This project is supported by Grant No. 2007-MU-BX-K003 awarded by the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, 

which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of 

view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1 

This project is supported by Grant No. 2007-MU-BX-K003 awarded by the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, 

which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of 

view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
2 

Mr. Jonathan Cristall is an assistant supervisor in the Los Angeles City Attorney’s 

Office. He supervises Project T.O.U.G.H. (Taking Out Urban Gang Headquarters)—a 

specialized and unique unit that works in close partnership with local and federal law 

enforcement agencies to target nuisance gang properties. Mr. Cristall has prosecuted 

and supervised gang abatements against gang members of the Avenues, MS-13, 

18th Street, and numerous Crips and Bloods sets, to name a few. The prosecutions 

have resulted in the closure and subsequent demolition of numerous gang hangouts and 

headquarters, countless injunctions, and millions of dollars in monetary judgments 

against gang members and property owners. 

Ms. Liora Forman-Echols has been a prosecutor with the Los Angeles City 

Attorney’s Office for ten years. She is currently assigned to Project T.O.U.G.H., where 

she has prosecuted narcotics and gang nuisance abatement actions against property 

owners and gang members throughout the city. Ms. Forman-Echols has embraced 

T.O.U.G.H.’s philosophy of pushing the boundaries of nuisance remedies to abate 

problem gang properties. One of her greatest accomplishments is seeing the residents 

of Project T.O.U.G.H. neighborhoods reclaim their streets. 
3 

How Project T.O.U.G.H. Helps Reduce Gang Crime 

in the City of Los Angeles 

According to the Los Angeles Police Department, in the City of 

Los Angeles, approximately 60 percent of crimes occur at 10 percent of the 

properties—a statistic that is probably not exclusive to Los Angeles. The 

purpose of property abatements is to target the properties where people are 

repeatedly arrested but where criminal activities nonetheless persist. When 

these 10 percent of properties are connected to gang activity—which is 

increasingly the case—a nuisance property abatement action is initiated by 

prosecutors assigned to Project T.O.U.G.H. (Taking Out Urban Gang 

Headquarters), a specialized unit of the criminal branch of the Los Angeles City 

Attorney’s Office. The nuisance abatement action improves conditions at the 

property so that criminals will not be able to use the property anymore. Gang 

property abatements are a critical, but sometimes overlooked, weapon in law 

enforcement’s arsenal against gangs. 

Community members who work, live, or go to school in gang-plagued 

areas often are aware of private properties in their neighborhoods that are used 

by gangs to engage in criminal activity. For gang members, these properties are 

essential to their survival because they provide a safe haven to sell drugs and 

engage in other criminal activity. Further, the properties help to solidify the gang’s 

control over the neighborhood by becoming the hangout or headquarters for the 

gang. 

Not only do community members know about these gang locations, law 

enforcement often does as well—making arrest after arrest and securing multiple 

search warrants in an effort to stop the problems there. While arrests and search 

warrants are typically a highly effective way to stop criminal activity, this is not 

necessarily the case at entrenched gang locations. Gang members highly value 

these locations, and when one person is arrested, another is frequently willing to 

quickly fill the void and resume the criminal activity. 

When local or federal law enforcement officers or agents determine that 

arrests will not stop criminal gang activity at a private property, they refer the 

property to Project T.O.U.G.H. prosecutors for nuisance abatement. Additionally, 

community members may refer cases anonymously by contacting the City 

Attorney’s Office. 

What Is Project T.O.U.G.H.? 

Begun in 2007, Project T.O.U.G.H. is an innovative, cutting-edge property 

abatement program which significantly curtails gang activity in 

Los Angeles neighborhoods. Prosecutors assigned to T.O.U.G.H. target the 

properties where gang members regularly commit crimes. Although attorneys 

assigned to T.O.U.G.H. are criminal prosecutors, they use civil lawsuits to abate 
4 

gang activity at private properties. There are several benefits to this: (1) by 

going to civil court, injunctive relief abating the nuisance can be obtained—a 

highly effective way to deal with the problems; (2) the defendants do not have a 

right to a jury trial or a court-appointed attorney; and (3) the burden of proof in 

civil court is a preponderance of the evidence, rather than the heightened 

beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard used in criminal proceedings. 

