WT A SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Nov-26-2018 11:43 am Case Number: CGC-15-545031 Filing Date: Nov-26-2018 11:38 Filed by: JUANITA MURPHY Image: 06584678 ORDER CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, A MUNICIPAL ET AL VS. MEL MURPHY ET AL 001006584678 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanneda e @ ORIGINAL City Attomey PETER J. KEITH, stte Ba #206082 Ae Chief Atiomey Neighborhood and Residential Safety Division NO 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor Y 28 2018 San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Chey or Telephone: (415) 554-3908 A nr Facsimile: (415) 437-4644 E-Mail: peterkeith@sfeityaty.org G watay Attomeys for Plaintiffs CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 F SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ‘UNLIMITED JURISDICTION CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN Case No. CGC-15-545031 FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, and the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through DENNIS J. STIPULATED INJUNCTION HERRERA, City Attomey for the City and County of San Francisco, Date Action Filed: April 1, 2015 Trial Date: NA Plaintiffs, vs. MEL MURPHY, Individually, MEL MURPHY as Tristee of the Murphy Family Revocable Trust, NUANNOI MURPHY, Individually, NUANNOI MURPHY as Trustee of the Murphy Family Revocable Trust, ‘MURPHY’S 1025 HAMPSHIRE ST NO. 1 LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation, MURPHY’S. 1025 HAMPSHIRE ST NO. 2 LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. Plaintiffs PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through San Francisco City Attomey DENNIS J. HERRERA, and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, (“PLAINTIFFS” or the “CITY”) were represented by their attorney, Dennis J. Herrera, 1 1 ‘STIPULATED INJUNCTION, CASE CGC-15-545031 ‘eodenf018USUESDOISISI47 docewie wD 10 ul 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 City Attomey, appearing through Peter J. Keith, Deputy City Attomey. MEL MURPHY, Individually, MEL MURPHY as Trustee of the Murphy Family Revocable Trust, NUANNOJ MURPHY, Individually, NUANNOI MURPHY, as Trustee of the Murphy Family Revocable Trust, MURPHY’S. 1025 HAMPSHIRE ST NO. 1 LLC, and MURPHY’S 1025 HAMPSHIRE ST NO. 2 LLC DEFENDANTS”) were represented by their attomeys, Zacks, Freedman and Patterson, PC, Andrew Zacks, Esq. ‘This Stipulated Injunction (“INJUNCTION”) is the result of a negotiated compromise between PLAINTIEES and DEFENDANTS (together, the “PARTIES”, or individually a “PARTY”) and was presented before the above-captioned Court. ‘The PARTIES agree that PLAINTIFFS shall be entitled to present this INJUNCTION to the ‘San Francisco Superior Court through an ex parte appearance with notice to DEFENDANTS’ counsel and shall not be required to present any evidence demonstrating the alleged violations of law that justify the issuance of the INJUNCTION. DEFENDANTS agree they shall not contest the ex. Parte, a entered upon presentation to the Court. arance, nor object to entry of the INJUNCTION, and further agree that the INJUNCTION may be ‘The PARTIES having stipulated to the provisions set forth he the Court having reviewed the provisions, the PARTIES having agreed to the issuance of this INJUNCTION, and good cause appearing: ITIS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: A. JURISDICTION. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and each of the patties in this action. PLAINTIFFS have the authority under California law and the San Francisco Municipal Codes to maintain this action concerning the conduct alleged in the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. The Court issues this INJUNCTION pursuant to its authority under California Business and Professions Code Section 17204, San Francisco Building Code Section 1024.8, San Francisco Planning Code Section 176(b)(2), and Code of Civil Procedure Section 526. The Court expressly retains jurisdiction to modify and enforce this INJUNCTION as the ends of justice may require. Upon at least 16 court days’ notice, any party to this INJUNCTION may apply to the Court, after making a reasonable effort to meet and confer with the other parties, for further orders and 2 “STIPULATED INTUNCTION, CASE CGC-15-545031 ‘nhcodenBli2018150R52\01318147 docxdirections as may be necessary or appropriate for the interpretation, application, enforcement, or carrying out of this INJUNCTION. However, either PARTY may seek ex parte relief in the event there is a bona-fide emergency that presents an imminent danger to life, health, or neighboring properties. Any PARTY which seeks ex parte relief shall comply with Rules 3.1200, et seq., of the California Rules of Court. B. _ PLED VIOLATIONS. DEFENDANTS acknowledge that at all times relevant to the allegations in the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, they have owned, maintained and managed the following two real properties (hereinafter, “the PROPERTIES”) located in San Francisco, California: + 1346 Alabama Street (Assessor's Block 4271, Lots 045-046); + 1025 Hampshire Street (Assessor’s Block 4153, Lots 042-043). ‘The PROPERTIES, more particularly described in Exhibit A1-A2, attached hereto and incorporated herein, were alleged by the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT to be public nuisances ————— ie Business and Professions Code Section 17200-17210) arising from the PLED VIOLATIONS, namely, construction without permits and the addition