City Attorney Dennis Herrera sent a pre-litigation demand letter and draft complaint to McDonald's Corporation this afternoon, informing the Oak Brook, Ill.-based fast-food giant of its civil liability for violations of the California Drug Abatement Act and Unfair Competition Law at the property it owns in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury neighborhood. The letter and complaint sent to President and CEO Steve Easterbrook detail the bases for which McDonald's Corporation could be held legally accountable for the lawlessness harbored at its 730 Stanyan Street property, where its franchisee has defiantly refused to abate problems related to drug trafficking and other public nuisances. The McDonald's location "has generated nearly 1,100 calls for service" to the San Francisco Police Department since January 2012, according to Herrera's letter -- more than any other business in the area. Criminal activity includes arrests for sale and possession of LSD, psychedelic mushrooms, hashish, marijuana, and marijuana edibles as well as dozens of incidents involving fights, assaults, auto burglaries and even two dog attacks. Herrera expressed "hope to enlist your assistance to resolve the public nuisance conditions" to McDonald's President and CEO, but was unequivocal in his intention to file suit if necessary, both to abate conditions plaguing the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood and to pursue injunctive relief, civil penalties, and attorneys' fees.

1. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
Mr. Steve Easterbrook
President and ChiefExecutive Officer
McDonald's Corporation
2111 McDonald's Drive
Oak Brook, IL 60523
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Direct Dial: (415) 554-4748
Email: brittany.feitelberg@sfgov.org
May 12, 2015
Re: Public Nuisance at 730 Stanyan Street in San Francisco, California
Dear Mr. Easterbrook:
This office has received numerous complaints regarding narcotics trafficking in and
around a McDonald's restaurant located on your property at 730 Stanyan Street in San Francisco,
California (the "Property''). As you know, 730 Stanyan Street is located in San Francisco's
historic Haight-Ashbury neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood includes San Francisco's
largest public park, a local children's playground, housing for senior citizens, and at least eight
schools or daycare centers within halfofa mile. Our office and the San Francisco Police
Department ("SFPD") have repeatedly contacted the :franchisee regarding the drug activity at the
Property seeking simple solutions to the problem. The :franchisee has refused to address the
issues, and the drug activity persists.
As outlined in detail in the attached draft complaint, in the past seven months alone SFPD
officers have arrested individuals on at least 11 separate occasions selling or possessing illegal
narcotics on or directly in front ofyour Property. In the last six months the police have
recovered more than 100 doses ofLSD, over two pounds ofmarijuana, 88.5 grams ofpsilocybin
(psychedelic mushrooms), more than halfofa pound ofmarijuana edibles, and hashish from
drug dealers selling their products on your Property.
The drug activity at the Property has given rise to other public nuisance conditions. For
instance, between January 1, 2014 and April 22, 2015 the Property generated 641 calls for
~ervice to SFPD which included reports of32 fights, assaults, and/or batteries, consumption of
alcohol in public (in the parking lot), two dog attacks, and at least eight auto burglaries. The
Property has generated nearly 1,100 calls for service to SFPD since January 2012. The problems
caused by the illegal activity at your Property require constant police attention, thereby draining
valuable police resources that cannot be devoted elsewhere. No other business in the area has
generated nearly the same number ofcalls for service to SFPD. We firmly believe that, in its
current condition, your Property threatens the health and safety ofthe surrounding neighborhood.
Under California Health and Safety Code section 11570 et seq. (also known as the Drug
Abatement Act), "every building or place used for the purpose ofunlawfully selling, serving,
storing, keeping, manufacturing or giving away any controlled substance.. .and every building or
place wherein or upon which those acts take place, is a nuisance which shall be enjoined,
• CITY HALL 1DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, ROOM 234 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-5408
RECEPTION: (415) 554-4700 · FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4715

2. C ITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Letter to Mr. Steve Easterbrook
President and ChiefExecutive Officer
McDonald's Corporation
Page2
May 12, 2015
OFFICE OF THE C ITY ATIORNEY
abated, and prevented, and for which damages may be recovered..." (Emphasis added.) In
addition, California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. ("Unfair Competition
Law") defines ''unfair competition" as "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or
practice." McDonald's maintenance ofthis commercial Property in violation ofthe Drug
Abatement Act also violates the Unfair Competition Law.
As the City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, I have the authority to file
a civil action to abate the public nuisance conditions at your Property and to seek civil penalties,
injunctive relief and attorney's fees. See CA Health and Safety Code sections 11573.S(f)(l),
11581; CA Business and Professions Code sections 17203, 17206.
I hope to enlist your assistance to resolve the public nuisance conditions at your Property
as soon as possible. Please contact my office by the close ofbusiness on May 18, 2015 to
schedule a meeting. We look forward to your full cooperation, and thank you for your prompt
attention to this matter.
cc. Yin McDonald's
Chief Greg Suhr
Very truly yours,
~~t~~CityAtt~

