..

1 DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney, .
2 YVONNE MERE, State Bar #173594
Chief Attorney
3 Neighborhood and Resident Safety Division
JENNIFER E. CHOI, State Bar #184058
4 JERRY THREET, State Bar #205983
Deputy City Attorneys
5 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-5408
6 Telephone: (415) 554-3887
Facsimile: (415) 437-4644
7 E-Mail: jennifer.choi@sfgov.org
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9 and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
13 -7 I: II
10
11
12
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
14 FRANCISCO, a Municipal Corporation, and
the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
15 CALIFORNIA, by and through Dennis J.
Herrera, City Attorney for the City and County
16 of San Francisco,
17 Plaintiffs,
18 vs.
19 THOMAS LACEY, an individual and DBA
NET STOP BUSINESS CENTER, EMILY T.
20 FARRAH, as Trustee of the FARRAH
FAMILY TRUST, JOSEPH A. FARRAH, as
21 Trustee of the FARRAH FAMILY TRUST
and as Trustee of the JOSEPH FARRAH
22 FAMILY TRUST, NICHOLAS J. FARRAH,
as Trustee of the JOSEPH FARRAH FAMILY
23 TRUST, MICHAEL R. FARRAH, SR., an
individual, STANLEY G. BEAINY, as Trustee
24 of the EDWARD G. FARRAH TRUST FIBIO
DEAN FARRAH, DATED JUNE 15,1989,
25 GIBRAN FARRAH, as Trustee of the
GIBRAN FARRAH REVOCABLE TRUST
26 UADATEDAUGUST26, 1997,DOE 1
through DOE 50,
27
Defendants.
____________________________
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND
DECLARATORY RELIEF AND PENALTIES
Type of Complaint [42]
1
COMPLAINT, CCSF v. THOMAS LACEY DBA NET STOP n:lcode enforcelsharedlnet stoplcomplaint - finall10613.doc
1 The CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, and the PEOPLE
2 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through San Francisco City Attorney DENNIS J.
3 HERRERA (collectively "Plaintiffs"), file their Complaint against Defendants THOMAS LACEY, an
4 individual and d/b/a NET STOP BUSINESS CENTER; EMILY T. FARRAH, as Trustee of the
5 FARRAH FAMILY TRUST; JOSEPH A. FARRAH, as Trustee of the FARRAH FAMILY TRUST
6 and as Trustee of the JOSEPH FARRAH FAMILY TRUST; NICHOLAS J. FARRAH, as Trustee of
7 the JOSEPH F ARRAH FAMILY TRUST; MICHAEL R. FARRAH, SR., an individual; STANLEY
8 G. BEAINY, as Trustee of the EDWARD G. FARRAH TRUST FIB/O DEAN FARRAH, DATED
9 JUNE 15, 1989; GIDRAN FARRAH, as Trustee of the GIBRAN FARRAH REVOCABLE TRUST
10 UA DATED AUGUST 26,1997; and DOE ONE through DOE FIFTY (collectively "Defendants").
11
12
13
Plaintiffs hereby allege as set forth below:
INTRODUCTION
1. This action arises out of the illegal gambling occurring at Net Stop Business Center, a
14 commercial business located at 4458 Mission Street, San Francisco, California ("NET STOP").
15 Although NET STOP promotes itself public ally as a legal internet cafe, providing onsite office
16 services and computer rental, NET STOP and its owner and manager THOMAS LACEY also operate
17 an illegal gambling business at the same location. The other Defendants collectively own the real
18 property at that location and lease it to NET STOP. Despite requests, those Defendants have failed to
19 take any steps to prevent NET STOP and THOMAS LACEY from operating an illegal gambling
20 business on their property.
21 2. Since NET STOP'S opening and start up of its illegal gambling business in or around
22 the Fall of2012, criminal and nuisance activity has dramatically increased in the surrounding area,
23 necessitating constant police intervention and adversely affecting the neighborhood so as to interfere
24 with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property in an entire community.
25 3. By allowing illegal gambling to occur at NET STOP, Defendants have maintained NET
26 STOP as a public nuisance, in violation of the Penal Code sections 11225-11235 ("Red Light
27 Abatement Law") and Civil Code sections 3479-3480.
28
2
COMPLAINT, CCSF v. THOMAS LACEY DBA NET STOP n:lcode enforcelsharedlnet stoplcomplaint - finall10613.doc
1 4. By operating, and/or allowing the operation of, NET STOP in repeated violation of
2 applicable state and local laws and as a public nuisance, and by misleading the public that NET STOP
3 is solely a legal business center when, in fact, it is also an illegal gambling establishment, Defendants
4 have also demonstrated a pattern and practice of, engaging in unfair and unlawful business practices in
5 violation of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Business and Professions Code sections 17200-
6 17210.