Gang Property Abatements Versus Gang Injunctions 

Both gang injunctions and gang property abatements are nuisance 

abatement actions. However, they seek very different remedies. A gang 

injunction is a lawsuit against an entire gang.1

 A gang property abatement 

focuses on a specific property and targets the property owners and specific gang 

members who are creating or allowing the nuisance there. A gang injunction 

focuses on an entire geographic area (called a safety zone) within which the 

gang’s activities are restricted. Among other things, gang injunctions typically 

prohibit two or more gang members from associating in public in the safety zone. 

Gang property abatements target a specific property—regardless of whether it 

sits in an actual safety zone—and seek to stop criminal activity from occurring 

there. 

As gangs continue to terrorize our communities and budget cuts reduce 

law enforcement resources, Project T.O.U.G.H. presents a useful and costeffective tool to all law enforcement agencies combating gangs in the City of 

Los Angeles, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

(ATF), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Los Angeles Police 

Department (LAPD).2 

Gang Property Abatements 

A gang property abatement is a civil lawsuit initiated by the City Attorney’s 

Office in the name of the People of the State of California that seeks to abate 

recurring criminal activity at a private property. The property owner—who is 

legally responsible for abating the nuisance at the property—and gang members 

who are using the property to engage in criminal activity are named as 

defendants. Negligent property managers and tenants who are “friendly” to the 

gang members may also be named as defendants. A gang property abatement 

can be brought at any type of privately owned property. This includes singlefamily dwellings, hotels, motels, apartment buildings, bars, and other commercial 

locations. 

The owner and the gang members are sued because they have either 

directly or indirectly caused or permitted a public nuisance to exist on the 

property. The gang members do not have to be property owners, managers, or 

tenants to be named as defendants. In essence, the City Attorney’s Office files 
5 

the abatement action to stop, or greatly reduce, the criminal activity at the 

property. In most instances, the abatement of the nuisance at the property has a 

ripple effect, positively improving the surrounding neighborhood. 

Case Study: Drew-Estara 

 

The Drew-Estara neighborhood is a small, densely populated area in northeast 

Los Angeles that has been controlled by the volatile Avenues criminal street 

gang for decades. The unique geography of the neighborhood, secluded and 

insulated by a variety of geographic barriers, lends itself to the Avenues’ 

multigenerational stronghold on the area. There are no established businesses, 

churches, transit lines, or major transportation routes through Drew-Estara. It is 

very dense, packed tightly with apartment buildings and some single-family 

dwellings. Some of these apartment buildings were controlled by the Avenues 

gang and were used to facilitate narcotics sales and served as meeting places 

for gang members. 

On June 25, 2008, a ten-month investigation of the gang in the Drew-Estrada 

area led by HIDTA 503 and LAPD’s Narcotics Abatement Unit (NAU), and 

supported by ATF and the Glendale Police Department, culminated in a 70-

defendant federal indictment, 14 state prosecutions, and the filing of 7 gang 

property abatements involving 10 properties in the neighborhood.4

As of this printing, almost all of the property owners have agreed to 

comprehensive injunctions to abate the criminal activity at their properties. The 

injunctions contain a list of physical improvements and new management 

practices. As a result of this multiagency investigation, a year after the takedown 

violence and property crime are down over 40 percent in the neighborhood. 

Narcotics activity has also dropped significantly. 

Once a lawsuit is filed, the City Attorney’s Office seeks a preliminary 

injunction against the property owner, gang members, gang associates, and/or 

property managers. The injunction against the owner requires that he make 

comprehensive physical improvements to the property (such as surveillance 
6 

systems, gates, lighting) and alter the management practices (such as better 

tenant screening, new managers, evictions). Against the gang member 

defendants, a stay away order is sought which prevents them from returning to 

the property.5

Gang locations handled by Project T.O.U.G.H. prosecutors frequently 

have a history of narcotics sales, shootings, and other acts of gang violence. 

Additionally, gambling, drinking in public, loud parties, and other well-established 

nuisance activities are typically found at these locations. All criminal activities of 

the gang are documented and used as part of the abatement process. 

Causes of Action 

Depending on the facts of the case, there are up to three legal theories, 

commonly referred to as causes of action, which form the basis of the lawsuit. 

All of these are brought by the City Attorney’s Office in the name of the People of 

the State of California: (1) Narcotics Abatement, Health and Safety Code 

Section 11570, et seq.; (2) General Public Nuisance, Civil Code Section 3479; 

and (3) Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code, Section 17200, 

et seq. 