3. 1 DENNIS J. HERRERA, StateBar#l39669
City Attorney ,
2 YVONNE R. MERE, State Bar #173594
ChiefAttorney
3 Neighborhood and Resident Safety Division
MEGAN CESARE-EASTMAN, State Bar #253845
4 Depµty City Attorney
1390 Market Street, Seventh Floor
5 San Francisco, California 94102-5408
Telephone: (415) 554-3800
6 Facsimile: (415) 437-4644
E-Mail: megan.cesare@sfgov.org
7
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CITY AND COUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO
9 and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALzy'ORNIA
IO
11
12
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
13 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, a Municipal Corporation, and
14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
by and through Dennis J. Herrera, City
15 Attorney for the City and County of San
Francisco,
16
17 Plaintiffs,
18 vs.
19 YIN MCDONALD'S, BETTY LIN
Individually and dba Yin McDonald's, CHEI
20 CHEN YIN, ~.k.a. C.C. YIN, Individually and
dba Yin McDonald's, MCDONALD'S
21 CORPORATION, Individually and dba
Franchise Realty Interstate Corp.,
22 FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE
CORP., and DOE 1 through DOE 50,
23
24 Defendants.
25
Case No. - .
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND
OTHER RELIEF
Type ofCase: (42) Other Complaint
26 The CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, and the PEOPLE
27 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through San Francisco City Attorney DENNIS J.
28 1
COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:usersbfeitelbappdatalocaltempnotesc7a
056draft complainldoc

4. 1 HERRERA (collectively "PLAINTIFFS"), file their Complaint against Defendants YIN
2 MCDONALD'S, BETTY LIN Individually and dba Yin McDonald's, CHEI CHEN YIN Individually
3 and dba Yin McDonald's, MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, Individually and dba Franchise Realty
4 Interstate Corp., FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORP., and DOE 1 through DOE 50
5 (collectively "DEFENDANTS"). PLAINTIFFS hereby allege as set forth below:
6 INTRODUCTION
7 1. This action arises out ofDEFENDANTS' operation ofMcDonald's, a commercial
8 business located at 730 Stanyan Street in San Francisco, California (''MCDONALD'S") and/or
9 ownership or management ofreal property located at 730 Stanyan Street, Assessor's Block 1249, Lot
1O 024, San Francisco, California (the "PROPERTY") where MCDONALD'S is located:.
11 MCDONALD'S is located at the northwest comer ofthe PROPERTY, at the comer ofHaight and
12 Stanyan Streets, across from the entrance to Golden Gate Park, in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury
13 neighborhood. The remaining portion ofthe PROPERTY consists of a large parking lot used by
14 MCDONALD'S customers and the general public.
15 2. DEFENDANTS permit the PROPERTY to be used as a safe haven for drug dealers and
16 users by allowing the sale, storage, and possession ofcontrolled substances and drug paraphernalia on
17 the PROPERTY. Drug dealers routinely sell drugs in the PROPERTY's parking lot, and directly in
18 front ofthe MCDONALD'S store, attracting large groups of drug users to this area.
19 3. DEFENDANTS' ongoing violations oflaw contribute to an increased neighborhood
20 presence ofillicit drug users and dealers and a panoply ofrelated general public nuisance conditions
21 such as assaults, dog attacks, car thefts, vehicle break-ins, and loitering. DEFENDANTS'
22 maintenance ofthe PROPERTY as a public nuisance threatens the health and safety ofthe surrounding
23 neighborhood which includes San Francisco's largest public park, a local children's playground, at
24 least eight schools or daycare centers within half of a mile, housing for senior citizens, and a host of
25 families with small children who live nearby. Individuals walking by the PROPERTY must maneuver
26 around drug dealers who approach passersby offering drugs for sale.
27
28
4. By allowing controlled substances to be sold, served, stored, kept, manufactured, or
2
COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:userslbfeitelbappdatalocalltemplnotesc7a
056draft complainldoc

