UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division - Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS

Charmaine Chua et al v. City of Los Angeles et al Assigned to: Judge John A. Kronstadt Referred to: Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish Related Case: 2:16-cv-08781-JAK-GJS Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 01/12/2016 Date Terminated: 05/11/2020 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Charmaine Chua

represented by Barrett S Litt Kaye McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP 975 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 626-844-7660 Fax: 626-844-7670 Email: blitt@kmbllaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Elizabeth Sweetser Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman and Zeldes LLP 11543 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 310-396-0731 Email: csweetser@sshhzlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colleen Flynn Law Office of Colleen Flynn 3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213-252-9444 Fax: 213-252-0091 Email: cflynnlaw@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colleen Marika Mullen Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP 11543 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064

310-396-0731 Fax: 310-399-7040 Email: cmullen.sshh@gmail.com TERMINATED: 07/05/2019
Justine Marie Schneeweis Law Office of Carol A. Sobel 3110 Main Street Suite 210 Santa Monica, CA 90405 310-393-3055 Email: justine.schneeweis@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew D Strugar Law Office of Matthew Strugar 3425 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 323-696-2299 Email: matthew@matthewstrugar.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Amanda Alarcon Baum Hedlund Aristei and Goldman PC 10940 Wislhire Boulevard 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 310-207-3233 Fax: 310-820-7444 Email: malarcon@baumhedlundlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP 200 Pier Avenue Suite 226 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 310-717-7373 Fax: 310-399-7040 Email: hoffpaul@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Steinback Law Office of Rachel Steinback

Plaintiff
Kyle Todd individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons

3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213-537-5370 Fax: 213-232-4003 Email: steinbacklaw@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A Sobel Carol A Sobel Law Offices 725 Arizona Avenue Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401 310-393-3055 Fax: 310-451-3858 Email: carolsobel@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barrett S Litt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Elizabeth Sweetser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Colleen Flynn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Colleen Marika Mullen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/05/2019
Justine Marie Schneeweis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew D Strugar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Amanda Alarcon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman

Plaintiff
Lydia Hicks individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Steinback (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barrett S Litt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Elizabeth Sweetser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Colleen Flynn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Colleen Marika Mullen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/05/2019
Justine Marie Schneeweis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew D Strugar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Amanda Alarcon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Steinback (See above for address)

Plaintiff
Torie Rivera individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barrett S Litt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Elizabeth Sweetser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Colleen Flynn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Colleen Marika Mullen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/05/2019
Justine Marie Schneeweis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew D Strugar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Amanda Alarcon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Steinback (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff National Lawyers Guild Los Angeles Chapter
Plaintiff Patricia Beers

represented by Barrett S Litt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Elizabeth Sweetser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Colleen Flynn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Colleen Marika Mullen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/05/2019
Justine Marie Schneeweis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew D Strugar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Amanda Alarcon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Steinback (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Morgan Ricketts Ricketts Law 540 El Dorado Street No 202 Pasadena, CA 91011

V. Defendant
City of Los Angeles a municipal entity

213-995-3935 Fax: 213-995-3963 Email: morgan@morganricketts.com TERMINATED: 01/11/2019
represented by Benjamin F Chapman Los Angeles City Attorneys Office City Hall East 200 North Main Street 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-978-7556 Fax: 213-978-7011 Email: benjamin.chapman@lacity.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey R Plowden Los Angeles City Attorneys Office City Hall East 200 North Main Street Room 600 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-978-7038 Fax: 213-978-8785 Email: geoffrey.plowden@lacity.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Craig J Miller Los Angeles City Attorneys Office City Hall East 200 North Main Street 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-978-8722 Fax: 213-978-8785 Email: craig.miller@lacity.org TERMINATED: 06/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Surekha A Shepherd Los Angeles City Attorneys Office City Hall East 200 North Main Street 6th Floor

Defendant Chief Charlie Beck
Defendant Commander Andrew Smith

Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-978-7036 Fax: 213-978-8785 Email: surekha.shepherd@lacity.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin F Chapman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey R Plowden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Craig J Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Anne Mitchell Los Angeles City Attorneys Office City Hall East 200 North Main Street 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-978-6958 Fax: 213-978-8785 Email: elizabeth.mitchell@lacity.org TERMINATED: 09/11/2018
Surekha A Shepherd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin F Chapman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey R Plowden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Does 1-10 inclusive
Defendant Capt. Jeff Bert

Craig J Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Surekha A Shepherd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin F Chapman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey R Plowden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Craig J Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/13/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Surekha A Shepherd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/12/2016
01/12/2016 01/12/2016

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-17086348 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Attorney Carol A Sobel added to party Charmaine Chua(pty:pla))(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 filed by plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 01/12/2016)

01/12/2016 01/12/2016 01/12/2016 01/12/2016 01/12/2016
01/13/2016 01/13/2016 04/13/2016
04/19/2016

4 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff Charmaine Chua, (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge John A. Kronstadt and Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish. (esa) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
7 21 DAY Summons issued re Complaint 1 as to defendants Charlie Beck, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. (esa) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
8 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening. The following error(s) was found: The Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71)is missing or incomplete. All civil actions presented for filing must be accompanied by a completed Civil Cover Sheet. See Local Rule 3-1. Counsel must file a completed Civil Cover Sheet immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. Please complete and file the 3 page form CV-71 (10/14). (esa) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
9 AMENDED CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
10 STANDING ORDER by Judge John A. Kronstadt. Refer to the Court's order for details. (pso) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
11 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than April 20, 2016, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. In the absence of showing good cause, an action shall be dismissed if the summons and complaint have not been served within 90 days after the filing of the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). An action may be dismissed prior to such time if the Plaintiff fails diligently to prosecute the action. The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing of an appropriate response. No oral argument will be heard unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Plaintiff is advised that the Court will consider the filing of a responsive pleading to the complaint and/or proof(s) of service, which indicates proper service in full compliance with the federal rules, on or before the date upon which the response is due, as a satisfactory response to the Order to Show Cause. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/13/2016)
12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua, upon Defendant Charlie Beck served on 4/8/2016, answer due 4/29/2016. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Ethelinda Llanera Risk Mngmnt in compliance with statute not specified by

