1 || DAVID A. LIVINGSTON, SBN 215754 County Counsel 2 || PAULA F. FRANTZ, SBN 125480 F ILED Deputy County Counsel 3 |) County of El Dorado 330 Fair Lane Nov 08 2021 4 || Placerville, CA 95667 COURT Telephone: (530) 621-5770 Ranurconess: ah a Attorney for Plaintiffs County of El Dorado 6 |] and The People of the State of California 7 || ANDREW T. CAULFIELD, SBN 238300 RICHARD H. CAULFIELD, SBN 50258 8 || CAULFIELD LAW FIRM 1101 Investment Bivd., Suite 120 9 |] El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 ‘Telephone: (916) 933-3200 10 || Facsimile: (916) 605-40" [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff County of El Dorado, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA: COUNTY OF EL DORADO -000- COUNTY OF EL DORADO, a political CaseNo. 2ICVO122 17 || subdivision of the State of California: and THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COMPLAINT FOR: 18 |} by and through David A. Livingston, County | | Counsel for County of El Dorado, 1, Violations of California Health and Safety 19 Code §§ 114381 and 11440: Plaintiffs, 2. Violation of County of El Dorado’s 20 Environmental Health Permit Ordinance, vs. Chapter 8.05 of the El Dorado County 21 Ordinance Code; JENNETTE H. WALDOW, an individual; 3._Publie Nuisance (Code of Civil Procedure 22 || JENNETTE H. WALDOW DBA APPLE $731): BISTRO; INTERNATIONAL FARMERS 23 || KITCHEN LLC, a California Limited Liability Company DBA APPLE BISTRO; THOMAS {Plaintiffs are exempt from filing fees under 24 || INMAN, an individual; DANETTE INMAN, an Gov. Code § 6103) individual; THOMAS INMAN and DANE 25 || INMAN DBA DANETTE’S BRICK OVEN, %6 PUB, and DOES 1 through 100, . Defendants. 27 Hi i Assigned to ‘ Judge Dylan Sullivan For all purposes Complaintee o: rey 10 iW 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs COUNTY OF EL DORADO and THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF| CALIFORNIA, by and through David A. Livingston, County Counsel for County of El Dorado (collectively, “Plaintiffs") hereby allege in their Complaint against Defendants JENNETTE H. WALDOW, an individual; JENNETTE H. WALDOW, doing business as APPLE BISTRO; INTERNATIONAL FARMERS KITCHEN LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, doing| business as APPLE BISTRO; THOMAS INMAN, an individual; DANETTE INMAN, an| individual; THOMAS INMAN and DANETTE INMAN doing business as DANETTE’S BRICK| OVEN PUB; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive (collectively, “Defendants” as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Pursuant to state law and local ordinances, it is unlawful to operate a restaurant in the County of El Dorado (“the County”) without a valid and subsis Environmental Management Department (“County EMD”). ing permit issued by the County 2. Defendants in this action are owners, operators and/or managers of two restaurants located in the County known as “Apple Bistro” and “Danette’s Brick Oven Pub.” The permits to} operate Apple Bistro and Danette’s Brick Oven Pub were suspended, and then revoked, by County] EMD in 2020. 3. Although County EMD ordered both restaurants to close in 2020 upon suspension of| their permits, neither restaurant closed. Instead, they continued to operate, and currently do operate, unlawfully without a permit and in active defiance of state law and County ordinances. 4. Notwithstanding the fact that their continued operation is illegal, members of the public who patronize Apple Bistro and/or Danette’s reasonably assume that, by their continued) operation, valid permits exist to operate these restaurants, and that both restaurants are subject to) routine health and safety inspections necessary to obtain and maintain a valid permit to operate al restaurant in the County. In fact, no such permits exist, and no such inspections are taking place| because these restaurants do not have permits and have been ordered to close. 5. As Defendants have defied orders to close, and most recently ignored a cease-and- desist letter made in a final effort to avoid filing this action, the County has no choice but to come to| ‘ComplaintSowmraaunun u 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 - 26 ri 28 this Court to request that it enjoin Defendants’ unlawful conduct and issue any and all further relief| necessary to protect the health and safety of the public. THE PARTIES 6. Plaintiff County of El Dorado is a political subdivision of the State of California. 7. Plaintiff The People of the State of California are hereby represented by and through David A. Livingston, County Counsel for the County of El Dorado, who acts on their behalf| pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 731. 8. Defendant Jennette H. Waldow is an individual and is doing business as Apple Bistro. She is an owner, operator, and/or manager of Apple Bistro, a business organization of unknown| form. Apple Bistro is a restaurant operating in the County of El Dorado and is located at 2740] Highway 50 in Placerville, California 95667. Plaintifis are informed and believe that Jennette H. Waldow resides in the County. 