5. 1 given away at the PROPERTY, DEFENDANTS also have maintained the PROPERTY in violation of
2 California's Drug Abatement Law, Health and Safety Code Sections 11570-11587, and California
3 Civil Code Sections 3479, 3480, 3491, and 3494.
4 5. By maintaining the PROPERTY in repeated violation ofapplicable state and local laws
5 and as a public nuisance, DEFENDANTS have demonstrated a pattern and practice of, engaging in
6 unfair and unlawful business practices in violation ofthe Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California
7 Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-17210.
8
9 6.
PARTIES AND SUBJECT PROPERTY
PlaintiffCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (the "CITY") is a municipal
1O corporation organized and existing under and by virtue ofthe laws ofthe State ofCalifornia, and is a
11 city and county. PlaintiffCITY brings this action pursuant to California Civil Code Sections 3479,
12 3480,_3491, 3494; and California Code ofCivil Procedure Section 731.
13 7. PlaintiffPEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (the ''PEOP.LE"), by and
14 through Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney ofthe City and County ofSan Francisco, brings ~s action
'
15 pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Sections 11570-11587.(the ~'Drug Abatement Act'.~).
16 Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-17210 (the "Unfair Competition Law"), Civil Code
17 S~ctions 3479, 3480, 3491, 3494, and Code ofCivil Procedure Section 731.
18 8. From at least 2013 to the present, Defendants YIN MCDONALD'S, BETTY LIN, and
19 CHE! CHEN YIN have been the owners and managers ofMCDONALD'S, a commercial business'
20 located in the City and County ofSan Francisco. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that
21 Defendants YIN MCDONALD'S, BETTY LIN and CHEI CHEN YIN lease the entire PROPERTY
22 from Defendants MCDONALD'S CORPORATION and/or FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE
23 CORPORATION.
24 9. Since at least 1978, Defendant FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE
25 CORPORATION has been the owner ofthe real property located at 730 Stanyan Street in San
26 Francisco, California, Assessor's Block 1249, Lot 024. FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE
27 CORPORATION is a former California business entity which was surrendered in 1980.
28 3
COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:uscrsbfcitclbappdatalocalltempnotesc7a
056draft complainldoc

6. 1 10. Defendant MCDONALD'S CORPORATION does business in San Francisco as
'
2 FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION.
3 11. Defendants YIN MCDONALD'S, BETTY LIN, and CHEI CHEN YIN operate
4 MCDONALD'S,a fast food restaurant, engaging in the sale ofitems such as hamburgers, french fries,
5 and non-alcoholic beverages, and provide a large parking lot for use by MCDONALD'S customers
6 and others.
7 12. Defendants DOE ONE through DOE FIFTY are sued herein under fictitious names.
8 PLAINTIFFS do not at this time know the true names or capacities ofsaid defendants, but pray that
9 the same may be alleged herein when ascertained.
10 13. At all times herein mentioned, each Defendant was an agent, servant, employee,
11 partner, franchisee and joint venturer ofeach other Defendant and at all times was acting within the
12 course and scope ofsaid agency, service, employment, partnership, franchise and joint venture.
13 Actions taken, or omissions made, by DEFENDANTS' employees or agents in the course oftheir
14 employment or agency at MCDONALD'S or the PROPERTY are considered to be actions or
15 omissions ofDEFENDANTS for the purposes ofthis Complaint.
16
17
18
14.
15.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
MCDONALD'S is open and operates from 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m., seven days a week.
MCDONALD'S has a reputation in the community and among the San Francisco
19 Police Department ("SFPD") as a location where people come to buy, sell, and use illegal narcotics.
20 16. Drug dealers and users loiter persistently in front ofMCDONALD'S, and in the
21 MCDONALD'S parking lot.
22 17. On numerous occasions, when police officers have visibly approached
23 MCDONALD'S, dealers loitering in front ofMCDONALD'S attempt to evade police by entering the
24 MCDONALD'S store or the PROPERTY's parking lot.
25 18. On numerous occasions police have made drug arrests for possession for sale ofillegal
26 narcotics on the PROPERTY itself, or directly in front ofMCDONALD'S.
27
28
19. On numerous occasions police have recovered illegal narcotics from the PROPERTY.
4
COMPLAINf - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:luserslbfeitelbappdatalocalltemplnotesc7a
056draft complaintdoc