of residential units without authorization from the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (“DBI”) and the San Francisco Planning. Department (“PLANNING”) as more fully detailed in the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DEFENDANTS filed an Answer to the previous FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT asserting affirmative defenses and denying many of the factual allegations in the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, which are restated in substantially the same form in the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. In lieu of DEFENDANTS’ filing an Answer to the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT end further litigation, PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS have consented to this STIPULATED INJUNCTION and they have entered a settlement agreement regarding PLAINTIFFS” claims for monetary relief. €. APPLICATION. The provisions of this INJUNCTION are applicable to the DEFENDANTS, their agents, servants, employees, representatives, assigns, or successors, and to all persons who are acting in concert or particip in with them, in connection with the ownership, 3 ‘STIPULATED INJUNCTION, CASE CGC-15-545031 ~ ‘coder fli2018\150852101318147 docxwR wD 10 it 12 13 4 15 16 W 18 19 20 24 22 23 2s 26 27 28 maintenance, and/or management of the PROPERTIES. (As used herein, the above terms do not include “attorneys”.) D, NOTICE TO SUBSEQUENT INTEREST HOLDERS Should DEFENDANTS, or their agents, servants, employees, representatives, assigns, or suocessors, sell, transfer, assign, lease to new residential tenants any of the PROPERTIES prior to abating the PLED VIOLATIONS, then DEFENDANTS, or their agents, employees, representatives, assigns, or successors, shall: 1. Notify the City Attomey's Office of the proposed sale, transfer, assignment, or lease. 2,” Identify any personal relationship or previous business relationship between DEFENDANTS and the potential new owner, transferee, assignee, or lessee; and 3. Prior to opening escrow on or otherwise initiating the sale, transfer, assignment, or lease, give notice of and provide a copy of this INJUNCTION to the potential new owner, transferee, assignee, or lessee, E. PROHIBITIONS _ During the pendency of the INJUNCTION, DEFENDANTS are prohibited from maintaining {te PROPERTIES in violation of the San Francisco Building Codes (including the Electrical Plumbing, Mechanical and Housing Codes) or the San Francisco Planning Code, except that the existence of the unabated PLED VIOLATIONS shall not violate this INJUNCTION so long as DEFENDANTS are complying with the remediation requirements specified in Section F of this INIUNCTION. . DEFENDANTS will address any new notice(s) of violation issued by CITY agencies within the timeframe specified in the notice(s), or within an alternative timeframe agreed to in writing by the issuing CITY agency. In responding to any new notice of violation or citation, DEFENDANTS shall be entitled to all administrative appeals or subsequent writ remedies as provided by law to respond to any such new violation or citation. DEFENDANTS shall not be deemed in violation of this INJUNCTION during the time that DEFENDANTS are diligently and in good faith pursuing such administrative appeals or subsequent writ remedies with regard to new notices of violation or citations. ‘STIPULATED INJUNCTION, CASH CGC-15-545031 . ‘eodenfli20] ASORSDOTSIBIAT docx10 u 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 2 28 F. REMEDIATION OF PLED VIOLATIONS DEFENDANTS are ordered to promptly and diligently remediate the PLED VIOLATIONS. 1. DEFENDANTS shall promptly and diligently submit required applications for corrective permits to DBI, PLANNING, the San Francisco Fire Department (“SEFD”), and any other CITY agencies holding authority to grant permits or approvals required to bring the PROPERTIES into compliance with the law. DEFENDANTS shall timely produce all the properly executed forms, plans, drawings, and specifications, as well as timely pay all fees required to obtain the permits or approvals. 2. DEFENDANTS shall diligently pursue such applications for corrective permits. DEFENDANTS shall promptly respond to any comments, requests or direction from a CITY agency for additional information or supplementation of applications for corrective permits. DEFENDANTS? substantive response to the CITY’s written comments, request or direction within 45 days (or longer period set by the agency) shall be considered prompt and diligent; a delay of more than 45 days (or longer period set by the agenoy) must be for good cause, and DEFENDANTS must, before the expiration of 45 days (or longer period set by the agency), explain the reasons for such delay to the City Attorney’s Office and the actions that DEFENDANTS have taken to comply with the CITY’s ‘written comments, request or direction. Ifthe CITY ageney believes the response is inadequate, it shall notify DEFENDANTS or their authorized agent in writing. 