Narcotics Abatement Law 

The Narcotics Abatement 

Law prohibits any property from 

being used to sell, store, serve, 

or manufacture narcotics.6

 It 

authorizes the city attorney, 

on behalf of the State of 

California, to obtain a broad 

injunction against the property 

owner and others engaged in 

narcotics activity at the property 

to abate the nuisance.7

 In 

certain circumstances, the court 

can order the property owner to live on the property and/or close down the 

property for one year.8

 A lawsuit under the Narcotics Abatement Law is given 

precedence over nearly all other lawsuits on the court’s calendar.9 The statute 

also expressly allows the nuisance to be proved by the reputation of 

the property in the community.10 Further, knowledge of the nuisance is not 

necessary to establish liability of the property owner.11 The city attorney may 

recover attorneys’ fees and law enforcement costs of investigation.12 

Additionally, a penalty of up to $25,000 per defendant may be assessed by the 

court.13 This statute is used by Project T.O.U.G.H. prosecutors when gang 

members and/or their associates are using a property for narcotics sales. 
7 

General Public Nuisance Law 

The General Public Nuisance Statute defines a nuisance as anything that 

is injurious to health, indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the 

free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life 

or property.14 The definition also includes the sale of narcotics. The city attorney 

is expressly authorized to file a public nuisance lawsuit on behalf of the State 

of California and obtain injunctive relief.15 This statute is used by Project 

T.O.U.G.H. prosecutors to document for the court all criminal activity (not just 

narcotics) occurring at and directly connected to a gang property that constitutes 

the nuisance. This may include drive-by and other shootings, fights, gambling, 

drinking alcoholic beverages in public, loud noise, and any other offensive activity 

conducted by the gang at or connected to the property.16 Unlike the Narcotics 

Abatement Statute, the General Public Nuisance Statute does not authorize 

recovery of any costs or attorneys’ fees.17 However, like the Narcotics 

Abatement Statute, an owner’s knowledge is not necessary to establish liability.18

Unlawful Business Practices 

The Unlawful Business Practices Statute (commonly referred to as the 

Unfair Competition Law or UCL) seeks to enjoin, redress, and punish, among 

other things, unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices.19

Unlike the narcotics abatement and general public nuisance causes of action, 

which are primarily property based, unlawful activity alleged under a UCL cause 

of action does not have to be connected to the physical property. Virtually any 

violation of law—local, state, federal, civil or criminal, statutory, regulatory, or 

common law—is actionable under the “unlawful” prong of 17200.20 Frequently, 

T.O.U.G.H. prosecutors use violations of the Narcotics Abatement and/or the 

General Public Nuisance Statutes as the basis for the UCL cause of action.21 In 

addition to broad injunctive relief 22 and the potential appointment of a receiver to 

manage the property,23 civil penalties of up to $2,500 for each act of unlawful 

competition24 are available under the UCL. Operating rental housing in a way 

that violates any laws, including nuisance abatement statutes, is an unlawful 

business practice that subjects the property owner to liability under the UCL. 

Unlawful business practices also include using any legitimate business, such as 

a barber shop or tattoo parlor, for an illegal purpose such as narcotics sales. 

Case Study: People v. Pantoja 

People v. Pantoja—On October 24, 2007, an Unlawful Business Practices 

lawsuit (B&P Section 17200) was filed against two 18th Street Gang shot callers 

who owned Unicos Tattoos, a tattoo parlor used as a cover for narcotics 

trafficking for the 18th Street gang. The complaint was filed in tandem with 

multicount federal indictments against more than 20 gang members and was part 

of a multiagency operation involving the City Attorney’s Office, LAPD, U.S. 

Attorney’s Office, and the FBI. Unicos Tattoos was closed as a result of the 

lawsuit, and a legitimate business took over the retail space. 
8 

How Are Cases Handled? 

Once a location has been identified, the T.O.U.G.H. prosecutors order all 

LAPD arrest and crime reports connected to the property for at least the last 

three years. Additionally, if the assigned prosecutor is aware that there is an 

ongoing federal investigation relating to the gang that is operating at the property, 

all investigative notes involving the property are requested from the federal 

agency. Once these documents have been requested, a T.O.U.G.H. paralegal 

assigned to the case starts ordering all property ownership records. If there is a 

business operating at the property, all records relating to the operation of the 

business are also ordered. 