7. 1 20. DEFENDANTS have permitted MCDONALD'S to be used for the storage and sale of
2 narcotics, including the following incidents since September 1, 2014:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
•
•
•
On April 19, 2015 an undercover SFPD officer entered approached a suspect in the
PROPERTY's parking lot who sold the officer marijuana. He was apprehended with
11 tabs ofLSD and 48.5 grams ofmarijuana divided into separate plastic bags and
containers, and $300 in U.S. currency in mostly small denominations. He was arrested
for sale ofmarijuana, and possession for sale ofmarijuana and hallucinogenics.
On April 19, 2015 an SFPD undercover officer approached a suspect in the
PROPERTY's parking lot who indicated he was selling "doses" ofLSD. After selling
two doses ofLSD and some marijuana to the undercover officer, the suspect was
arrested for sale and posession for sale ofhallucinogenics and marijuana. He was also
I
in possession ofmore than 100 additional doses ofLSD, small scissors used to cut tabs
ofLSD, 63.4 grams ofmarijuana divided into several containers, and $274 in U.S.
currency in small denominations.
On February 19, 2015 SFPD executed a warrant arrest ofa known drug dealer in front
ofMCDONALD'S for possession of22.8 grams ofmarijuana.
On January 27, 2015 SFPD officers observed a suspect standing near the PROPERTY~s
parking lot with three other people who were leaning over.the suspect's backpack.
When the suspect saw the officers approach he ran through the parking lot to evade
police. He was arrested for possession of466.1 grams ofmarijuana, which officers
found in his backpack.
5
COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONAID'S, et al. c:usersbfeitelblappdatalocalltemplnotesc7a
056draft complaintdoc

8. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
On January 22, 2015 SFPD arrested a suspect standing in front ofthe MCDONALD'S
rear entrance on Stanyan Street for possession for sale of737.8 grams ofmarijuana.
On December 24, 2014, SFPD officers arrested a suspect in the PROPERTY's parking
lot for possession ofnarcotics paraphernalia (six crack pipes).
On November 18, 2014 SFPD officers observed a group ofpeople in the PROPERTY's
parking lot, including a suspect carrying ajar ofmarijuana. He was arrested for
possession of35.6 grams ofmarijuana.
Also on November 18, 2014 SFPD observed a group ofpeople in the PROPERTY's
parking lot. SFPD observed a narcotics sale take place in the parking lot, and arrested
two suspects for possession for sale of 139.9 grams ofmarijuana divided into 11 bags,
233.~ grams ofmarijuana edibles, 27 individually-packaged marijuana gummies
(1,571.6 grams), 12 4-ounce bottles and one 2.1-ounce bottle ofmarijuana drink, and
marijuana baked goods. The suspects also possessed $230 in U.S. currency in small
denominations.
On October 8, 2014 SFPD observed a group offour people huddled together in front of
MCDONALD'S, one ofwhom was holding ajar ofmarijuana. SFPD arrested the
suspect for possession for sale of 65.1 total grams ofmarijuana packaged in four clear
plastic bags, 3.6 total grams hashish packaged in two clear plastic bags, 88.5 total
grams mushrooms (psilocybin) packaged in four clear plastic bags. The suspect also
possessed empty plastic sandwich bags, a marijuana pipe, a manual for a digital scale, a
100 gram weight, and $166 in U.S. currency in small denominations.
On September 12, 2014 SFPD approached a suspect in front ofMCDONALD'S. The
suspect attempted to evade police by entering the MCDONALD'S store from Haight
Street and exiting into the PROPERTY's parking lot, where he was arrested for
possession of22 grams ofmarijuana.
On September 9, 2014 SFPD arrested a known drug dealer in front ofMCDONALD'S
for possession for sale of 10.3 total grams ofmarijuana packaged in two bags. The
6
COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:usersbfeitelbappdatalocalltempnotesc7a
056draft complaint.doc

