(a)(1)Every building or place used for the purpose of illegal gambling as defined by state law or local ordinance, lewdness, assignation, or prostitution, and every building or place in or upon which acts of illegal gambling as defined by state law or local ordinance, lewdness, assignation, or prostitution, are held or occur, is a nuisance which shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented, and for which damages may be recovered, whether it is a public or private nuisance.
(2)Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to apply the definition of a nuisance to a private residence where illegal gambling is conducted on
an intermittent basis and without the purpose of producing profit for the owner or occupier of the premises.
(b)(1)Notwithstanding any other law, every building or place used for the purpose of human trafficking, and every building or place in or upon which acts of human trafficking are held or occur, is a nuisance which shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented, and for which damages may be recovered, whether it is a public or private nuisance.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, human trafficking is defined in Section 236.1.
(c)(1)Every building or place used as a bathhouse which as a primary activity encourages or permits conduct that according to the guidelines
of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can transmit AIDS, including, but not limited to, anal intercourse, oral copulation, or vaginal intercourse, is a nuisance which shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented, and for which damages may be recovered, whether it is a public or private nuisance.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, a “bathhouse” means a business which, as its primary purpose, provides facilities for a spa, whirlpool, communal bath, sauna, steam bath, mineral bath, mud bath, or facilities for swimming.
Notes of Decisions
People v. Pac. Landmark, 129 Cal. App. 4th 1203 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “INTRODUCTION The City of Los Angeles and the People of the State of California (collectively, the City) brought a red light abatement action (Pen. Code, § 11225) against the operators of a business and the owners of the strip mall where the business was located.”
People Ex Rel. Hicks v. Sarong Gals, 42 Cal. App. 3d 556 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 6× “414 ], where we held that the Red Light Abatement Law (Pen. Code, § 11225 et seq.) [1] may be used to abate continuing acts of lewdness sans evidence of prostitution and that the entertainment described in the instant case is lewd and not afforded the protection of freedom of…”
City of Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio Investments, 214 Cal. App. 4th 358 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
“FACTS Complaint In April 2011, the City and the State of California filed an action for injunctive relief to abate a public nuisance pursuant to Civil Code sections 3494, 3496, 3479, and 3480, as well as Code of Civil Procedure section 731, Penal Code section 11225 et seq., and…”
Lozada v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 145 Cal. App. 4th 1139 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
“The in rem remedies provided by the statute for abatement of a nuisance did not authorize the court to award money damages personally against the property owners to punish for past acts where the particular nuisance had been abated.”
People Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Am. Art Enter., Inc., 656 P.2d 1170 (Cal. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Although a monetary sanction is not specifically authorized by the Red Light Abatement Law (Pen. Code, § 11225 et seq.; hereafter the act), in my judgment imposition of such a sanction in lieu of closure or injunction was well within the equitable power of the court under…”
People v. Bhakta, 135 Cal. App. 4th 631 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 9, 2004, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office brought an action against appellants on behalf of the People of the State of California (respondent) under the “Red Light Abatement Law” (Pen. Code, § 11225 et seq.) and the unfair competition law (Bus.”
Mitchell v. Superior Court, 783 P.2d 731 (Cal. 1989).
“The Red Light Abatement Law (hereafter RLAL) (Pen. Code, § 11225 et seq.) [1] provides for injunctions to abate nuisances on premises where prostitution and lewdness occur.”
People Ex Rel. City of Santa Monica v. Gabriel, 186 Cal. App. 4th 882 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
“There, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office brought a successful action against landlords on behalf of the People of the State of California under UCL and the “Red Light Abatement Law,” Penal Code section 11225 et seq. The trial court awarded attorney fees pursuant to Civil…”
Marsland v. Pang, 701 P.2d 175 (Haw. App. 1985).
“, Cal. Penal Code §§ 11225 - 11235 (West 1982 & Supp.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.