People v. Pacific Landmark

Good Law
129 Cal. App. 4th 1203·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 876·2005 Daily Journal DAR 6285·29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 193·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4598
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 31, 2005B171419California4,734 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aldrich, J.

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. The action alleged that the business was a front for prostitution and an illegal massage parlor. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the operation of a massage parlor or a house of prostitution. Pacific Landmark, LLC (Pacific), a limited liability company and owner of the property, and Ron Mavaddat, Pacific’s manager (collectively, appellants), appeal, contending that the preliminary injunction is moot because the offending business has vacated the premises, with the result there is no threat of future harm. Mavaddat also contends, as manager of Pacific, that he is exempt from personal liability for any order or judgment against Pacific. (Corp. Code, § 17158.) In the unpublished portion of this opinion (part I), we hold that there was no error in issuing the injunction. In the published portion (part II), we hold that managers of limited liability companies are not immune from personal…

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.