9. Defendant Intemational Farmers Kitchen, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company that Plaintifis are informed and believe is doing business as Apple Bistro. Plaintiffs are! informed and believe that International Farmers Kitchen, LLC is an owner, operator, and/or manager| of Apple Bistro. Defendant Jennette H. Waldow is a manager and/or member of International) Farmers Kitchen, LLC, and is listed as its agent for service of process. (Jennette H. Waldow, International Farmers Kitchen, LLC, and Does 1-50 are collectively referred to hereafter as the’ “Apple Bistro Defendants.”) 10. Defendants Thomas Inman and Danette Inman are individuals and are doing business: as Danette’s Brick Oven Pub (“Danette’s”). They are owners, operators, and/or managers of] Danette’s, a business organization of unknown form. Danette’s is a restaurant operating in the! County of El Dorado and is located at 2875 Ray Lawyer Drive in Placerville, California 95667. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Thomas Inman and Danette Inman reside in the’ County. (Thomas Inman, Danette Inman, and Does 51-100 are collectively referred to hereafter as the “Danette’s Defendants.”) 11, Plaintiffs are ignorant as to the true names and capacities whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise of Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sue such| 3 ‘Complaintee oe 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants by said fictitious names pursuant to Section 474 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs will seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of said| fictitiously named Defendants when these have been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe| ‘and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named DOE Defendants is responsible in some manner for the violations and other conduct alleged herein. 12, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants was and is the agent, officer, employee, member, representative, and/or alter ego of one or more of the remaining Defendants, and, in doing the things| hereinafter alleged, was acting within the scope of his, her, or its authority as such agent, officer, employee, member, representative, and/or alter ego with the permission and consent of the| remaining Defendants. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13. This case is an unlimited civil case because it is not one of the proceedings described by statute as a limited civil ease. 14, Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10, this action lies within the general jurisdiction of this Court, because the causes of action arise under California law and Defendants, reside and/or do business within California, 15, Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 392, 393, and 395, venue is proper in’ this Court as Plaintiffs seek to enjoin unlawful conduct on property located within the County of El Dorado, and Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants reside in the County of El Dorado. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS A. The California Retail Food Code Requires a Permit to Operate a Restaurant 16, The California Retail Food Code is set forth in Division 104, Part 7 of the California’ Health and Safety Code, sections 113700, et seq. The express purpose of the Retail Food Code is to safeguard public health and provide consumers food that is safe, unadulterated, and honestly’ presented through adoption of science-based standards. H&S § 113703. The State Legislature has| found and declared that the public health interest requires that there be uniform statewide health and) ' Health and Safety Code provisions are referred to herein as “H&S”. 4 ‘Complaintsanitation standards for retail food facilities to assure the people of this state that the food will be| pure, safe, and unadulterated. H&S § 113705. 17. The County EMD is the local health agency having jurisdiction over all food facilities within the County, and as such, County EMD has primary responsibility for the enforcement of the| Retail Food Code. H&S §§ 113713; 113773. 18. H&S § 114381(a) states: “A food facility shall not be open for business without a 19. Apple Bistro and Danette’s both qualify as a “food facility” because, among other things, they store, prepare, package, serve, vend or otherwise prepare food for human consumption at the retail level. H&S Code § 113789. 20. “Permit” means the document issued by the enforcement agency that authorizes a person to operate a food facility. H&S § 113851. County EMD is the enforcement agency that! authorizes a person to operate a food facility within the County. 21. Any person who operates a food facility is required to obtain all necessary permits to conduct business, including, but not limited to, a pe issued by the enforcement agency. In addition to the penalties under Article 2 (commencing with Section 114390), violators who operate] without the necessary permits are subject to closure of the food facility and a penalty not to exceed| three times the cost of the permit. H&S § 114387. 