People Ex Rel. Gallo v. Acuna

14 Cal.4th 1090 (1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A group of people, 48 declarants in all, submitted declarations to the City of San Jose in support of a plea for injunctive relief. Their section of San Jose had basically been taken over by two different gangs, and their neighborhood was run by gang members. The declarants were prisoners in their own homes and were living in a nightmare of crime and pestilence. The City asserted that the named defendants and others for more than 12 months precedent occupied and used this area known as Rocksprings in such a manner so as to constitute a public nuisance. The complaint alleged the usual requisites for equitable relief; the prospect of great and irreparable injury and the absence of a plain and adequate and speedy remedy at law. The complaint prayed for a broad and comprehensive injunction against Ds’ alleged activities in Rocksprings. The superior court granted an ex parte temporary restraining order enjoining all 38 defendants named in the complaint and then issued an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be entered. Five of the defendants appeared, and following a hearing, the superior court entered a preliminary injunction against the 33 who had not appeared and left the TRO in force as to the five who had appeared. Eleven of the named defendants moved to vacate the injunctions. After the matter was briefed and argued the superior court entered a preliminary injunction. The decree consisted of 24 paragraphs and was the subject of an interlocutory appeal by 11 defendants. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the superior court and upheld only the injunction of acts defined as crimes under specific provisions of the Penal Code. The Court of Appeals also determined that many of the provisions were void and unenforceable under the First and Fifth Amendments of the federal Constitution as either vague or overbroad. The City’s petition sought review of only two provisions, paragraphs (a) and (k). The California Supreme Court granted the petition.