Huntington Park Club Corp. v. County of Los Angeles

Good Law
1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 1111·206 Cal. App. 3d 241·253 Cal. Rptr. 408
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 29, 1988Docket Nos. B033071, B032775California3,076 words

Opinion

Opinion

Danielson, J.

The County of Los Angeles (the County) appeals from a judgment granting declaratory relief and permanent injunction in favor of Huntington Park Club Corporation (Huntington Park Club), Bell Gardens Bicycle Club (Bell Gardens Club), California Bell Club (California Bell), The Anthony Company, dba The Normandie Club, The El Dorado Club, and The Horseshoe Club, aka “Gardena Card Clubs”, (Anthony) (collectively, plaintiffs), and a permanent injunction restraining and enjoining the County from preventing or otherwise interfering with the playing of the game commonly known as pai gow in plaintiffs’ gaming establishments.

We reverse the judgment.

Issues Presented

The principal issue is whether the term “percentage game” in Penal Code section 330 (section 330) is unconstitutionally ambiguous or vague. In resolving that issue we must also determine the definition of percentage game. Our remaining inquiry is whether pai gow, as played in plaintiffs’ gaming establishments, violates the proscription in section 330 against banking games or percentage games.

Factual and Procedural Statement

In August 1984, the City of Huntington Park enacted an ordinance which authorized plaintiff…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.