22. “Enforcement officers” are required to enforce the Retail Food Code and all regulations adopted pursuant to it. H&S § 114390. “Enforcement officer” is defined as the director, agents, or environmental health specialists appointed by the State Public Health Officer, and all local] health officers, directors of environmental health, and their duly authorized registered environmental health specialists and environmental health specialist trainees. H&S § 113774, 23. Any person who violates any provision of the Retail Food Code or regulation adopted pursuant to it is guilty of a misdemeanor. Each offense is punishable by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25) or more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the| county jail for a term not exceeding six months, or by both fine and imprisonment. H&S § 114395. 24, The owner, manager, or operator of any food facility is responsible for any violation| 5 Complaint(ee fe oe ul B 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 by an employee of any provision of the Retail Food Code or any regulation adopted pursuant to it Each day the violation occurs is a separate and distinct offense. H&S § 114397. 25. A permit may be suspended or revoked by a local enforcement officer for a violation of the Retail Food Code. Any food facility for which the permit has been suspended shall close and remain closed until the permit has been reinstated. Any food facility for which the permit| has been revoked shall close and remain closed until a new permit has been issued. H&S § 114405(@). B. _ El Dorado County Ordinances Require a Permit to Operate a Restaurant 26. The County of El Dorado’s Environmental Health Permit Ordinance is set forth in Chapter 8.05 of the El Dorado County Ordinance Code. 27. Under section 8.05.030 of the El Dorado County Ordinance Code, the term “permit” means a written permit or activity approval or an entitlement issued by the Department of| Environmental Management approving an activity, business, premises, device or apparatus in accordance with the health, sanity or safety requirements, rules, laws, ordinances or regulations pertaining the public health and safety. 28. “Food establishment|s|” and “food facilitylies]” are subject to the provi ns of | Chapter 8.05 and ma ngaged in only by persons hol issued by the Department of Environmental Management. The terms “food establishment” and| “food facility” are defined the same as the term “food facility” set forth in H&S § 113789. § 8.05.040. valid and subsisting permits 29. Permits issued under Chapter 8.05 may be revoked by the Director if he or she finds that the activity has been, or is being carried on or engaged in, contrary to laws, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the public health and safety, or that the activity is a threat to the public| health or safety, or that the activity violates a condition of the permit. § 8.05.080. 30. It is unlawful and a misdemeanor punishable according to the general penalties described in Chapter 1.24 for any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation or other entity to conduct any activity described in Chapter 8.05 without a valid and subsisting permit thereunder| where such permit is required, and each calendar day of conduct shall be a separate misdemeanor. 6 ‘Complaint[At the discretion of the Community Development Department, or District Attomey, the violation ‘may be reduced to an infraction with a maximum fine of $500.00. § 8.05.180. 31. Except as otherwise provided by law or ordinance, and unless the violation of a particular ordinance is specified by that ordinance to be an infraction, any person violating any of the provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of the ordinances of the County shall be guilty of a misdemeanor unless, in the discretion of the prosecuting attorney or agency, the matter is alleged or charged as an infraction, in which case the matter shall proceed as an| infraction. A violation of ordinances of the County that is a misdemeanor shall be punishable by| imprisonment in the County jail not exceeding six months or by a fine not exceeding $1,000.00, or| by both. § 1.24.010. 32. Any person convicted of an infraction for violation of an ordinance of the County is punishable by: 1. a fine not exceeding $100.00 for a first violation; 2. a fine not exceeding $200.00 for second violation of the same ordinance within one year; 3. a fine not exceeding $500.00 for each| additional violation of the same ordinance within one year. § 1.24,030. 33. Each such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of any provision of the ordinances of the County is committed, continued or permitted by any such person, and he or she shall be punished accordingly. § 1.24.040. 