9. 1
2 21.
suspect also possessed $86.00 in U.S. currency in small denominations.
"Mushrooms" or psilocybin is a controlled substance as defined by the Drug Abatement
3 Act. (Health & Saf. Code§§ 11007, 11054(d)(18), 11570.)
4 22. Marijuana or cannabis is a controlled substance as defined by the Drug Abatement Act.
5 (Health & Saf. Code§§ 11007, 11054(d)(13), 11570.) Hashish is a concentrated form ofcannabis.
6 23. Lysergic acid diethylamide or "LSD" is a controlled substance as defined by the Drug
7 Abatement Act. (Health & Saf. Code§§ 11007, 11054(d)(12), 11570.)
8 24. Between January 1, 2014 and April 22, 2015, the PROPERTY generated 641 calls for
9 service to SFPD which included reports of32 fights, assaults, and/or batteries, two dog attacks,
10 consuming alcohols in public, and eight auto burglaries. The PROPERTY has generated nearly 1,100
11 calls for service to SFPD since January 2012.
12 25. SFPD has made seven arrests for auto burglaries, and recovered two stolen vehicles in
13 the PROPERTY's parking lot since September 9, 2014.
14 26. The problems caused by DEFENDANTS' illegal activities require constant police
15 attention, thereby draining valuable police resources that cannot be devoted to other areas.
16 27. DEFENDANTS' maintenance ofthe PROPERTY as a public nuisance threatens the
17 health and safety ofthe surrounding neighborhood.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR VIOLATION OF THE DRUG ABATEMENT ACT
BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
(Health And Safety Code Sections 11570-11587)
PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 above, as
though fully set forth herein.
29. Since at least September 2014 DEFENDANTS and their employees and agents have
permitted the unlawful storage or sales ofcontrolled substances at their PROPERTY. Such conduct
constitutes a nuisance as a matter oflaw pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 11570.
30. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 11581, PLAINTIFFS request
that the Court close the PROPERTY, including MCDONALD'S, for one year and impose civil
7
COMPLAINT- CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:uscrsbfcitclbappdatalocaltcmpnotcsc7a
056draft complainldoc

10. 1 penalties of$25,000.00 against each Defendant to prevent DEFENDANTS from continuing to
2 maintain a nuisance at the PROPERTY.
3 31. Unless said nuisance is abated, the PEOPLE and the residents and citizens ofthe CITY
4 will suffer irreparable injury and damage, in that said conditions will continue to be dangerous to the
5 life, safety or health ofthose who live and work near the PROPERTY and the general public.
6 32. PLAINTIFFS have no adequate remedy at law in that damages alone are insufficient to
7 protect the public from the present injury and harm caused by the conduct described above.
8
9
10
11
12
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.)
33. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 as though fully
13 set forth herein.
14 34. PLAINTIFFS bring this action pursuant to Civil Code sections 3479, 3480, 3491, 3494
15 and Code of Civil Procedure section 731.
16 35. By permitting the above described injurious, illegal, annoying and disruptive activities
17 to occur and exist at the PROPERTY, DEFENDANTS have caused and maintained a continuing
18 public nuisance within the meaning of California Civil Code sections 3479 and 3480. These activities
19 are injurious to health and offensive to the senses so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of
20 life or property in an entire community or neighborhood.
21 36. At all times herein mentioned, DEFENDANTS had notice and knowledge that the
22 PROPERTY constituted a public nuisance.
23 37. PLAINTIFFS have no adequate remedy at law in that damages are insufficient to
24 protect the public from the present danger and harm caused by the conditions described above.
25 38. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that DEFENDANTS will continue to maintain
26 the PROPERTY in the above-described condition as a public nuisance.
27
28
39. Unless said nuisance is abated the surrounding community and neighborhood, the
8
COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:userslbfeitelbappdatalocalltempnotcsc7a
056draft complaintdoc