7 5. California's Gambling Control Act ("GCA"), Business and Professions Code sections
8 19800 et seq. was passed in 1997. Although gambling establishments have existed in California for
9 over 100 years, prior to 1984 the legal gambling industry was almost entirely unregulated; California
10 law outlawed certain forms of gambling and left other forms free of government oversight or
11 regulation.
12 6. With the passage of the GCA, the California Legislature recognized that "[u]nregulated
13 gambling enterprises are inimical to the public health, safety, welfare, and good order. Accordingly,
14 no person in this state has a right to operate a gambling enterprise except as may be expressly
15 permitted by the laws of this state and by the ordinances of local governmental bodies." Business and
16 Professions Code section 19801(d).
17 7. The GCA created a comprehensive scheme for statewide regulation of legal gambling.
18 "State law prohibits commercially operated lotteries, banked or percentage games, and gambling
19 machines, and strictly regulates parimutuel wagering on horse racing. To the extent that state law
20 categorically prohibits certain forms of gambling and prohibits gambling devices, nothing herein shall
21 be construed, in any manner, to reflect a legislative intent to relax those prohibitions." Business and
22 Professions Code section 19801(a).
23 8. The GCA created a Bureau of Gambling Control ("Bureau") and a Gambling Control
24 Commission ("Commission.") The Bureau's mission is to make sure that "gambling is conducted
25 honestly, competitively and free from criminal and corruptive elements," monitoring and inspecting
26 gaming operations and performing background checks on employees; State of California Department
27 of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Bureau of Gambling Control, http://oag.ca.gov/gambling.
28 The Commission is responsible for establishing minimum regulatory standards for the legal gambling
3
COMPLAINT, CCSF v. THOMAS LACEY DBA NET STOP n:lcode enforcelsharedlnet stoplcomplaint - finall10613.doc
1 industry.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
9. California has long recognized the adverse impact of gambling on individuals and
communities and has consequently restricted legal gambling to the California Lottery, "card rooms,"
casinos operated by Native American tribes, and race tracks. State law and many local ordinances
make virtually all other forms of gambling expressly illegal and provide local governments both civil
and criminal remedies to address the crime and nuisance created by illegal gambling operations. See
California Penal Code Chapter 10, Sections 330-337 et seq. and 11225-11235; San Francisco
Municipal Police Code, Sections 325-327.
PARTIES AND SUBJECT PROPERTY
10. Plaintiff CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (the "CITY") is a municipal
11 corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, and is a
12 city and county.
13 11. The CITY brings this action under California Civil Code Sections 3479, 3480, 3491,
14 3494 and California Code of Civil Procedure Section 731.
15
12. Plaintiff PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (the "PEOPLE"), by and
16 through Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, bring this action
17 pursuant to the Red Light Abatement Law, the Unfair Competition Law, Civil Code Sections 3479,
18 3480,3491,3494, and Code of Civil Procedure Section 731.
19
13. Defendant THOMAS LACEY ("LACEY") is an individual who owns and manages
20 NET STOP, a commercial business located at 4458 Mission Street, in the City and County of San
21 Francisco. NET STOP purports to be a legal internet cafe that provides office services and computer
22 rental on site, but, in actuality, LACEY and NET STOP also operate an illegal gambling business at
23 the same location. LACEY is the commercial tenant of the property located at 4456-4465 Mission
24 Street, San Francisco, California, San Francisco Assessor's Block 6796, Lot 051. Actions taken, or
25 omissions made, by NET STOP'S employees or agents in the course of their employment or agency at
26 NET STOP are considered to be actions or omissions of LACEY'S for the purposes of this Complaint.
27
14. Defendant EMILY T. FARRAH is a Trustee of the FARRAH FAMILY TRUST which
28 owns a 16.6667% interest in the property located at 4456-4465 Mission Street, San Francisco,
4
COMPLAINT, CCSF v. THOMAS LACEY DBA NET STOP n:lcode enforcelsharedlnet stoplcomplaint - finall10613.doc
1 California, San Francisco Assessor's Block 6796, Lot 051. The property includes the commercial
2 space occupied by NET STOP at 4458 Mission Street.
