substandard condition in violation of the San Francisco Housing and

Building Codes, the San Francisco Health Code, San Francisco Planning Code, the California Health

and Safety Code, the California Civil Code, and the Unfair Competition Law.

80. At the time of trial, Plaintiffs will move the Court to amend this Complaint to include

any conditions discovered after the filing of this Complaint.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFFS


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

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

COUNT ONE PUBLIC NUISANCE PER SE

FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING CODE AT THE PROPERTY (SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING CODE SECTIONS 401 and 1001)

81. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this complaint as

though fully set forth herein.

82. As described above, Defendants are now, and for a considerable period of time, and all

times pertinent to the allegations in this Complaint, have been maintaining the Property in violation of

the San Francisco Housing Code.

83. Pursuant to San Francisco Housing Code Section 1001, any building with lack of

adequate heating facilities or improper operations thereof, dampness of habitable rooms, general

dilapidation or improper maintenance, faulty materials of construction, faulty weather protection,

hazardous plumbing, inadequate fire protection equipment, inadequate exits, or that contains any

nuisance to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property safety or welfare of the public or

occupants is a substandard building. Pursuant to Housing Code Section 401, substandard buildings,

buildings with any fire hazard, buildings with inadequate plumbing facilities, buildings with mold or

mildew, or buildings with violations dangerous to human life or detrimental to health, constitute a per

se public nuisance.

84. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants knew or should have known that the

Property was being maintained as a public nuisance, as alleged in the Complaint, but failed to take

reasonable steps to abate the nuisance.

85. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based on such information and belief allege that

Defendants will continue to operate the Property as a public nuisance.

86. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law in that damages are insufficient to protect the

public from the present danger and harm caused by the conditions described herein.

87. Unless said nuisances are abated, the residents and citizens of the City and County of

San Francisco will suffer irreparable injury and damage, in that said conditions will continue to be

dangerous to human life, safety or health of the occupants of the Property and the general public.


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

88. By maintaining the San Francisco Housing Code violations at the Property, Defendants

have violated and refused to comply with the San Francisco Housing Code and are subject to civil

penalties of up to $1000 for each day that the violations are committed or permitted to continue, as set

forth in Housing Code Section 204(c)(2).

COUNT TWO PUBLIC NUISANCE PER SE

FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BUILDING CODE AT THE PROPERTY (SAN FRANCISCO BUILDING CODE SECTION 102A)



90. As described above, Defendants are now, and for a considerable period of time, and all

times pertinent to the allegations in this Complaint, have been maintaining the Property in violation of

the San Francisco Building Code.

91. Pursuant to San Francisco Building Code Section 102A, all buildings, structures,

property, or parts thereof, that are dangerous to human life, safety, or health of the occupants or the

occupants of adjacent properties or the public by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, or

were erected, moved, altered, constructed or maintained in violation of law or ordinance, are unsafe

and as such constitute per se public nuisances.

92. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants knew or should have known that the

Property was being maintained as a public nuisance, as alleged in the Complaint, but failed to take

reasonable steps to abate the nuisance.

93. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based on such information and belief allege that

Defendants will continue to operate the Property as a public nuisance.



95. Unless said nuisances are abated, the residents and citizens of the City and County of

San Francisco will suffer irreparable injury and damage, in that said condition will continue to be

dangerous to human life, safety or health of the occupants of the Property and the general public.


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

96. By maintaining the San Francisco Building Code violations at the Property, Defendants

have violated the San Francisco Building Code and are subject to civil penalties of up to $500 for each

day that the violations are committed or permitted to continue, as set forth in Building Code Section

103A.

COUNT THREE GENERAL PUBLIC NUISANCE STATUTE

(CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 3479 and 3480)



98. Defendants are now, and for a considerable period of time, and at all times herein

mentioned have been, committing illegal acts of building and automotive repair at the Property;

conduct constituting an ongoing public nuisance within the meaning of Civil Code Sections 3479 and

3480. The conditions constituting a continuing public nuisance are more fully described above and

demonstrated in Exhibits A through RR.

99. Defendants’ conduct is injurious to the health and safety of the residents and the

community, is offensive to the senses, and interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life and

property. Defendants’ conduct also affects a considerable number of persons, an entire community, or

neighborhood.

100. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants knew or should have known that their

conduct was and is illegal and was and is creating a public nuisance, as alleged in the Complaint, but

have refused to discontinue their illegal conduct and have continued and do continue to intentionally

commit their illegal acts of building and automotive repair at the Property, in violation of the rights of

Plaintiffs and the residents and the citizens of the City and County of San Francisco.

101. Defendants will, unless restrained by this Court, continue to create and maintain the

nuisance and continue the acts complained of, and each and every act has been, and will be, without

the consent, against the will of Plaintiffs.


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


public from the present danger and harm caused by the conditions described above, and injunctive

relief is expressly authorized by Section 731 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

103. Unless Defendants are restrained by order of this Court, it will be necessary for

Plaintiffs to commence many successive actions against Defendants, to secure compensation for

damages sustained, thus requiring a multiplicity of suits, and Plaintiffs will be daily threatened with

the degradation and damage of their property.

104. Unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing their illegal course of conduct,

Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury in that the usefulness and economic value of their property will

be substantially diminished and Plaintiffs and the residents and citizens of the City and County of San

Francisco will be deprived of the comfortable enjoyment of their respective properties.

105. Unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing their illegal course of conduct, the

community, neighborhood, and the residents and citizens of the State of California and the City and

County of San Francisco will suffer irreparable injury and damage, in that said conditions will

continue to be injurious to the enjoyment and the free use of the life and property of said residents and

citizens of the State of California and the City and County of San Francisco.

/ / /

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE STATE HOUSING LAW BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFFS

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS (Health and Safety Code Sections 17910-17998.3)

106. Plaintiffs City and County of San Francisco and the People of the State of California

hereby incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth

herein.

107. Defendants are now, and for a considerable period of time heretofore and at all times

herein mentioned have been, maintaining the Property as a substandard building within the meaning of


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

Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3. The conditions creating said substandard building are the

on-going violations of the San Francisco Housing and Building Codes. The substandard conditions at

the Property endanger the health and safety of the occupants and the general public.


public from the harm caused by the conditions described herein.

109. Unless said substandard conditions are abated, the occupants of the Property and the

residents and citizens of the City and County of San Francisco, will suffer irreparable injury and

damage, in that said conditions will continue to endanger the health and safety of the occupants of the

Property and the occupants of adjacent properties and the public

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ORDERS OF ABATEMENT ISSUED BY THE SAN

FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION AGAINST THE PROPERTY BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AGAINST ALL

DEFENDANTS (SAN FRANCISCO BUILDING CODE SECTION 103A)

110. Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco hereby incorporates by reference all

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

111. On nine separate occasions, ranging from February 21, 2002 to September 27, 2012,

pursuant to Section 102 of the San Francisco Building Code, public hearings on Defendants’ violations

of the Building Code were held before a designee of the Director of Building Inspection. Defendants

were given notice of the hearings and had the opportunity to attend. After full hearings, DBI issued

nine Orders of Abatement, ranging in dates from February 24, 2002 to September 27, 2012.

112. In the Orders of Abatement, DBI found that Defendants had been properly served with

Notices of the Director’s Hearings. In each of the nine Orders of Abatement, DBI also declared the

Property a public nuisance and ordered Defendants to abate the listed code violations within specified

time periods.

113. DBI sent the Orders of Abatement by certified mail to the Defendants at their last

known address as listed in the San Francisco Assessor’s Office. DBI also posted the Orders of

Abatement at the Property.


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

114. Defendants have violated the administrative orders of DBI by allowing the code

violations at the Property to continue unabated.

115. Because Defendants failed to comply with the administrative orders of DBI, Plaintiff

City and County of San Francisco may abate the nuisance and recover the amount expended, pursuant

to San Francisco Building Code Section 102A.14 and 102A.17.

116. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law in that damages are insufficient to protect the


117. Unless said nuisance is abated. the community and neighborhood, and the residents and

citizens of the City and County of San Francisco, will suffer irreparable injury and damage, in that said

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

said citizens and residents of the City and County of San Francisco.

118. By failing to comply with the administrative orders of DBI, Defendants are subject to

civil penalties of up to $500.00 for each day of their non-compliance as set forth in Building Code

Section 103A.

FOURTH 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 17200-17210)

119. Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this complaint as


120. Plaintiff, acting to protect the public as consumers and competitors from unlawful,

unfair, and fraudulent practices, brings this cause of action in the public interest in the name of the

People of the State of California, pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17200 – 17210.