11. 1 PEOPLE, and the residents and citizens ofthe CITY will suffer irreparable injury and damage, in that
2 said conditions will continue to be injurious to the enjoyment and the :free use ofthe life and property
3 to those who live and work near the PROPERIT and the general public.
4
5
6
7
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR UNFAIR AND UNLAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES
BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF'. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
(California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-172~0)
40. PlaintiffPEOPLE hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1through39 as though
8 fully set forth herein.
9 41. PlaintiffPEOPLE brings this cause ofaction in the public interest in the name ofthe
1O People ofthe S_tate ofCalifornia, pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., in
11 order to protect consumers and competitors ofthe services provided by DEFENDANTS, from the
12 unlawful and unfair business practices committed by DEFENDANTS in the operation of
13 MCDONALD'S and management ofthe PROPERIT within the City and County ofSan Francisco,
14 State ofCalifornia.
15 42. The violations oflaw described herein have been and are being carried out wholly or in
16 part Within the.City and County ofSan Francisco. The actions ofDEFENDANTS are in violation of
17 the laws and public policies ofthe City and County of San Francisco and the State ofCalifornia, and
18 are inimical to the rights and interest ofthe general public.
19 43. DEFENDANTS are now engaging in and, for a considerable period oftime and at ~l
20 times pertinent to the allegations ofthis Complaint, have engaged in, unfair and unlawful business '
21 practices prohibited by California's Unfair Competition Law by mana~g and operating
22 MCDONALD'S and/or the PROPERIT in violation ofthe following laws:
23
24
25
26
27
28
• _California Health and Safety Code sections 11570 to 11587 by permitting the sale,
storage, possession, manufacture, consumption or distribution ofcontrolle4 substances
at the PROPER1Y; and
• California Civil Code sections 3479 and 3480 by maintaining a public nuisance at the
PROPERIT.
9
COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:usersbfeitelblappdatalocalltempnotesc7a
056draft complaintdoc

12. 1 44. As a direct and proximate result ofthe foregoing acts and practices, DEFENDANTS
2 have received income, profits, and other benefits, which they would not have received if
3 DEFENDANTS had not engaged in the violations ofthe Unfair Competition Law described in this
4 Complaint.
5 45. As a direct and proximate result ofthe foregoing acts and practices, DEFENDANTS
6 have obtained a competitive unfair advantage over similar businesses that have not engaged in such
7 practices.
8 46. PlaintiffPEOPLE has no adequate remedy at law in that damages are insufficient to
9 protect the public from the harm caused by the conditions described in this Complaint.
10 47. Unless injunctive relief is granted to enjoin the unfair and unlawful business practices
11 ofDEFENDANTS, PlaintiffPEOPLE will suffer irreparable injury and damage.
12 48. By engaging in unfair and unlawful business practices described herein,
13 DEFENDANTS are each subject to civil penalties in the amount of $2,500.00 per violation, pursuant
14 to California Business and Professions Code Section 17206.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray that:
Declaratory Relief
1. The PROPERTY be declared a public nuisance in violation ofCivil Code Sections
3479 and 3480 and California Health and Safety Code Sections 11570 -11587;
2. DEFENDANTS be declared to have engaged in unfair and unlawful business acts and
practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-1721O;
Injunctive Relief
3. The public nuisance be preliminarily and permanently abated in accordance with
California Civil Code Section 3480 et seq., California Code of Civil Procedure Section 731, and
California Health and Safety Code Sections 11570-11587;
4. The PROPERTY, including MCDONALD'S be closed for one year pursuant to
California Health and Safety Code Section 11581;
10
COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD 'S, et al. c:usersbfeitelbappdatalocalltempnotesc7a
056draft complainldoc
..

13. 1 5. In the event the Court decides that any vacancy resulting from closure will be harmful
2 to the community, in lieu ofclosing the PROPERTY, each DEFENDANT be ordered to pay damages
3 in an amount equal to the fair market rental value ofthe PROPERTY, including MCJ?ONALD'S, for
4 one year to the CITY for the purpose ofcarrying out drug abuse treatment, prevention, and education
5 programs pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 11581(c)(l);
6 6. In the event that the Court does not order the PROPERTY and/or MCDONALD'S
7 closed, all DEFENDANTS, their agents, officers, managers, representatives, employees, and anyone
8 acting on their behalf, and their heirs and assignees be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from
9 operating, conducting, using, occupying, or in any way permitting the use ofany portion ofthe
1O PROPERTY as a public nuisance pursuant to Civil Code section 3480 and California Health and
11 Safety Code sections 11570-11587;
12 7. DEFENDANTS be required to implement security me!iSures to prevent or reduce
13 further drug activity at the PROPERTY pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section
14 11573.5.
15 8. DEFENDANTS be enjoined and restrained from occupying or operating the
16 PROPERTY, including MCDONALD'S, while the conditions described in this Complaint exist and
17 until all ofthe violations at the PROPERTY have been abated;
18 9. DEFENDANTS be ordered to cause all portions ofthe PROPERTY to conform to law,
19 and maintain such structures and all parts thereofin accordance with law;
20 10. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code sections 17203-17204,
21 DEFENDANTS, their agents, officer8, managers, representatives, employees, and anyone acting on
22 their behalf, and their heirs, successors, and assignees be enjoined from operating, conducting, using,
23 occupying, or in any way permitting the use of any portion ofthe PROPERTY in the unfair and
24 unlawful business practices described in this Complaint;
25 11. DEFENDANTS, and each ofthem, inclusive, be enjoined from spending, transferring,
26 encumbering, or removing from California any money received from the PROPERTY or
27 MCDONALD'S or in payment for the unfair and unlawful acts alleged in the Complaint;
28
11
COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:usersbfeitclbappdataJocaltcmpnotcsc7a
056draft complaiotdoc