3 15. Defendant JOSEPH A. FARRAH is a Trustee of the JOSEPH FARRAH FAMILY
4 TRUST which owns a 25% interest in the property located at 4456-4465 Mission Street, San
5 Francisco, California, San Francisco Assessor's Block 6796, Lot 051. Defendant JOSEPH A.
6 FARRAH is also a Trustee of the FARRAH FAMILY TRUST, which owns a 16.6667% interest in the
7 property located at 4456-4465 Mission Street, San Francisco, California, San Francisco Assessor's
8 Block 6796, Lot 051. The property includes the commercial space occupied by NET STOP at 4458
9 Mission Street.
10 16. Defendant NICHOLAS J. FARRAH is a Trustee of the JOSEPH FARRAH FAMILY
11 TRUST, which owns a 25% interest in the property located at 4456-4465 Mission Street, San
12 Francisco, California, San Francisco Assessor's Block 6796, Lot 051. The property includes the
13 commercial space occupied by NET STOP at 4458 Mission Street.
14 17. Defendant MICHAEL R. FARRAH, SR. is an individual who owns a 41.6667%
15 interest in the property located at 4456-4465 Mission Street, San Francisco, California, San Francisco
16 Assessor's Block 6796, Lot 051. The property includes the commercial space occupied by NET STOP
17 at 4458 Mission Street.
18 18. Defendant STANLEY G. BEAINY is a Trustee of the EDWARD G. FARRAH TRUST
19 FIBIO DEAN FARRAH, DATED JUNE 15, 1989, which owns a 8.333% interest in the property
20 located at 4456-4465 Mission Street, San Francisco, California, San Francisco Assessor's Block 6796,
21 Lot 051. The property includes the commercial space occupied by NET STOP at 4458 Mission Street.
22 19. Defendant GIBRAN FARRAH is a Trustee of the GIBRAN FARRAH REVOCABLE
23 TRUST UA DATED AUGUST 26, 1997, which owns a 8.333% interest in the property located at
24 4456-4465 Mission Street, San Francisco, California, San Francisco Assessor's Block 6796, Lot 051.
25 The property includes the commercial space occupied by NET STOP at 4458 Mission Street.
26 20. Defendants DOE ONE through DOE FIFTY are sued herein under fictitious names.
27 Plaintiffs do not at this time know the true names or capacities of said defendants, but pray that the
28 same may be alleged herein when ascertained.
5
COMPLAINT, CCSF v. THOMAS LACEY DBA NET STOP n:\code enforce\shared\net stop\complaint - final 110613.doc
1
2 21.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
NET STOP is a commercial business located on the ground floor of 4458 Mission
3 Street, San Francisco, California, on a busy commercial street in the Excelsior district of San
4 Francisco. LACEY owns and operates NET STOP which opened in and around the Fall of2012.
5 LACEY leases the commercial space from the owners of the property, the FARRAH FAMILY
6 TRUST, the JOSEPH FARRAH F AMIL Y TRUST, MICHAEL R. FARRAH, SR., the EDWARD G.
7 FARRAH TRUST FIBIO DEAN FARRAH, DATED JUNE 16, 1989, and the GIBRAN FARRAH
8 REVOCABLE TRUST UA DATED AUGUST 26, 1997. Defendants EMILY T. FARRAH, JOSEPH
9 FARRAH, NICHOLAS FARRAH, STANLEY G. BEAINY, GIBRAN FARRAH, sued in their
10 capacity as Trustees of one or more of the aforementioned Trusts, and Defendant MICHAEL R.
11 FARRAH, SR. sued as an individual owner, are jointly referred to as the "FARRAH Defendants."
12 22. NET STOP purports to be a legal business that provides office services and computer
13 rental. It maintains over 50 computer terminals on site at 4458 Mission Street. NET STOP provides
14 word processing programs, email and internet access on its computer terminals for $5.00 an hour.
15 Customers wishing to use these services are directed to the second of two window counters at the back
16 of NET STOP. A NET STOP employee accompanies the customer to the particular computer terminal
17 chosen by the customer, and the employee enters a password for the customer to access the computer's
18 servIces.