The Investigating Officer 

Every nuisance abatement case should have an investigating officer (I/O) 

assigned. The role of the I/O is to be the expert about the current status of the 

criminal activity at the location and the history, or community reputation, of the 

location. An officer who is an expert on the location helps explain to the court the 

reasons why there is a nuisance there and why certain injunctive terms are being 

sought and are justified. The I/O is really the eyes and ears of the prosecutor in 

the community. The prosecutor may know much (if not all) of what the I/O 

knows, but he certainly does not want to be a witness in his own case. When an 

injunction is sought in the nuisance abatement action, the I/O puts all of his 

knowledge about the property into a declaration for the judge. Typically, the I/O 

acquires this information from making arrests at the property, reviewing all crime 

and arrest reports, meeting with members of the community who are 

knowledgeable about the location, interviewing gang members and informants 

about the location, and conducting covert surveillance of the property. In most 

jurisdictions, an officer or detective is assigned to every felony. It only makes 

sense that an officer or detective should be assigned to a location where there 

have been multiple felonies. 

Opening a Case 

As soon as all LAPD reports and/or federal investigative notes are 

received, they are analyzed to determine whether a nuisance exists at the 

property.25 The prosecutor reviewing this evidence is looking for a pattern of 

criminal activity connected to the property. There is no magic number of criminal 

incidents that triggers the location being opened for handling. A number of 

factors are considered together, such as the size of the location, the type of 

location, the length of time the activity has been occurring, and the type and 

extent of the activity. Once all of these factors are evaluated and prosecutors 

determine that they have sufficient evidence to support a lawsuit, a case is 

opened for handling by T.O.U.G.H. 
9 

Once the property is opened for handling, prosecutors start drafting the 

pleadings (legal paperwork). While the pleadings are being drafted, the 

prosecutors start identifying which people connected to the unlawful activity at 

the property should be named as defendants. This is a critical step because it 

can be more difficult to abate the nuisance if the appropriate persons are not 

named as defendants. The following groups of potential defendants are 

evaluated: 

• Property owners: Any and all individuals or entities who 

currently have an ownership interest in the property are always 

named as defendants in the lawsuit. The law holds the property 

owner responsible for the activity on the property; therefore, the 

owner is a necessary party to the lawsuit.26 It may also be 

appropriate to name prior owners, if the change in ownership 

was recent and the nuisance occurred under their ownership. 

• Gang members: Gang members using the property to facilitate 

their criminal activity, whether or not they are tenants, are 

named as defendants. In some instances, in which numerous 

gang members are using the property for criminal activity, it may 

not be expedient to name all of them as defendants.27 In those 

situations, those who live at the property and those committing 

the worst offenses at the property are named as defendants. 

• Gang member associates: Tenants who are not members of the 

gang, but who directly or indirectly assist gang members with 

their criminal activity, are commonly referred to as “friendlies” 

and may be named as defendants, if their activity can be linked 

to the property. 

• Property managers: Property managers who are negligent in 

their duties may be named as defendants. 

As the pleadings are being drafted and defendants are being identified, 

prosecutors determine when the lawsuit will be filed with the court. If there is no 

federal investigation, then the lawsuit is simply filed when all of the pleadings 

establishing the nuisance have been drafted. However, T.O.U.G.H. projects 

frequently involve ongoing federal investigations and, in almost all instances, the 

lawsuits are not filed until federal indictments are issued against the members of 

the gang. This is necessary when the evidentiary basis of the nuisance lawsuit, 

in whole or in part, relates to the federal investigation. Filing before the 

indictments would jeopardize the investigation by prematurely disclosing 

confidential information. Additionally, by sequencing the filing of the lawsuits with 

the issuance of indictments and the arrests of the gang members, the 

abatements and the overall takedown have a much greater impact on the gang. 
10 

Filing Requirements 

At the time the lawsuit is filed, prosecutors must be able to establish a 

pattern of criminal activity amounting to a nuisance at the property. The last 

documented criminal act at the property should occur within approximately two to 

three months of filing. This is necessary because the only real defense against a 

nuisance abatement lawsuit is that the nuisance was abated prior to the time of 

filing.28 Accordingly, the closer to the time of filing the criminal activity amounting 

to a nuisance is established, the easier it is to negate this defense. 

 

Depending on the facts of the case and the remedy sought, the time it 

takes to prepare the abatement lawsuit can vary greatly. A very simple 

abatement, for example, a single-family dwelling, can be prepared in 

approximately two weeks. A complicated abatement, for example, a large 

apartment building, may take up to two months to prepare. Considering that most 

T.O.U.G.H. locations have been problems for years and that without abatement 

they will continue to be problems for years to come, the time preparing the 

lawsuit is time well spent. 

