X hits on this document

Word document

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION - page 25 / 43

103 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

25 / 43

profit from their loss.”  Villanueva explained the Broderick Boys “commit a lot of witness intimidation,” and this makes residents reluctant to be seen talking to the police.  Potential witnesses will say, “‘yeah, you’ll take this Broderick Boy to jail but what about his 40 or 50 friends that are going to show up tomorrow.’”  Absent an injunction, it may be presumed this conduct would continue.  

On the other side of the coin, defendants overstate the harm they will suffer from granting the interim relief.  Defendants, of course, cannot claim harm from any restrictions in the activities that constitute the public nuisance.  As to nonnuisance conduct, the injunction applies only to “active members” of the Broderick Boys, where that term is defined to encompass only those who participate in or act in concert with the gang to an extent more than nominal, passive, inactive, or purely technical.  Furthermore, the injunction applies only within the Safety Zone.  And, as we shall explain in the following sections, the proper breadth of the injunctive relief is not as extensive as defendants claim.  

In light of the evidence of harm caused by the Broderick Boys within the Safety Zone, which harm will presumably continue absent injunctive relief, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that the potential harm to residents of the Safety Zone if the preliminary injunction is denied is not outweighed by the potential harm to the defendants and other active gang members if the injunction is granted.  

25

Document info
Document views103
Page views103
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 13:51:49 UTC 2016
Pages43
Paragraphs202
Words10151

Comments