19 23. NET STOP and its owner and manager LACEY also operate an illegal gambling
20 business at the same location. Customers frequent NET STOP to pay to play electronic, computerized
21 slot machines for a chance to win cash and, when they win, to collect the winnings on site. A
22 customer wishing to play electronic slot machines approaches an employee at the fIrst of the two
23 window counters at the back of NET STOP. The customer makes it known that he or she is looking to
24 "play" or gamble. The employee asks the customer for identifIcation, and then opens an account for
25 the customer. Once an account is created, the employee asks the customer to create a numerical
26 password for the account. The customer then tenders cash to purchase "points". For example, 2500
27 points can be purchased for $20.00. Those "points" are used as monies or credits to gamble.
28
6
COMPLAINT, CCSF v. THOMAS LACEY DBA NET STOP n:lcode enforcelsharedlnet stoplcomplaint - finall10613.doc
1 24. The customer then chooses a computer terminal, punches in their password, and selects
2 one of several slot machine games available on the computer. Once a game is chosen, the points
3 purchased by the customer are displayed in a box marked "Total Points" at the bottom of the screen
4 within the game. The customer then uses the points for turns on the slot machine. There are minimum
5 and maximum numbers of points that can be used for each turn.
6
25. Like a non computerized slot machine, winning the computerized game at NET STOP
7 yields cash. Accumulated winnings are displayed as cash amounts in a box marked "Total Win"
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
within the game. The following is a screen shot of one of NET STOP'S computerized slot machine
games:
26. Customers who win can cash out their winnings at any time onsite at NET STOP by
24 approaching a window counter and providing the password for their particular account.
25
27. NET STOP's gambling operation is illegal under Penal Code section 330b, which
26 makes it unlawful for businesses to operate, and property owners to allow the operation of, slot
27 machines, which it defines as follows:
28
7
COMPLAINT, CCSF v. THOMAS LACEY DBA NET STOP n:lcode enforcelsharedlnet stoplcomplaint - finall10613.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 28.
[A] machine, apparatus, or device that is adapted, ormay readily be
converted, for use in a way that, as a result of the insertion of any piece
of money or coin or other object, or by any other means, the machine or
device is caused to operate or may be operated, and by reason of any
element of hazard or chance or of other outcome of operation
unpredictable by him or her, the user may receive or become entitled to
receive any piece of money, credit, allowance, or thing of value, or
additional chance or right to use the slot machine or device, or any
check, slug, token, or memorandum, whether of value or otherwise,
which may be exchanged for any money, credit, allowance, or thing of
value, or which may be given in trade, irrespective of whether it may,
apart from any element of hazard or chance or unpredictable outcome of
operation, also sell, deliver, or present some merchandise, indication of
weight, entertainment, or other thing of value.
NET STOP's gambling operation also violates San Francisco Municipal Police Code
9 section 325, which provides:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
29.
It shall be unlawful for any person, either as owner, lessee, agent,
employee, mortgagee or otherwise to operate, keep, maintain, rent, use
or conduct, within the City and County of San Francisco, any clock,
tape, slot or card machine, or any other machine, contrivance or device
upon which money is staked or hazarded upon chance or into which
money is paid, deposited, or played, upon chance or upon result of the
action of which money or any other article or thing of value is staked,
bet, hazarded, won or lost upon chance.
NET STOP is open 24 hours a day on Thursdays through Sundays, and closes at 2:00
17 a.m. on Mondays through Wednesdays.
18
30. NET STOP is located on a vibrant artery in San Francisco's Excelsior neighborhood.
19 As illustrated by the Google map below, there are many neighborhood and community resources
20 located within a few blocks of NET STOP. Right next door to NET STOP is the Excelsior
21 Community Center which provides a wide array of community services including afterschool and
22 summer programs to neighborhood teens and charitable food programs to seniors. The Excelsior
23 Branch of the San Francisco Public Library is located within a block of NET STOP and the Boys and
24 Girls Club within two blocks. There are three schools located within four blocks of NET STOP: the
25 Mission Preparatory School, the San Francisco Community Alternative School, and Monroe
26 Elementary School. The Excelsior Child Development Center and the Jewish Home of San Francisco
27 are both located within blocks of NET STOP.
28
8
COMPLAINT, CCSF v. THOMAS LACEY DBA NET STOP n:lcode enforcelsharedlnet stop\complaint - final II0613.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

G
'.
- r'
nwVlP -..:."'"

Traffic
...
l
J
.....
MlctdWICOt300ag11. &It.OoIgIit........