121. Defendants transact business in the form of an automotive repair service and as lessors

of residential rooms within the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. The violations

of law described herein have been and are being carried out wholly or in part within the City and

County of San Francisco.


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

122. Defendants’ actions are in violation of the laws and public policies of the City and

County of San Francisco and the State of California and are inimical to the rights and interest of the

general public.

123. Through the conduct described above, Defendants have engaged in a pattern and

practice of unlawful and unfair business practices prohibited by Business and Professions Code

Sections 17200 – 17210 including but not limited to the following:

A. Maintaining substandard housing in violation of the State Housing Law (Health and

Safety Code section 17920.3) at the Property;

B. Violating the San Francisco Housing Code (sections 301, 401, 701. 908, 911, 1001 and

1306) at the Property;

C. Violating the San Francisco Building Code (sections 102A, 103A and 106A) at the

Property;

D. Violating the San Francisco Planning Code (section 223) at the Property;

E. Creating and maintaining a public nuisance within the meaning of Civil Code Sections

3479 and 3480, the San Francisco Housing, Building, and Health Codes at the Property.

124. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that as a direct and proximate result of the foregoing

acts and practices, Defendants have received or will receive income and other benefits, which they

would not have received if they had not engaged in the violations of Business and Professions Code

Section 17200 described in this Complaint.

125. Defendants have been able to unfairly compete with other automotive repair businesses

and lessors of residential units in the State of California by operating an unlicensed automotive repair

business and leasing illegal residential additions in violation of the California Civil Code, the San

Francisco Planning Code, the San Francisco Building Code, the San Francisco Housing Code, the

California Fire Code, the California Health and Safety Code, and the Business and Professions Code.

126. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law in that damages are insufficient to protect the

public from the present harm caused by the conditions described in this Complaint. Defendants will

continue to engage in unfair and unlawful business practices. Unless injunctive relief is granted to


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

enjoin Defendants’ unfair and unlawful business practices, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury and

damage.

127. Defendants are subject to civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation of the Business

and Professions Code for each act of unfair and unlawful competition, pursuant to Business and

Professions Code Section 17206 and an additional civil penalty of $2,500 for each violation that was

perpetrated against one or more elderly or disabled persons, pursuant to Business and Professions

Code Section 17206.1.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that:

1. Declare the Property a public nuisance and a per se public nuisance in violation of the

San Francisco Building, Housing and Health Codes and Civil Code Sections 3479 and 3480;

2. Declare that the Property is in a condition that substantially endangers the health and

safety of the occupants of the Property and the general public;

3. Order Defendants to abate the public nuisance and per se public nuisance at the

Property;

4. Order Defendants to cause the Property and all parts thereof to conform to law;

5. Order Defendants to pay relocation assistance to the lawful tenants of the Property, if

necessary, pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 17980.7(d)(3);

6. Grant Plaintiffs a lien upon the Property in the amount Plaintiffs expended pursuant to

authority and a judgment in that amount against Defendant, its successors and assigns;

7. Order Defendant to pay all abatement costs, pursuant to Building Code Section

102A.14 and 102A.17;

8. Order Defendants to pay civil penalties of $500 for each day any violation of the San

Francisco Building Code was committed or permitted to continue pursuant to San Francisco Building

Code Section 103A;


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

9. Order Defendants to pay civil penalties of $1000 for each day any violation of the San

Francisco Housing Code was committed or permitted to continue pursuant to San Francisco Housing

Code Section 204(c)(2);

10. Order Defendants not to claim any deduction with respect to state taxes for interest,

taxes, expenses, depreciation, or amortization paid or incurred with respect to the Property for the

taxable year of the initial Order or Notice to the present until all such Orders and Notices are abated,

pursuant to State Housing Law Section 17980.7(b)(1);

11. Award Plaintiffs recovery of their attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred to

secure safe housing at the Property, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17980.7(d)(1);

12. Declare that Defendants have engaged in unfair and unlawful business acts and

practices in violation of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-17210;

13. Enjoin Defendants and their successors in interest, by themselves or through their

agents, officers, managers, representatives, employees, and anyone acting on their behalf, from

operating, conducting, using, occupying, or in any way permitting the use of the Property in violation

of the Civil Code Sections 3479 and 3480, the State Housing Law, the San Francisco Building Code,

the San Francisco Housing Code or the San Francisco Planning Code, or otherwise engaging in the

unfair and unlawful business practices described in this Complaint, pursuant to Business and

Professions Code Section 17203-17204.