After the lawsuit is filed, the defendants are served with the legal 

pleadings. At that point, prosecutors seek an injunction from the court to stop the 

criminal activity from occurring at the property.29 The terms of the injunction are 

very fact specific and therefore vary from case to case. Prosecutors consider 

such factors as the type of criminal activity, the extent of the activity, the duration 

of the activity, and the physical layout of the property when drafting the 

injunction. 

Further, the terms of the injunction do not apply uniformly to each 

defendant. For example, an injunction against the property owner may require, 

among other items, hiring a professional on-site property manager; requiring the 

owner to reside in the building until the nuisance is abated; posting armed 

security guards on-site; installing high-intensity lighting, fencing, and updated 

electronic entry systems; evicting problem tenants; and maintaining the property. 

Clearly, these terms would be of no use against a gang member defendant. A 

term that is typically sought against gang member defendants is a stay away 

order from the property and the area surrounding the property.30 If a tenant who 

is not a gang member but is “friendly” to the gang is named in the lawsuit, his 

eviction will be sought. If property managers have been named as defendants, 

the injunction will seek to terminate their employment. 

Once the preliminary injunction is obtained from the court, the property is 

monitored for criminal activity for a period ranging from 6 to 18 months. In the 

vast majority of cases, the implementation of this preliminary injunction will abate 

the nuisance. If it is clear that the nuisance has been abated, the case is often 

resolved with the property owner agreeing to a stipulated judgment, including a 

permanent injunction mirroring the preliminary injunction and a monetary 
11 

settlement. 31 When the case is completely resolved against the property owner, 

the court often issues a permanent injunction against all gang member 

defendants, prohibiting them from being on or near the property.32 

Case Study: 69th and Main 

One of the cases that laid the groundwork for Project T.O.U.G.H. was the 

abatement of three apartment buildings located at 6901–6909 South Main Street 

(commonly referred to as 69th and Main). For more than 20 years, these 

buildings were used as the headquarters for the violent and territorial 69 East 

Coast Crips. As a result, there was a wide range of criminal activity occurring 

there, including shootings, drug dealing, and robberies. For example, between 

June 21, 2000, and September 21, 2004, LAPD made 18 narcotics arrests at the 

properties, documented 13 drive-by shootings resulting in the shooting of nine 

persons, including two children, and recovered 17 firearms. Of course, these 

were just the crimes actually reported to the police. Not only were residents in 

the community terrorized by the gang members at the apartments, but school 

children attending the middle school across the street were regularly victimized 

by members of the gang who were “hanging out” at the property. 

 

 

Believing that there was no remedy short of immediate closure that would stop 

the rampant gang activity at the apartments, abatement prosecutors filed suit 

against the property owners and requested that the court close down the 

buildings immediately. After hearing from all of the parties, the court ordered the 

buildings to be closed. Tenants who were not direct participants in the criminal 

activity received relocation money. Before the closure order took effect, LAPD 

officers who conducted a simultaneous undercover abatement investigation at 

the property—in which guns and drugs were purchased from gang members 

there—executed search warrants at the property and arrested numerous gang 

members and their associates. 

Following the closure of the buildings, the Community Redevelopment Agency 

(CRA) for the City of Los Angeles purchased two of the three buildings. The 

CRA subsequently demolished them and plan to build townhomes for qualified, 

first-time homeowners. The third building will be used as a computer center for 

children. 

Since the closure in 2005, there has been no crime at the property. Further, in 

the six months following the closure, there was a 24 percent reduction in crime in 

the entire surrounding neighborhood. 
12 

At times, closure of a gang property may be the only way to effectively 

abate the nuisance. If the nuisance is not abated during the monitoring period, a 

trial is held and closure of the property may be sought from the court.33 

Occasionally, in extreme circumstances, prosecutors may seek closure of a 

property immediately upon the filing of the abatement action.34 Under any 

circumstances, in accordance with local and state law, if a closure order is issued 

by the court, all tenants who are not involved in the criminal activity receive 

relocation money from the property owner. 

Evictions 

When there is not enough evidence to bring an abatement lawsuit, Project 

T.O.U.G.H. prosecutors will evaluate whether gang members and/or associates 

can be evicted under existing laws. Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 47.50 

requires landlords to evict tenants arrested for narcotics offenses, gang-related 

crime, or threats and/or acts of violence within 1,000 feet of their residences. 

California Health and Safety Code Section 11571.1 authorizes the City Attorney 

to bring an unlawful detainer action on behalf of a property owner against any 

tenant arrested for a narcotics offense occurring on the property. Additionally, 

California Civil Code Section 3485 requires landlords to evict tenants who 

illegally possess or use a firearm or ammunition. 