10
31. Since NET STOP opened in the Fall of2012, criminal and nuisance activity has
11 significantly increased in the area, necessitating constant' police intervention and adversely affecting
12 the surrounding neighborhood. The neighborhood has experienced a rising number of assaults, thefts,
13 burglaries, and arrests of NET STOP customers wanted on outstanding warrants. Defendants'
14 maintenance of NET STOP has interfered.with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property in the
15 surrounding community. Its continued operation is a public nuisance that threatens the health and
16 safety of the neighborhood.
17
32. The increase in criminal and nuisance activity is reflected in the number of calls made
18 to the San Francisco Police Department ("SFPD") about NET STOP or its customers. As noted above,
19 NET STOP opened in, or about, the Fall of2012. For the one year period from November 2011
20 through October 2012, the SFPD received two calls concerning activity in the vicinity of 4458 Mission
21 Street. From November 2012 through October 2013, the year after NET STOP opened, the SFPD
22 responded to two hundred and two (202) calls related to 4458 Mission Street. The problems generated
23 by customers of NET STOP's illegal gambling operation require constant police attention, diverting
24 valuable law enforcement resources that could be devoted to other areas.
25
33. The FARRAH Defendants have been notified, and are aware, of the illegal gambling
26 that occurs at the property they have leased to NET STOP. They havealso been notified of the public
27 nuisance generated by their tenant's illegal operations. The FARRAH Defendants have failed to take
28 reasonable steps to stop their tenant's illegal operations.
9
COMPLAINT, CCSF v. THOMAS LACEY DBA NET STOP n:lcode enforcelsharedlnet stoplcomplaint - final 110613.doc
1
2
3
4
5
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR VIOLATION OF THE RED LIGHT ABATEMENT ACT BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFFS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
(penal Code Sections 11225 -11235)
34. Plaintiffs PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and the CITY AND COUNTY
6 OF SAN FRANCISCO hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 33 above, as though
7 fully set forth herein.
8 35. From the Fall of2012 through the present, Defendants have operated, and/or permitted
9 the operation of, an illegal gambling establishment at 4458 Mission Street by providing "machine[s] or
10 device[ s]" that "may be operated, and by reason of ... hazard or chance or of other outcome of
11 operation unpredictable by [the user], the user may receive or become entitled to receive ... [an]
12 additional chance or right to use the slot machine or device" or a "token, or memorandum ... which
13 may be exchanged for any money, credit, allowance, or thing of value." Penal Code section 330b(d).
14 By providing, and/or 'permitting the continued used of, these machines or devices, Defendants have
15 violated and continue to violate Penal Code section 330b(d) and San Francisco Municipal Police Code
16 sections 325-327. This illegal gambling operation constitutes a nuisance as a matter oflaw under
17 Penal Code section 11225.
18 36. Pursuant to Penal Code section 11230, Plaintiffs request that the Court order the closure
19 of NET STOP for one year and impose civil penalties of $25,000.00 against each Defendant to prevent
20 Defendants from continuing to maintain, or permit, a nuisance at the property.
21 37. Unless said nuisance is abated, the surrounding community and neighborhood, and the
22 residents and citizens of the City and County of San Francisco and the People of California will suffer
23 irreparable injury and damage, in that said conditions will continue to be dangerous to the life, safety
24 or health of those who live and work near NET STOP and the general public.
25 38. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law in that damages alone are insufficient to
26 protect the public from the present injury and harm caused by the conduct described above.
27
28
10
COMPLAINT, CCSF v. THOMAS LACEY DBA NET STOP n:lcode enforcelsharedlnet stoplcomplaint - final 110613.doc
1
2
3
4
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.)
39. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 38 above, as though
5 fully set forth herein.
6 40. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 731 and Civil
7 Code Section 3494.
8 41. By maintaining and/or permitting the above described injurious, illegal, annoying and
9 disruptive activities to occur and exist at NET STOP, Defendants have caused and maintained, and/or
10 permitted the maintenance of, a continuing public nuisance within the meaning of California Civil
11 Code Section 3479 and 3480. These activities are injurious to health and offensive to the senses so as
12 to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment oflife or property in an entire community or
13 neighborhood.
14 42. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants had notice and knowledge that NET STOP
15 constituted a public nuisance.
16 43. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law in that damages are insufficient to protect the
17 public from the present danger and harm caused by the conditions described above.