34. Under Section 4 of County Ordinance No. 5013, the County may pursue other remedies such as abatement of nuisances, injunctive relief and revocation of licenses or permits} relating to violations of its ordinances. C. Defendants Have Operated and Continue to Operate Without a Permit 35. On July 30, 2020, County EMD notified the Apple Bistro Defendants that, pursuant to El Dorado County Code § 8.05.080, the permit issued by EMD to operate Apple Bistro was| temporarily suspended. County EMD ordered Apple Bistro to immediately close under H&S §§ 114405 and 114409 and El Dorado County Code § 8.05.021. EMD wamed the Apple Bistro Defendants that any food facility for which the permit has been suspended shall cease all food! 2 The permit add-on for a catering operation was also suspended at this time. ‘ComplaintRON Cm rau 10 MW 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 handling, close and remain closed until all conditions warranting the closure are corrected and their permit has been reinstated by a representative of Environmental Management. The Apple Bistro Defendants were also notified of their right to request a hearing within 15 calendar days after service of the notice of suspension to show cause why the permit suspension was not warranted, and that the: failure to request a hearing within 15 calendar days would be deemed a waiver of their right to al hearing. County EMD further wamed the Apple Bistro Defendants that an owner, manager or operator who failed to comply with the Closure Notice may be found guilty of a misdemeanor (under H&S § 114395), with a possible fine up to $1,000.00 and/or imprisonment for not more than six months for each offense. The Apple Bistro Defendants were also warned that it was unlawful and al misdemeanor under § 8.05.180 to conduct any activity without a permit and may carry an additional fine of up to $500 per day and, under H&S § 114387, has a penalty not to exceed three times the cost of the permit. 36. The Apple Bistro Defendants requested a hearing relating to their appeal of the permit suspension. 37. On August 20, 2020, County EMD provided the Apple Bistro Defendants with a Notice of Violation — Permit Revocation Hearing. The Notice indicated that Apple Bistro had been found to be in operation without a valid health permit to operate and was in violation of Division| 104, Part 7, Chapter 13 of the Health and Safety Code and Chapter 8.05 of the El Dorado County Health Permit Ordinance. The Notice stated that the Apple Bistro Defendants requested a hearing| and that a hearing had been scheduled for August 25, 2020 via Zoom. Instructions for the Zoom| hearing were provided. 38. The requested appeal hearing took place on August 25, 2020 via Zoom, but neither: Jennette H. Waldow, International Farmers Kitchen, LLC, nor any other owner or representative of| Apple Bistro, attended or otherwise appeared at the hearing. The then County EMD Director acted) as the Hearing Officer at the hearing. After the hearing, the Director issued his Notice of Decision, dated September 1, 2020, to the Apple Bistro Defendants. In the Decision, the Director found, among other violations, clear and convincing evidence that proved violations of H&S §§ 114381 and! 114387 and El Dorado County Ordinance Code § 8.05.180 for operating the Apple Bistro without a 8 ‘ComplaintSocamiyrsHeoN i 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 valid Health Permit, and in the absence of any information presented by the Apple Bistro Defendants to show cause why Apple Bistro’s permit should not be suspended or revoked, the Director revoked the permit to operate Apple Bistro. The Director wamed that each and every day that Apple Bistro| operated without a valid Health Permit constituted a separate offense, subject to. misdemeanor| charges, under El Dorado County Code Section 1.24. Pursuant to Chapter 1.24, EMD reduced the| violation(s) to an infraction. The Notice also detailed the fines that had accrued and would continue| to accrue in the amount of $500 per day for each day Apple Bistro operated without a valid permit. 39. Notwithstanding their permit suspension and order to close on July 30, 2020, followed by the revocation of their permit on September 1, 2020, the Apple Bistro Defendants have. operated, and continue to operate, Apple Bistro without a permit. 40. On August 11, 2020, County EMD notified the Danette’s Defendants that, pursuant to El Dorado County Code § 8.05.080, the permit issued by EMD to Danette’s was temporarily suspended. County EMD ordered Danette’s to immediately close under H&S §§ 114405 and 114409 and El Dorado County Code § 8.05.021. County EMD warned that any food facility for which the permit has been suspended shall cease all food handling, close and remain closed until all conditions warranting the closure are corrected and your permit has been reinstated by a representative of Environmental Management. The Danette’s Defendants were also notified of their| right to request a hearing within 15 calendar days after service of the notice of suspension to show| ‘cause why the permit suspension was not warranted, and that the failure to request a hearing within 15 calendar days would be deemed a waiver of their right to a hearing. County EMD warmed that an owner, manager or operator who failed to comply with the Closure Notice may be found guilty of a| misdemeanor (under H&S § 114395), with a possible fine up to $1,000.00 and/or imprisonment for| not more than six months for each offense. EMD also warned that it was unlawful and a| misdemeanor under § 8.05.180 to conduct any activity without a permit and may carry an additional) fine of up to $500 per day and under H&S § 114387 have a penalty not to exceed three times the| cost of the permit. 