Post-Takedown Efforts 

T.O.U.G.H. prosecutors work closely with other partners after a takedown 

occurs to “hold the ground.” This is a notable distinction from most multiagency 

gang investigations which lack a post-takedown plan to ensure that gains are 

sustained. 

Partnering with the City Attorney’s Neighborhood Prosecutor Program, 

communities are organized and engaged in a process to reclaim their 

neighborhood. Some of these efforts include community organization, crime 

prevention programs, neighborhood watches, job and health fairs, and school 

partnerships. Additionally, neighborhood prosecutors vertically prosecute qualityof-life crimes in the neighborhood. 
13 

Case Study: Ghost Town/Cruces 

The Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, LAPD, ATF, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, 

and the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office worked together to target and 

dismantle the East Side Pain (ESP) criminal street gang—a multigenerational 

gang that sold drugs and dominated the “Ghost Town” neighborhood of 

Wilmington for more than 30 years (the area is also known as Cruces). Ghost 

Town is a small, densely populated, 12-block neighborhood of mostly singlefamily homes, several apartment buildings, and commercial property. 

In what has become a national model for local and federal cooperation to fight 

gang and drug strongholds, extensive coordination was used to build cases 

against gang members and to target problem gang properties. This investigation 

culminated on July 31, 2007, with the arrest of 44 gang members and their 

associates on the same day that abatement attorneys filed five gang property 

abatement lawsuits and the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed five real property 

forfeiture lawsuits. The two attorneys who handled the federal prosecutions of 

the gang members and the asset forfeiture lawsuits were Deputy City Attorneys 

in the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office cross-designated as Special Assistant 

United States Attorneys (SAUSAs). During the course of the investigation, LAPD 

officers and ATF agents purchased large quantities of narcotics and numerous 

handguns, shotguns, and assault rifles from gang members and their associates. 

Since the takedown, crime is down approximately 50 percent in the 

neighborhood. The City Attorney’s Office has focused on delivering resources 

and community outreach. This “hold the ground” strategy includes creating and 

developing proactive and long-term partnerships with community groups. Led by 

the City Attorney’s Office, LAPD, local political entities, and government agencies 

are working to improve the quality of life in the neighborhood through 

enforcement of public safety laws, environmental enhancement, and community 

empowerment. The neighborhood prosecutor for the area has diligently worked 

to organize the residents and stakeholders in this community and has repeatedly 

met with residents, property owners, businesses, and community-based 

organizations to teach them how to organize and tap into needed city services. 

Further, the neighborhood prosecutor has helped area stakeholders prioritize 

their needs and seek resources so that ultimately they can carry on these efforts 

on their own. 

Conclusion 

The primary objective of Project T.O.U.G.H. is to improve the quality of life 

for people living in gang-plagued neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Project 

T.O.U.G.H. eliminates gang headquarters and hangouts in conjunction with and 

as a complement to comprehensive local and federal law enforcement 

investigations. Including property abatements in the fight against gangs greatly 

enhances the effectiveness of the investigation. 
14 

 

Footnotes 

1

See People ex rel Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal. 4th 1090, cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121. 

2

 While Project T.O.U.G.H. operates within the City of Los Angeles, as further explained 

herein, T.O.U.G.H. prosecutors utilize state laws. Thus, many other prosecutorial offices 

within the state of California may file comparable abatement actions. Similarly, 

prosecutors in other states can utilize the nuisance laws of their states. 

3

 HIDTA/SCDTF Group 50 is composed of DEA, LAPD, IRS, ICE, City of Ontario Police 

Department, Riverside Police Department and Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, 

San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. HIDTA (HighIntensity Drug Trafficking Area) is a federal program that helps improve the effectiveness 

and efficiency of drug control efforts by facilitating cooperation between drug control 

organizations through resource and information sharing, collocating, and implementing 

joint initiatives. The mission of HIDTA squads is to attack, disrupt, and dismantle major 

drug-trafficking and money-laundering organizations. SCDTF (Southern California Drug 

Task Force) is an enforcement initiative under the HIDTA program. The Los Angeles 

HIDTA area includes four counties (Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and San 

Bernardino), covering 32,341 square miles with a population of approximately 17 million. 

4

 Nine of these properties are on the same street. 

5

 A gang member defendant served with a stay away order can be arrested for violation 

of Penal Code Section 166(a)(4), a misdemeanor, and prosecuted accordingly. 