18 44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants will continue to maintain, or permit
19 NET STOP to be maintained, in the above-described condition as a public nuisance.
20 45. Unless said nuisance is abated, the surrounding community and neighborhood, and the
21 residents and citizens of the City and County of San Francisco, will suffer irreparable injury and
22 damage, in that said conditions will continue to be injurious to the enjoyment and the free use of the
23 life and property of said citizens and residents of the City and County of San Francisco.
24
25
26
27
28
11
COMPLAINT, CCSF v. THOMAS LACEY DBA NET STOP n:lcode enforcelsharedlnet stoplcomplaint - final II 0613.doc
1
2
3
4
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR UNLAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
(California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-17210)
46. Plaintiff, the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, hereby incorporates by
5 reference paragraphs 1 through 45 above, as though fully set forth herein.
6
47. The PEOPLE bring this cause of action in the public interest in the name of the
7 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections
8 17200 through 17210, in order to protect the residents and owners of properties adjoining NET STOP,
9 as well as consumers and competitors of the services provided by Defendants, from the unlawful
10 business practices committed by Defendants in the operation of NET STOP within the City and
11 County of San Francisco, State of California.
12 48. The violations of law described herein have been, and are being, carried out wholly or
13 in part within the City and County of San Francisco. The actions of Defendants are in violation of the
14 laws and public policies of the City and County of San Francisco and the State of California, and are
15 inimical to the rights and interest of the general public.
16 49. Defendants are now engaging in and, for a considerable period of time and at all times
17 pertinent to the allegations of this Complaint, have engaged in, unlawful business practices prohibited
18 by California's Unfair Competition Law by managing and operating, and/or allowing the management
19 and operation of, NET STOP in violation of the following laws:
20 Penal Code sections 11225-11235 by allowing illegal gambling to occur at NET STOP;
21 Penal Code section 33 Ob by permitting the operation of slot machines or devices (as
22 defined in Penal Code section 330b(d) at NET STOP;
23 Civil Code sections 3479 and 3480 by maintaining, and/or allowing the maintenance of,
24 a public nuisance at NET STOP; and
25
26
27
28
San Francisco Municipal Police Code sections 325-327 by operating and/or keeping
slot machines or their equivalent at NET STOP.
12
COMPLAINT, CCSF v. THOMAS LACEY DBA NET STOP n:lcode enforcelsharedlnet stoplcompiaint finall10613.doc
1 50. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and practices, Defendants have
2 received income, profits, and other benefits, which they would not have received if Defendants had not
3 engaged in the violations of the Unfair Competition Law described in this Complaint.
4 51. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and practices, Defendants have
5 obtained a competitive unfair advantage over similar businesses that have not engaged in such
6 practices.
7 52. The PEOPLE have no adequate remedy at law in that damages are insufficient to
8 protect the public from the harm caused by the conditions described in this Complaint.
9
53. Unless injunctive relief is granted to enjoin the unlawful business practices of
10 Defendants, the PEOPLE will suffer irreparable injury and damage.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
54. By engaging in unlawful business practices described herein, Defendants are each
subject to civil penalties in the amount of $2,500.00 per violation, pursuant to Business and
Professions Code section 17206.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
(California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-17210)
55. Plaintiff, the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, hereby incorporates by
18 reference paragraphs 1 through 54 above, as though fully set forth herein.
19 56. The PEOPLE bring this cause of action in the public interest in the name of the
20 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections
21 17200-17210, in order to protect the residents and owners of properties adjoining NET STOP, as
22 consumers and competitors of the services provided by Defendants, from the unfair business practices
23 committed by Defendants in the operation of NET STOP within the City and County of San Francisco,
24 State of California.
25 57. The acts and violations of law described herein have been, and are, being carried out
26 wholly or in part within the City and County of San Francisco. Defendants' actions, as set forth in this
27 complaint, constitute unfair business practices because they offend the established public policies of
28 the City and County of San Francisco and the State of California, are inimical to the rights and
13
COMPLAINT, CCSF v. THOMAS LACEY DBA NET STOP n:lcode enforcelsharedlnet stoplcomplaint - final II0613.doc
1 interests of the general public, and cause harm that greatly outweighs any benefits associated with
2 those practices.
3 58. Defendants are now engaging in and, for a considerable period of time and at all times
4 pertinent to the allegations of this Complaint, have engaged in, unfair business practices prohibited by
5 California's Unfair Competition Law by purporting to be, anellor allowing NET STOP to represent
6 itself, as a legal internet cafe when, in fact, it also operates as an illegal gambling establishment.