14. Enjoin Defendants from spending, transferring, encumbering, or removing from

California any money received from the Property or in payment for the unfair and unlawful acts

alleged in the Complaint;

15. Order Defendants to disgorge all profits obtained through its unfair and unlawful

business practices as described herein, pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17203;

16. Order Defendants to pay a civil penalty of $2,500 for each act of unfair and unlawful

competition, pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17206;


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

17. Order Defendants to pay an additional civil penalty of $2,500 for each act of unfair and

unlawful competition that was perpetrated against one or more elderly or disabled persons, pursuant to

Business and Professions Code Section 17206.1;

18. Order restitution of all money or property Defendants acquired as a result of their

unlawful business practices to former and present of occupants of the Property while Defendants

maintained the Property in violation of law, pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17203;

19. Award Plaintiffs recovery of their costs incurred herein, pursuant to Code of Civil

Procedure Section 1032;

20. Authorize Plaintiffs to record an Abstract of Judgment that constitutes a prior lien over

any lien that any Defendants in this case may hold on the Property; and

21. Grant such other and further relief as this Court should find just and proper.

Dated: December 6, 2012

DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney YVONNE R. MERÉ Chief Attorney CELIA W. LEE NICHOLAS S. COLLA Deputy City Attorneys

By: NICHOLAS S. COLLA Attorneys for Plaintiffs CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CCSF v. VASQUEZ

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

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

Exhibit Description

A Property Description for 1278 Thomas Avenue, San Francisco, California

B Department of Building Inspection Notice of Violation No. 200120414 dated August 28, 2001

C Department of Building Inspection Notice of Violation No. 200120414 dated November 20, 2001

D Department of Building Inspection Notice of Director’s Hearing No. 200120414 dated January 9, 2002

E Letter from Kathleen Aberegg to Raymond Berrios, Code Enforcement Division, dated January 23, 2002

F Department of Building Inspection Notice of Continued Director’s Hearing No. 200120414 dated January 24, 2002

G Department of Building Inspection Order of Abatement No. 8021-A dated February 24, 2002, Complaint No. 200120414, Declaration of Service dated February 24, 2002, Declaration of Posting dated February 28, 2002

H San Francisco Assessor-Recorder Cover Sheet recorded March 1, 2002, for Order of Abatement – Order #8021-A

I Department of Building Inspection Notice of Violation No. 200453122 dated August 31, 2004

J Department of Building Inspection Notice of Violation No. 200453122 dated October 12, 2004

K Department of Building Inspection Notice of Director’s Hearing No. 200453122 dated January 8, 2007, Declaration of Service dated January 9, 2007, Declaration of Posting dated January 11, 2007

L Department of Building Inspection Order of Abatement No. 102164-A dated January 30, 2007, Complaint 200453122, Declaration of Service dated January 30, 2007, Declaration of Posting dated February 16, 2007

M San Francisco Assessor-Recorder Cover Sheet recorded February 8, 2007, for Order of Abatement – Order #102164-A

N Department of Building Inspection Notice of Violation No. 200455083, dated November 8, 2004

O Department of Building Inspection Notice of Violation No. 200455083, dated November 24, 2004


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

P Department of Building Inspection Notice of Director’s Hearing No. 200455083, dated December 6, 2004, Declaration of Service dated December 7, 2004, Declaration of Posting dated December 7, 2004

Q Department of Building Inspection Order of Abatement No. 9767-A dated January 12, 2005, Complaint 200455083, Declaration of Service dated January 14, 2005, Declaration of Posting dated January 18, 2005

R San Francisco Assessor-Recorder Cover Sheet recorded January 18, 2005, for Order of Abatement – Order #9767-A

S Department of Building Inspection Notice of Violation No. 200455038 dated November 17, 2004

T Department of Building Inspection Notice To Abate Plumbing Nuisance dated January 18, 2005, Complaint #200455038

U Department of Building Inspection-Final Notice-Notice to Abate Plumbing Nuisance dated March 14, 2005, Complaint #200455038