6

 Section 11570 of the California Health and Safety Code states that drug houses are 

nuisances which shall be abated. Specifically, the section provides: “Every building or 

place used for the purpose of unlawfully selling, serving, storing, keeping, 

manufacturing, or giving away any controlled substance, precursor, or analog specified 

in the division, and every building or place wherein or upon which those acts take place, 

is a nuisance which shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented . . . .” 

7

 Health and Safety Code §§ 11571, 11573, and 11573.5(f)(1). 

8

 Health and Safety Code §§ 11573.5 and 11581. 

9

 Health and Safety Code § 11575. 

10 Health and Safety Code § 11575.5. 

11 Health and Safety Code §§ 11570 and 11571. Please note that there are very few 

published court opinions interpreting the Narcotics Abatement Law. Accordingly, it is 

helpful to review the many published cases under Penal Code Section 11225 et seq. 

(the Red Light Abatement law), on which the Narcotics Abatement Law was modeled. 

The plain language of the Narcotics Abatement Law and these Red Light Abatement 

Law cases make clear that knowledge of the owner is not a prerequisite to obtaining an 

injunction to abate the nuisance. See The People v. Bayside Land Company (1920) 48 
15 

 

Cal. App. 257, 261. Also see Lew v. Superior Court (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 866, where 

neighbors of a 36-unit complex sued the owner under the Narcotics Abatement Law. 

The court stated that Health and Safety Code Section 11570 “does not require that the 

unlawful activity which makes the building a nuisance be conducted by the owner of the 

building, a tenant of the building, or a person entering with permission” (Id., at 871). 

12 Civ. Code § 3496. Also, see City of Oakland v. McCullough (1996) 46 Cal. App. 4th 1, 

where the court found that overhead expenses can be included in the People’s recovery 

of the costs of investigation and attorneys’ fees. The People are entitled to recover an 

hourly rate for their attorney that reflects the reasonable market rate for legal services in 

the community. (See Serrano v. Priest [1977] 20 Cal. 3d 25; Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc.

[1983] 34 Cal. 3d 311; PLCM Group v. Drexler [2000] 22 Cal. 4th 1084; Serrano v. 

Unruh [1982] 32 Cal. 3d 621; and Napier v. Thirty or More Federal Agents, 855 F.2d 

1080 [3rd Cir. 1988].) 

13 Health and Safety Code § 11581(b)(2). 

14 Civ. Code § 3479. 

15 Code of Civ. Proc. § 731. 

16 If there are sufficient nonnarcotics-type crimes linked to the property, a general public 

nuisance cause of action should be alleged. Adding the public nuisance cause of action 

allows into evidence all of these activities that would not be admissible under the 

Narcotics Abatement Law. Accordingly, the judge is able to get a more comprehensive 

picture of the nuisance activities at the property: loitering, gang graffiti, drinking, etc. 

17 However, the court’s power in fashioning appropriate remedies for any equitable 

action, including nuisance, is broad. “Equitable relief is designed to be flexible and 

expanding, and the theory that for every wrong there is a remedy may be invoked by 

equity courts to justify the invention of new methods of relief for new types of wrongs.” 

(See 13 Witkin, Summary of California Law, 10th ed., Equity § 3; see also Civ. Code 

§3523; Southern Pac. Co. v. Robinson [1901] 132 Cal. 408, 412 [there were no fixed 

rules limiting the power of equity in dealing with subject matters coming generally within 

its jurisdiction, and . . . the chancellor should not be cramped in the exercise of his 

powers by fixed and rigid rules of law].) 

18 Under general nuisance principles, where "a building or other property is so used as to 

make it a nuisance under the statute, the nuisance may be abated . . . notwithstanding 

that the owner had no knowledge that it was used for the unlawful purpose constituting a 

nuisance." (People ex rel. Bradford v. Barbiere (1917) 33 Cal. App. 770779; see also

Sturges v. Charles L. Harney, Inc. [1958] 165 Cal. App. 2d 306 318 ["a nuisance and 

liability therefor may exist without negligence"]; People v. McCadden [1920] 48 Cal. App. 

790 792 [judgment is supported on findings that nuisance was conducted and 

maintained on the premises, regardless of the knowledge of the owner thereof, is 

sufficient; “such knowledge on the part of the owner . . . is unnecessary"]; People v. 

Peterson (1920) 45 Cal. App. 457, 460 ["it was not necessary . . . for the trial court to find 

either, that the [defendants] threatened, and unless restrained, would continue to 

maintain, aid, and abet, the nuisance, or that they knew the building was used in 

violation of the act. . . . The existence of the nuisance was the ultimate fact in this case, 
16 

 

and having been found, supports the judgment"].) This is because "the object of the act 

is not to punish; its purpose is to effect a reformation of the property itself." (People v. 