41. On August 14, 2020, County EMD provided the Danette’s Defendants with a Notice of Violation - Operating Without a Health Permit. The Notice indicated that Danette’s had been 9 ‘ComplaintRen Socar.anu il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ie 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 found to be in operation without a valid health permit to operate and was in violation of Division 104, Part 7, Chapter 13 of the Health and Safety Code and Chapter 8.05 of the El Dorado County Health Permit Ordinance. 42, The Danette’s Defendants requested a hearing relating to their appeal of the permit] suspension, 43. On September 2, 2020, County EMD provided the Danette’s Defendants with a Notice of Violation - Permit Revocation Hearing. The Notice again indicated that Danette’s had been found to be in operation without a valid health permit to operate and is in violation of Division| 104, Part 7, Chapter 13 of the Health and Safety Code an Chapter 8.05 of the El Dorado County Health Permit Ordinance. The Notice stated that Danette’s requested a hearing for September 9, 2020, and that a hearing had been scheduled for September 9, 2020 via Zoom. Instructions for the| Zoom hearing were provided. 44. On September 10, 2020, County EMD provided the Danette’s Defendants with an Updated Notice of Violation - Permit Revocation Hearing. The Notice again indicated that] Danette’s had been found to be in operation without a valid health permit to operate and is in| violation of Division 104, Part 7, Chapter 13 of the Health and Safety Code an Chapter 8.05 of the El Dorado County Health Permit Ordinance. The Updated Notice stated that Danette’s requested a hearing for September 16, 2020, and that a hearing had been scheduled for September 16, 2020 vial Zoom. Instructions for the Zoom hearing were provided. 45. The requested hearing took place on September 16, 2020 via Zoom, but neither| ‘Thomas Inman or Danette Inman, nor any other owner or representative of Danette’s, attended or otherwise appeared at the hearing. The then County EMD Director acted as the Hearing Officer at the hearing. After the hearing, the Director issued his Notice of Decision, dated September 23, 2020 to the Danette’s Defendants. In his Decision, the Director found, among other things, clear and| convincing evidence that proved violations of H&S §§ 114381 and 114387 and El Dorado County Ordinance Code § 8.05.180 for operating Danette’s without a valid Health Permit, and in the absence| of any information presented by the Danette’s Defendants to show cause why Danette’s permit| should not be suspended or revoked, the Director revoked the permit to operate Danette’s. The| 10 ‘ComplaintSom uxr su eon i 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Director wamed that each and every day that Danette’s operated without a valid Health Permit| constituted a separate offense, subject to misdemeanor charges, under El Dorado County Code| Section 1.24, Pursuant to Chapter 1.24, County EMD reduced the violation(s) to an infraction. ‘The| Notice also detailed the fines that had accrued and will continue to accrue in the amount of $500 per| day for each day Danette’s operated without a valid permit. 46. Notwithstanding their permit suspension and order to close on August 11, 2020, followed by the revocation of their permit on September 23, 2020, the Danette’s Defendants have. operated, and continue to operate, Danette’s without a permit. 47. On October 22, 2021, the County sent a cease-and-desist letter to both the Apple Bistro Defendants and the Danette’s Defendants demanding that they cease operations of Apple| Bistro and Danette’s. Neither restaurant ceased operations and both restaurants remain open for| business as of the date of the filing of this Complaint. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Violations of California Health and Safety Code §§ 114381 and 114405) All Plaintiffs Against Al Defendants and Does 1-100 48. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein by reference each and every one of the: allegations contained in Paragraphs | through 47 of this Complaint. 