7 59. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and practices, Defendants have
8 received income, profits, and other benefits, which they would not have received if Defendants had not
9 engaged in the violations of the Unfair Competition Law described in this Complaint.
10 60. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and practices, Defendants have
11 obtained a competitive unfair advantage over similar businesses that have not engaged in such
12 practices.
13 61. The PEOPLE have no adequate remedy at law in that damages are insufficient to
14 protect the public from the harm caused by the conditions described in this Complaint.
15 62. Unless injunctive relief is granted to enjoin the unfair business practices of Defendants,
16 the PEOPLE will suffer irreparable injury and damage.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
63. By engaging in unfair business practices described herein, Defendants are each subject
to civil penalties in the amount of $2,500.00 per violation, pursuant to California Business and
Professions Code Section 17206.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that:
Declaratory Relief
1. NET STOP be declared a public nuisance in violation of Civil Code sections 3479 and
24 3480 and Penal Code sections 11225-11235;
25 2. Defendants be declared to have engaged in unfair anellor unlawful business acts and
26 practices in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 17200-17210;
27 Injunctive Relief
28
14
COMPLAINT, CCSF v. THOMAS LACEY DBA NET STOP n:\code enforce\Shared\net stop\compiaint - final 110613.doc
1 3. The public nuisance be preliminarily and permanently abated in accordance with Civil
2 Code section 3480 et seq., Code of Civil Procedure section 731, and Penal Code sections 11225-
3 11235;
4
4. All movable property used in the maintenance of the public nuisance at NET STOP be
5 removed and sold, pursuant to Penal Code section 11230;
6
7
5.
6.
NET STOP be closed for one year, pursuant to Penal Code section 11230;
In the event the Court decides that any vacancy resulting from closure will be hannful
8 to the community, in lieu of closing NET STOP, each Defendant be ordered to pay damages in an
9 amount equal to the fair market rental value of the commercial space occupied by NET STOP for one
10 year, pursuant to Penal Code section 11230;
11 7. In the event that the Court does not order NET STOP closed, all Defendants, their
12 agents, officers, lessees, managers, representatives, employees, and anyone acting on their behalf, and
13 their heirs and assignees be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from operating, conducting, using,
14 occupying, or in any way permitting the use of NET STOP as a public nuisance pursuant to Civil Code
15 section 3480 and Penal Code sections 11225-11235;
16 8. Defendants be enjoined and restrained from occupying or operating, and/or allowing
17 the occupation or operation of, NET STOP while the conditions described in this Complaint exist and
18 until all of the violations at NET STOP have been abated;
19 9. Defendants be ordered to cause NET STOP to conform to law, and maintain such
20 structures and all parts thereof in accordance with law;
21 10. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code sections 17203-17204,
22 Defendants, their agents, officers, lessees, managers, representatives, employees, and anyone acting on
23 their behalf, and their heirs, successors, and assignees be enjoined from operating, conducting, using,
24 occupying, or in any way permitting the use of NET STOP in the unfair and unlawful business
25 practices described in this Complaint;
26 11. Defendants, and each of them, inclusive, be enjoined from spending, transferring,
27 encumbering, or removing from California any money received from NET STOP or in payment for the
28 unfair and unlawful acts alleged in the Complaint;
15
COMPLAINT, CCSF v. THOMAS LACEY DBA NET STOP n:\code enforce\sharedlnet stop\compiaint - final II 0613.doc
Penalties
2 12. The Court impose civil penalties of $25,000.00 against each Defendant to prevent them
3 from continuing to maintain, and/or to allow the maintenance of, a nuisance at Net Stop, pursuant to
4 Penal Code section 11230;
5 13. Defendants be ordered to each pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 for each act of unfair
6 and/or unlawful competition, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17206;
7 Fees and Costs
8 14. Defendants be ordered to pay Plaintiffs' reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including
9 the cost of investigation and discovery, pursuant to Civil Code section 3496(b).
10 15. Plaintiffs be awarded their costs incurred herein pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
11 section 1032; and
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16. The Court grant such other and further relief as this Court should find just and proper.
Dated: II ( ::r / C3
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
YVONNE MERE
Chief Attorney
JENNIFER E. CHOI
JERRY THREET
Deputy City Ar2
B Y ~ ::'-= -----
JENNIFER E. CHOI
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
16
COMPLAINT, CCSF v. THOMAS LACEY DBA NET STOP
n:\code onforcolsharedlnet stoplcomplamt - tinall10613.doc