Callie v. Board of Supervisors

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: AISO; KAUS, P.J., and STEPHENS
• Citation: 1 Cal.App.3d 13,81 Cal.Rptr. 440
• Parties: Jack CALLIE, Petitioner-Plaintiff and Respondent-Appellant, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent, and County of Los Angeles, Defendant and Appellant-Respondent, Peter J. Pitchess, in his capacity as Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles, Defendant and Respondent. Leo DICKER, Petitioner-Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent and Appellant. Jack CALLIE and Leo Dicker, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and Peter J. Pitchess, in his capacity as Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 32752, 32753, 32892.
• Decision Date: 20 October 1969

Page 440

81 Cal.Rptr. 440 1 Cal.App.3d 13 Jack CALLIE, Petitioner-Plaintiff and Respondent-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent,
and County of Los Angeles, Defendant and Appellant-Respondent,
Peter J. Pitchess, in his capacity as Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles, Defendant and Respondent.
Leo DICKER, Petitioner-Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent and Appellant.
Jack CALLIE and Leo Dicker, Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and Peter J. Pitchess, in his capacity as Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 32752, 32753, 32892. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California. Oct. 20, 1969.

Page 441

[1 Cal.App.3d 15] John D. Maharg, County Counsel, Edward H. Gaylord, Asst. County Counsel, and Martin E. Weekes, Deputy County Counsel, for appellant and cross-respondent County of Los Angeles in No. 32752, for appellant Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County in No. 32753, and for appellants County of Los Angeles and Peter J. Pitchess, in his capacity as Sheriff of Los Angeles County, in No. 32892.

Wyman, Bautzer, Finell & Rothman, Beverly Hills, for respondent and cross-appellant Callie ^* in No. 32752, and for respondent Dicker in No. 32753.

Pollock, Pollock & Fay, Los Angeles, for respondents Callie ^* and Dicker in No. 32892.

AISO, Associate Justice.

All three consolidated cases raise the common issue of legality of playing the game, 'panguingue,' for money, checks, credits, or other things [1 Cal.App.3d 16] of value in public card clubs in the unincorporated territory of Los Angeles County.

In Nos. 32752 and 32753, the County of Los Angeles and the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County appeal from judgments, respectively entered June 14, 1967, which mandated the Board of Supervisors to remove the condition placed on Callie's and Dicker's respective card club licenses precluding the playing of or

Page 442

the permitting of the playing of panguingue for money, checks, credits, or other things of value, and which awarded Callie and Dicker their respective costs of suit.

Callie's amended 'complaint' in No. 32752 combined a petition for a writ of mandamus with a complaint seeking declaratory relief that the playing of or permitting the playing of panguingue for money, etc., is legal and injunctive relief against arrests or attempts to arrest of persons engaged in such activity under either Ordinances 7615 or 5860 of Los Angeles County, ¹ section 16240 of the Business and Professions Code, or section 330 of the Penal Code. He cross-appeals from the portion of the judgment which sustains, without leave to amend, a demurrer to the alleged cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief and which orders its dismissal. In this case, the parties stipulated in the trial court that in the event of an appeal, the appellate court decision in No. 32753 shall be deemed to be the decision in this case, No. 32752.

In No. 32892, Callie and Dicker joined as co-plaintiffs and brought a third action against the County of Los Angeles and Peter J. Pitchess, in his capacity as its sheriff, for declaratory and injunctive relief. The defendants appeal from the judgment therein entered October 20, 1967, which (1) declared: (a) Ordinance 9369 of Los Angeles County to be null and void as being arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of equal protection under the federal and state Constitutions, and (b) Callie and Dicker to be entitled to card club licenses to play or to permit the playing of card games for money, etc., which do not violate section 21 of Ordinance 461 of Los Angeles County, as amended by Ordinance 7165 (Sic, 7615); (2) perpetually enjoined and restrained defendants, and each of them, from enforcing Ordinance 9369; and (3) awarded plaintiffs their costs of suit.

When the judgments in Nos. 32752 and 32753 were entered on June 14, 1967, section 21 of Ordinance 461 (originally adopted March 19, 1917, and as amended by Ordinance 7615 adopted September 20, 1953) read: 'A person shall not deal, play, carry on, open, cause to be opened, or conduct any Game of chance played with cards, dice, or other device, for money, checks, credits, or other thing of value. A person shall not bet at any such [1 Cal.App.3d 17] game.' (Italics added.) The rationale of the trial court in arriving at its...