14. 1 Penalties
2 12. The Court impose civil penalties of$25,000.00 against each Defendant to prevent them
3 from continuing to maintain a nuisance at the PROPERTY, pursuant to California Health and Safety
4 Code section 11581;
5 13. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17206, DEFENDANTS be ordered
6 to each pay a civil penalty of$2,500.00 for each act ofunfair and unlawful competition in violation of
7 Business and Professions Code sections 17200-1721O;
8 Fees and Costs
9 14. DEFENDANTS be ordered to pay PLAINTIFFS' reasonable attorney's fees and costs,
10 including the cost ofinvestigation and discovery, pursuant to California Civil Code section 3496(c).
11 15. PLAINTIFFS be awarded their costs incurred herein pursuant to Code of Civil
12 Procedure section 1032; and
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16.
Dated:
The Court grant such other and further relief as this Court should find just and proper.
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
YVONNE R. MERE
ChiefAttorney
MEGAN CESARE-EASTMAN
Deputy City Attorneys
By:.~~~~~~~~~~-­
MEGAN CESARE-EASTMAN
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
12
COMPLAINT - CCSF, et al. v. YIN MCDONALD'S, et al. c:userslbfeitelblappdatalocalltemplnotesc7a
056draft complaintdoc

15. L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Morris Allen, declare as follows:
I am a citizen ofthe United States, over·the age ofeighteen years and not a party to the above-
entitled action. I am employed at the City Attorney's Office of San Francisco, 1390 Market Street
Building, 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.
On May 12, 2015, I served the following document(s):
NAME OF DOCUMENT
on the following persons at the locations specified:
J. Scott Weaver, Esq. KevinK. Cholakian
Wartelle, Weaver & Schreiber Colin R. Hatcher
369 Pine Street, Suite 506 Richard Dana
San Francisco, CA 94104 Cholakian and Associates
400 Oyster Point Blvd., Suite 415
South San Francisco, CA 94080
in the manner indicated below:
D
D
D
D
BY UNITED STATES MAIL: Following ordinary business practices, I sealed true and correct copies of
the above documents in addressed envelope(s) and placed them at my workplace for collection and mailing with
the United States Postal Service. I am readily familiar with the practices ofthe San Francisco City Attorney's
Office for collecting and processing mail. In the ordinary course ofbusiness, the sealed envelope(s) that I placed
for collection would be deposited, postage prepaid, with the United States Postal Service that same day.
BY PERSO~AL SERVICE: I sealed true and correct copies ofthe above documents in addressed
envelope(s) and caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand at the above locations by a professional
messenger service. A declaration from the messenger who made the delivery 0 is attached or 0 will be
med separately with the court.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I sealed true and correct copies ofthe above documents in addressed
envelope(s) and placed them at my workplace for collection and delivery by overnight courier service. I am
readily familiar with the practices ofthe San Francisco City Attorney's Office for sending overnight deliveries. In
the ordinary ~ourse ofbusiness, the sealed envelope(s) that I placed for collection would be collected by a courier
the same day.
BY FACSIMILE: Based on a written agreement ofthe parties to accept service by fax, I transmitted true and
correct copies ofthe above document(s) via a facsimile machine at telephone number Fax#' to the persons and the
fax numbers listed above. The fax transmission was reported as complete and without error. The transmission
report was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, and a copy of the transmission report 0 is
attached or 0 will be illed separately with the court.
I declare under penalty ofperjury pursuant to the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia that the
24 foregoing is true and correct. ·
25 Executed May 12, 2015, at San Francisco, California.
26
Morris Allen
27
28
INSERT I LINE ONLY ABBREV DOC NAME & CASE CGC 09 495400 c:usersbfeitelbappdatalocalltempnotesc7a
056draft complaintdoc