V Department of Building Inspection Notice of Violation No. 200455038 dated March 24, 2005

W Department of Building Inspection Notice of Director’s Hearing No. 200455038 dated April 30, 2012, Declaration of Service dated May 1, 2012, Declaration of Posting dated May 2, 2012

X Department of Building Inspection Notice of Continued Director’s Hearing dated June 7, 2012

Y Department of Building Inspection Order of Abatement No. 104631-A dated August 27, 2012, Complaint No. 200455038, Declaration of Service dated August 28, 2012, Declaration of Posting dated August 29, 2012

Z San Francisco Assessor-Recorder Cover Sheet recorded October 1, 2012, for Order of Abatement-Order #104631-A

AA Department of Building Inspection Notice of Violation No. 200669380 dated May 5, 2006

BB Department of Building Inspection Notice of Director’s Hearing No. 200669380 dated June 13, 2006, Declaration of Service dated June 14, 2006, Declaration of Posting dated June 14, 2006

CC Department of Building Inspection Order of Abatement No. 200669380-A issued July 3, 2006, Declaration of Service dated July 5, 2006, Declaration of Posting dated July 11, 2006

DD San Francisco Assessor-Recorder’s Cover Sheet recorded August 11, 2006, for Order of Abatement, Notice of Violation No. 200669380 DC1

EE Department of Building Inspection Notice of Violation No. 200669573 dated May 9, 2006


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

FF Department of Building Inspection Notice of Violation No. 200669573 dated June 12, 2006

GG Department of Building Inspection Notice of Director’s Hearing No. 200669573 dated January 8, 2007, Declaration of Service dated January 9, 2007, Declaration of Posting dated January 11, 2007

HH Department of Building Inspection Order of Abatement No. 102163-A dated January 29, 2007, Complaint 200669573, Declaration of Service dated January 29, 2007, Declaration of Posting dated February 16, 2007

II San Francisco Assessor-Recorder Cover Sheet recorded February 8, 2007, for Order of Abatement-Order #102163-A

JJ Department of Building Inspection Notice of Violation No. 201252561 dated August 1, 2012

KK Department of Building Inspection Notice of Director’s Hearing No. 201252561 dated September 12, 2012, Declaration of Service dated September 12, 2012, Declaration of Posting dated September 13, 2012

LL Department of Building Inspection Order of Abatement – Order No. 201252561 dated September 27, 2012, Complaint 201252561, Declaration of Service dated October 31, 2012, Declaration of Posting dated October 31, 2012

MM Department of Building Inspection Notice of Violation No. 201254741 dated August 6, 2012

NN Department of Building Inspection Notice of Director’s Hearing No. 201254741, dated September 5, 2012, Declaration of Service dated September 5, 2012, Declaration of Posting dated September 7, 2012

OO Department of Building Inspection Order of Abatement – Order No. 201254741 dated September 20, 2012, Declaration of Service dated October 31, 2012, Declaration of Posting dated October 31, 2012

PP Department of Building Inspection Notice of Violation No. 201255265 dated August 6, 2012

QQ Department of Building Inspection Notice of Director’s Hearing No. 201255265 dated September 12, 2012, Declaration of Service dated September 12, 2012, Declaration of Posting dated September 13, 2012

RR Department of Building Inspection Order of Abatement – Order No. 201255265 dated September 27, 2012, Declaration of Service Dated October 30, 2012, Declaration of Posting dated October 31, 2012


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

EXHIBIT A

Property Address:

1266-1278 Thomas Avenue

All that certain real property situated within the City and County of San Francisco, State of

California, described as follows:

BEGINNING at a point on the northeasterly line of Thomas Avenue, distant thereon 100 feet southeasterly from the southeasterly line of Ingalls Street; running thence southeasterly along said line of Thomas Avenue 100 feet; thence at a right angle northeasterly 100 feet; thence at a right angle northwesterly 100 feet; and thence at a right angle southwesterly 100 feet to the point of beginning. Being a portion of Block No. 390, South San Francisco Homestead and Railroad Association. Assessor's Parcel No: Lots 14, 15, 16; Block 4792

News ReleaseComplaintExhibits

Documents

C A D HERRERA NEWS RELEASE · HERRERA, City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, Plaintiffs, vs. RAUL AMILCAR VASQUEZ, individually and d/b/a Brother’s Auto Body Shop,