Bayside Land Co. (1920) 48 Cal. App. 257, 261.) 

19 Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200. See also People ex rel. Bill Lockyer v. Fremont Life Ins. 

Co. (2002) 104 Cal. App. 4th 508 (“As used in Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., 

unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business 

act or practice. Written in the disjunctive, this language establishes three varieties of 

unfair competition.”) 

20It is not necessary that the predicate law provide for civil enforcement. As the 

California Supreme Court explained, Section 17200 “borrows violations of other laws 

and treats them as unlawful practices independently actionable under Section 17200 et 

seq.” (South Bay Chevrolet v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. [1999] 72 Cal. App. 4th 

861, 880.) 

21 Bus. and Prof. Code § 17204 authorizes California prosecutors to commence UCL 

actions: These UCL actions “shall be prosecuted exclusively in a court of competent 

jurisdiction by the Attorney General or any district attorney or by a county counsel 

authorized by agreement with the district attorney in actions involving violation of a 

county ordinance, or a city attorney of a city, or city and county, having a population in 

excess of 750,000, or by a city attorney in a city and county and, with the consent of the 

district attorney, by a city prosecutor in any city having a full-time city prosecutor in the 

name of the People of the State of California upon their own complaint or upon the 

complaint of any board, officer, person, corporation, or association, or by any person 

who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair 

competition.” 

22 Bus. and Prof. Code § 17203. 

23 Id.

24 Bus. and Prof. Code § 17206(a). See 17206(c), which sets forth the mandatory 

apportionment of all collected civil penalties. 

25 While reviewing the actual documented criminal activity at the property is not the only 

factor considered when determining whether a nuisance exists at the property, it is an 

important first step. 

26 “Whenever there is reason to believe that a nuisance as described in Section 11570 is 

kept, maintained or exists . . . the city attorney . . . may maintain an action to abate and 

prevent the nuisance and perpetually to enjoin the person conducting or maintaining it 

and the owner, lessee or agent of the building or place upon which the nuisance exists 

from directly or indirectly maintaining or permitting the nuisance.” (Health and Safety 

Code § 11571; emphasis added.) See also note 17, above. 

27 Evaluate service of process issues thoroughly and well before filing. Consider the 

difficulty of serving the legal paperwork on multiple gang member defendants, some of 

whom may be in custody, others who may be out, and still others who are on the run and 

difficult to track down. 
17 

 

28 There is a statutory presumption that “a thing continues to exist as long as is usual 

with things of that nature.” Civ. Code § 3547. Once the People make a showing that 

nuisance activity has occurred on the property, the burden is on the defense to 

demonstrate that the nuisance has been abated. People ex rel Hicks v. Sarong Gals

(1974) 42 Cal. App. 3d 556, 562. 

29 While a noticed motion for preliminary injunction can be brought, it is often quicker and 

more effective to make an ex parte application for the same within one to two weeks of 

filing. Be mindful of the numerous local and state rules—both substantive and 

procedural—governing ex partes and preliminary injunctions; i.e., Rules 3.1150 

(injunctions) and 3.1200 (ex parte applications) of the California Rules of Court. Also, 

consider that in some jurisdictions, like Los Angeles, an ex parte application for a 

preliminary injunction has to be made before the writs and receivers judge rather than 

the trial judge—who would hear a noticed motion for preliminary injunction. 

30 Stay away orders generally range from 150 feet to 500 feet, depending on the facts 

and the strength of the evidence. In drafting a broad stay away order, be aware of the 

potential constitutional arguments against the same. 

31 The vast majority of property owners stipulate to a preliminary injunction after 

reviewing the evidence submitted to the court by the City Attorney’s Office. 

32 More often than not, gang member defendants never respond to the lawsuit resulting 

in a default judgment against them. 

33 Health and Safety Code Sections 11573.5(b), 11581(a), and (b)(1) permit the closure 

of a property in only two situations: (1) if a previous injunction does not abate the 

nuisance (closing for up to one year pending trial); and (2) if the existence of the 

nuisance is established at the time of trial (closing the property for a period of one year). 

Civ. Code § 3479 is silent as to the closure of properties. Thus, if the facts and evidence 

warrant, closure can be sought under the general nuisance laws without the restrictions 

contained in the narcotics abatement law. 

34 Id.