3. ISDEFENDANTS wish to assert that the CITY’s denial of a corrective permit application is contrary to law, DEFENDANTS shall promptly and diligently pursue their administrative appeals. If DEFENDANTS? administrative appeals are denied and DEFENDANTS ‘wish to seek judicial review, DEFENDANTS shall promptly and diligently seek such judicial review ‘within the applicable time frame provided by law. 4. Within 14 days after notification to DEFENDANTS or their designated representative that corrective permits have been finally approved, DEFENDANTS shall obtain the permits 5. Within 60 days of the date the corrective permits are issued, DEFENDANTS shall commence work under the scope of the permit. The work shall be done by a licensed contractor. DEFENDANTS shall complete all work under the permits diligently, in good faith, and without undue 5 “STIPULATED INJUNCTION, CASE CGC-15-545031 ‘mleodenfi2018\ SO8SAOISIS147 docxdelay, DEFENDANTS and/or their agents will ensure that all work under the scope of obtained permits at the PROPERTIES is done in a professional, workmanlike manner, consistent with all requirements of applicable law. G. ENFORCEMENT 1. The terms of this INJUNCTION may be enforced through a contempt proceeding, a ‘motion to enforee, or any other proceeding recognized by the Court for enforcement of an injunction. 2. Inthe event that the Court determines after hearing that DEFENDANTS and/or their servants, agents, or employees violated any of the terms of this INJUNCTION, DEFENDANTS shall be liable for civil penalties, pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17207, for each violation of this INJUNCTION. 3. Inthe event that the Court determines after hearing that new violations of the San Francisco Municipal Code, including but not limited to the San Francisco Building, Planning, and Fire Codes, were discovered at the PROPERTIES during the pendency of the INJUNCTION, and not addressed as provided in section E. above, PLAINTIFES shall be entitled to seek relief in any manner provided by law. Ifthe alleged violation was created by someone other than DEFENDANTS (@.g., @ tenant), then the parties shall meet and confer on appropriate steps to gain access for remediating said violation and/or terminating any tenancy that caused the violation and/or obstructed curing it. 4, Willful violation of this INJUNCTION constitutes contempt of Court. 5, Any fines, penalties, or other monetary relief specified in this INJUNCTION shall be in addition to any other relief or sanctions that the Court may order as a matter of law or equity. H. TRIAL DATE VACATED. PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS have executed a separate settlement agreement which resolves PLAINTIFFS’ and DEFENDANTS’ respective claims for monetary relief and costs. This stipulated INJUNCTION resolves PLAINTIFFS’ nonmonetary claims, DEFENDANTS” Cross-Complaint for Declaratory Relief is dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, the current trial date of December 10, 2018 is vacated. J. TERM OF INJUNCTION. This INJUNCTION shall become effective immediately ‘upon entry by the Court. Unless extended by the Court or by agreement of the PARTIES, this INJUNCTION shall stay in effect until the later of: (A) twenty-four (24) months from the date that ‘ 6 ‘STIPULATED INJUNCTION, CASE CGO-15-545031 "coeni0i RISDESDOTSIBI47 doseeo Oh oe 10 u 2 13 4 15 16 WW 18. 19 20 21 23 24 26 a7 28 DEFENDANTS obtain final sign-off from DBI on the work done under the last of the corrective permits referenced in Section F of this INJUNCTION; or (B) twelve (12) months from the date that DEFENDANTS have obtained final sign off from DBI on the work done under the last of any corrective permits for any new notices of violation issued during the term of the INJUNCTION. J. NO WAIVER OF RIGHTS TO ENFORCE. The failure of PLAINTIFFS to enforce any provision of this INJUNCTION shall in no way be deemed a waiver of such provision or of the right to enforce the INJUNCTION, or in any way affect the validity of this INJUNCTION. No oral advice, guidance, suggestion, or comments by City employees or officials regarding matters covered by this INJUNCTION shall be construed to relieve DEFENDANTS of their obligations. However, admissible statements and recommendations of City employees may be considered as evidence of good faith efforts by DEFENDANTS and/or evidence of other equitable considerations in determining whether a violation of this INJUNCTION has occurred. " ‘STIPULATED INJUNCTION, CASE CGC-15-545031 ‘weadenfi201 1508501318147 dooxkK AUTHORITY OF SIGNATORIES. Each PARTY and each person who signs this INJUNCTION on behalf of a PARTY covenants, represents and warrants that he or she possesses the necessary capacity and authority to sign and enter into this INJUNCTION on behalf of the PARTY for which he or she signs. IT IS STIPULATED BY PLAINTIFF: | _ Dati DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attomey PETER J. KEITH Chief Attomey, Neighborhood & Residential Safety Division WL — he — For CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA by and through San Francisco City Attomey DENNIS J. HERRERA Approved as to form: Dated: Wa \\8 DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attomey PETER J. KEITH Deputy City Attomey By: 7. KEE Attomeys for Plaintiffs 8 ‘STIPULATED INJUNCTION, CASE OGC-15-545031 ‘wheodenfli201 8M SOBS2013 8147. docx10 aL 2 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 ak 8 25 27 28 IT IS STIPULATED BY DEFENDANTS: Dated: u/s [iz Dated: W/Z figloa. Dated: iis Dated iS ZB» Dated: ule 3 Approved as to form: Dated: \\\\% \\S IT IS SO ORDERED. can 36] CCSF et al. v. Mel Murphy et al hh MBL MURPHY, Individually MET id beg haf ‘of the Murphy Family Revocable Trust Revocable Trust MURPHY'S 1025, Ml MURPHY'S 1025: STNO.2LLC ZACKS, FREEDMAN & PATTERSON JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT RONALD E. QUIDACHAY San Francisco Superior Court CGC~15-545031 ‘STIPULATED INTUNCTION, CASE CGO-15-54508T ‘wondol20 WI SRSDOISTSTdacx