Shook Stops Commercial Building Demolition In The City Of Monterey Park, CA

The Los Angeles County Superior Court granted a motion for a preliminary injunction and stay blocking the demolition of a commercial building at 795 West Garvey Avenue in the city of Monterey Park, California, which is owned by Shook clients Edward and Howard Chan. The ruling in Edward M. Chan, et al. v. City of Monterey Park, et al. leaves the contested property intact prior to a trial to decide whether the city acted lawfully in the abatement process.

The dispute centers on the city of Monterey Park’s efforts to abate and demolish a commercial building owned by the Chans after the Monterey Park City Council declared the property a public nuisance. The Chans argue the city’s abatement process was improper, asserting that the city council was not a neutral decision-maker and that city attorneys improperly advised the city council while also advocating for abatement. The Chans further contend that the city moved toward demolition without identifying any urgent safety concerns requiring immediate action.

The court found that the Chans satisfied their burden for a stay of demolition, ruling that a stay would not be against the public interest because the city of Monterey Park failed to identify exigent circumstances requiring immediate demolition. Similarly, the court found the Chans satisfied the requirements of a preliminary injunction because the balance of harms favored them. 

The court reasoned that if the city proceeded with demolition, then the Chans would have no remedy if they were to prevail on the petition for writ of mandate. By contrast, the city articulated no harm in waiting three months for the court to decide the petition for writ of mandate at trial, which is currently scheduled for May 8, 2026. The court also reasoned that because the balancing of harms strongly favors the moving party, there only need be “some possibility” that the Chans will prevail on the merits. The court found that the Chans satisfied this requirement. 

Shook argued that the city council was not a neutral “hearing officer” in the abatement proceedings, and that the city’s attorneys impermissibly served in both advisory and advocacy roles. The firm cited evidence that in April 2025, the same five city council members adopted a resolution in which each of them voted to find the property a “public nuisance.” Additionally, the city council adopted a resolution authorizing “legislative subpoenas to gain access to information and sworn testimony [which] would be less susceptible to . . . the civil public nuisance case.” The court reasoned that evidence raised an issue for trial concerning whether the city council prejudged the matter and could fairly adjudicate the abatement hearing and ordered that the city shall not demolish the property subject to the petition for writ of mandate before the court decides the petition at trial.

The motion for a preliminary injunction and stay was drafted by Shook associates Brandon Gilligan and Hannah Hamblin, with supervision from Shook partner Jad Davis, and argued primarily by Gilligan with assistance from co-counsel Patrick “Kit” Bobko of Bobko Law, APC in Newport Beach, California.

The lawyers in Shook’s Environmental and Toxic Tort Practice have successfully handled environmental and toxic tort cases in state and federal courts and administrative tribunals across the nation. They take a proactive approach to regulatory, compliance and litigation risks to protect clients’ business interests and avoid expensive litigation. This includes monitoring industry trends, legislative and regulatory developments, key judicial cases, plaintiffs’ bar activities and the latest scientific literature.