49. Apple Bistro and Dannette’s are both “food facilityfies]” as defined in H&S § 113789, 50. As food facilities, Apple Bistro and Danette’s “shall not be open for business without ‘valid permit.” H&S § 114381(a). Upon suspension of their permits by County EMD, Apple Bistro and Danette’s were required to close and remain closed until the permit was reinstated. Upon revocation of their permits, Apple Bistro and Danette’s were required to close and remain closed until a new permit had been issued. H&S § 114405(a). 51. Indirect violation of H&S §§ 114381(a) and 114405(a), the Apple Bistro Defendants did not close Apple Bistro. Instead, Apple Bistro has been open for business without a valid permit| since July 30, 2020, when County EMD suspended the permit to operate Apple Bistro. Further, the| Apple Bistro Defendants have continued to operate Apple Bistro after their permit was revoked on| u ‘ComplaintCea au een 10 u 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 September 1, 2020 and despite the fact that a new permit to operate Apple Bistro has never been| issued, 52, Indirect violation of H&S §§ 114381(a) and 114405(a), the Danette’s Defendants did not close Danette’s. Instead, Danette’s has been open for business without a valid permit since| August 11, 2020, when County EMD suspended their permit to operate Danette’s. Further, the| Danette’s Defendants have continued to operate Danette’s after their permit was revoked on| September 1, 2020 and despite the fact that a new permit to operate Apple Bistro has never been| issued. 53. Plaintiffs cannot be fully compensated in damages and are without a plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law because the exact amount of damage to the general public’s health, safety, and welfare is not ascertainable. 54. Unless and until all Defendants are restrained and enjoined by order of this Court and/or the Court provides other equitable relief, Defendants will continue to illegally operate food! facilities in the County in clear violation of the Retail Food Code. 58. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Violations of County of El Dorado’s Environmental Health Permit Ordinance, Chapter 8.05 of the El Dorado County Ordinance Code) All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants and Does 1-100 56. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein by reference each and every one of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 55 of this Complaint. 57. Apple Bistro and Dannette’s are both “food facility[ies}” as defined in section 8.05.040 in Chapter 8.05 of the El Dorado County Ordinance Code. As food facilities, Apple Bistro} and Danette’s “may be engaged in only by persons holding valid and subsisting permits” issued by| County EMD. § 8.05.040. 58. In direct violation of § 8.05.040, the Apple Bistro Defendants have engaged in the operation of Apple Bistro without a valid and subsisting permit since July 30, 2020. ‘ComplaintCaw ana 10 u 12 13, 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 rat 22 23 24 a 26 27 28 59. In direct violation of § 8.05.040, the Danette’s Defendants have engaged in the operation of Danette’s without a valid and subsisting permit since August 11, 2020. 60. Under Section 4 of County Ordinance No. 5013, the County may pursue abatement of| nuisances, injunctive relief and revocation of licenses or permits relating to violations of its ordinances. 61. Plaintiffs cannot be fully compensated in damages and are without a plain, speedy, or| adequate remedy at law because the exact amount of damage to the general public’s health, safety, and welfare is not ascertainable. 62. Unless and until all Defendants are restrained and enjoined by order of this Court and/or the Court provides other equitable relief Defendants will continue to illegally operate Apple! Bistro and Danette’s in clear violation of the El Dorado County Ordinance Code. 63. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth, THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Public Nuisance) Plaintiff People of the State of California Against All Defendants and Does 1-100 64. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein by reference each and every one of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 63 of this Complaint. 65. Anything which is injurious to health is a nuisance. Civ. Code § 3479. 66. A public nuisance is one which affects at the same time an entire community or| neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal. Civ. Code § 3480. 67. The express purpose of the Retail Food Code, including its permit requirements, is to “safeguard public health.” H&S §§ 113703; 113705. A restaurant operating without a permit, and without being subject to the accompanying inspections to protect the health and safety of the public by County EMD, is “injurious to health” and therefore constitutes a nuisance under Civ. Code § 3479. The nuisance affects the entire community, or at least the considerable amount of persons, including those who in live in the County and in other counties throughout California who dine at, or| who will dine at, Apple Bistro and Danette’s, including but not limited to those diners who are 13 ‘Complaintaaueon ard 10 u 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 unaware of the fact that these restaurants do not have a permit and are not subject to health and| safety inspections to ensure that food being served to the public is safe. H&S § 113703. 68. Operating without a permit also leads to increased dangers and risks, such as lack of| regulatory oversight to monitor whether standard safety practices are being adhered to. Failure to abide by these standards can lead to increases in illnesses and unsanitary practices, and thus is| injurious to public health and safety in the County and in surrounding communities. Permitting such unlawful conduct could embolden other restaurants and facilities to flout the same permit requirements, which would further undermine public health and safety. 69. The Apple Bistro Defendants’ ongoing, unlawful operation of Apple Bistro constitutes a public nuisance that should be abated. 70. The Danette’s Defendants’ ongoing, unlawful operation of Danette’s constitutes | public nuisance that should be abated. 71. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 731, a civil action may be brought in the| name of the people of the State of California to abate a public nuisance, as defined by section 3480) of the Civil Code, by county counsel of any county in which the nuisance exists. 72. Plaintiffs cannot be fully compensated in damages and are without a plain, speedy, or| adequate remedy at law because the exact amount of damages to the general public’s health, safety, and welfare is not ascertainable. 73. Unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined by order of this Court and/or the Court provides other equitable relief permissible by law, Defendants will continue to illegally operate in| violation of the Health and Safety Code and County ordinances and perpetuate a public nuisance. 74, WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows: 1. For injunctive relief, including but not limited to temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions, that: (a) requires Apple Bistro to close all operations unless and until a new permit is obtained from County EMD under Chapter 8.05 of the El Dorado County Ordinance Code; and (b) prohibits the Apple Bistro Defendants, as well as all of| 4 ‘Complainttheir agents, officers, and employees, from operating or allowing the operation of Apple Bistro} without a valid permit from County EMD; 2. For injunctive relief, including but not limited to temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions, that: (a) requires Danette’s Brick Oven Pub to} close all operations unless and until a new permit is obtained from County EMD under Chapter 8.05 of the El Dorado County Ordinance Code; and (b) prohibits the Danette’s Defendants, as well as all of their agents, officers, and employees, from operating or allowing the operation of Danette’s Brick| Oven Pub without a valid permit from County EMD; 3. For an order finding that the operation of Apple Bistro without valid and subsisting| permit from County EMD constitutes a continuing public nuisance pursuant to Civil Code sections! 3479 and 3480, and for an order of abatement requiring the Apple Bistro Defendants, as well as all of their agents, officers, and employees, to undertake the necessary remedial measures to bring Apple Bistro into compliance with California Health & Safety Code and the El Dorado County Ordinance Code provisions relating to the permit requirements to operate a food facility. 4. Foran order finding that the operation of Danette’s Brick Oven Pub without valid and subsisting permit from County EMD constitutes a continuing public nuisance pursuant to Civil Code| sections 3479 and 3480, and for an order of abatement requiring the Danette’s Defendants, as well as all of their agents, officers, and employees, to undertake the necessary remedial measures to bring} Danette’s Brick Oven Pub into compliance with California Health & Safety Code and the El Dorado County Ordinance Code provisions relating to the permit requirements to operate a food facility. 5. For penalties against Defendants in the amount of three times the cost of the permit, or $2,313.00 pursuant to H&S § 114387. 6. For fines against Defendants in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to| El Dorado County Ordinance Code § 8.05.180 of $500 for each day of operation of the food facility without a permit. 7. Forattomeys’ fees incurred herein; 8. For costs of suit and expenditures incurred herein; and uy ‘ComplaintCor ane on 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 9. For any further relief that the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: November $ 2021 COUNTY OF EL DORADO, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL, Attorney COUNTY OF EL DORADO and THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Dated: November & , 2021 CAULFIELD LAW FIRM. NDREW T. CAULFIELD Attomey for Plaintiff COUNTY OF EL DORADO ‘Complaint