04/19/2016
04/19/2016
04/27/2016 04/27/2016 04/29/2016 05/19/2016

personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/19/2016)
13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Defendant Charmaine Chua, upon Defendant City of Los Angeles served on 4/8/2016, answer due 4/29/2016. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Juan Verano City Clerk in compliance with statute not specified by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/19/2016)
14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua, upon Defendant Andrew Smith served on 4/12/2016, answer due 5/3/2016. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Andrew Smith, Defendant in compliance with statute not specified by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/19/2016)
15 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendant All Defendants amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 , filed by plaintiff Charmaine Chua(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
16 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Amended Complaint/Petition 15 filed by plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
17 21 DAY Summons Issued re Amended Complaint/Petition 15 as to Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Does, Andrew Smith. (bp) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
18 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than May 26, 2016, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. On April 19, 2016, Proofs of Service were filed indicating that the summons and complaint were served (the "POS"). Dkt. 12 - 14 . According to the POS, Defendants were to respond to the Complaint by April 29, 2016 and May 3, 2016. On April 27, 2016, a First Amended Complaint was filed. Dkt. 15 . Pursuant to Rule 15, a response to the First Amended Complaint is due 14 days after it was served. Because a proof of service has not been filed with respect to whether the summons and First Amended Complaint have been served on Defendants, the Order to Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing of an appropriate response. No oral argument will be heard unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Plaintiff is advised that the Court will consider the filing of a responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint and/or proof(s) of service, which indicates proper service in full compliance with the federal rules, on or before the date upon which the response is due, as a satisfactory response to the Order to Show Cause. THERE IS

05/25/2016 06/01/2016
06/01/2016 06/15/2016 06/22/2016
07/01/2016 07/06/2016 07/14/2016 07/14/2016

NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 05/19/2016)
19 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua, upon Defendant All Defendants. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon agent in compliance with statute not specified by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proofs of Service)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
20 ANSWER to Amended Complaint/Petition 15 JURY DEMAND. filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith.(Attorney Craig J Miller added to party Charlie Beck(pty:dft), Attorney Craig J Miller added to party Jeff Bert(pty:dft), Attorney Craig J Miller added to party City of Los Angeles(pty:dft), Attorney Craig J Miller added to party Andrew Smith(pty:dft))(Miller, Craig) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
21 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith, (Miller, Craig) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
22 ORDER SETTING RULE 26(f)16(b) SCHEDULING CONFERENDCE by Judge John A. Kronstadt. Report due 9/2/2016. Scheduling Conference set for 9/12/2016 at 01:30 PM. See Order for Specifics. (bp) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
23 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Craig J Miller counsel for Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. Adding Benjamin Chapman as counsel of record for City of Los Angeles, Charlie Beck, Jeffrey Bert and Andrew Smith for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendants Craig J. Miller. (Miller, Craig) (Entered: 06/22/2016)
24 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File class certification motion filed by plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to extend time to file) (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
25 ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO FILE THE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 24 by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification no later than July 14, 2016. (ah) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
26 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua, Lydia Hicks, National Lawyers Guild, Torie Rivera, Kyle Todd. Motion set for hearing on 10/24/2016 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
27 DECLARATION of Barrett S. Litt In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 26 filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua,

07/14/2016 07/14/2016 07/14/2016
07/26/2016 07/27/2016
08/25/2016 09/01/2016 09/12/2016

Lydia Hicks, National Lawyers Guild, Torie Rivera, Kyle Todd. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
28 DECLARATION of Carol A. Sobel In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 26 filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua, Lydia Hicks, National Lawyers Guild, Torie Rivera, Kyle Todd. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
29 DECLARATION of Named Plaintiffs In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 26 filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua, Lydia Hicks, National Lawyers Guild, Torie Rivera, Kyle Todd. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
30 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER CONTINUING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (DKT. 26 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court, on its own motion, continues the Motion from October 24, 2016 to November 7, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. Counsel shall refer to the Court's Standing Order with respect to the briefing schedule for motions. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/14/2016)
31 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response and Reply as to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 26 filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Chapman, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
32 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Judge John A. Kronstadt, re Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, 31 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be due August 26, 2016; and Plaintiff's Reply in support of its motion for class certification will be due October 3, 2016 (five weeks in advance of the hearing date, which is November 7, 2016). (bp) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
33 NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 26 filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. (Miller, Craig) (Entered: 08/25/2016)
34 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 7 days, filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Case Management Dates)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
35 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge John A. Kronstadt. The scheduling conference is held. The Court confers with counsel regarding the status of the case and the parties' September 1,

09/21/2016 09/26/2016 11/07/2016
11/14/2016 11/14/2016 11/21/2016 12/09/2016

2016 Joint Report and sets the following deadlines: Last day to amend parties 12/1/2016. Discovery cut-off 7/17/2017. Last day to file Motions 7/17/2017. Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/20/2017 03:00 PM. Jury Trial set for 12/5/2017 09:00 AM. Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (bp) (Entered: 09/18/2016)
36 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by plaintiff Charmaine Chua. Related Case(s): 16-0216 16-01187 (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
37 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 14-03 (Related Case) filed. Transfer of case declined by Judge Fernando M. Olguin, for the reasons set forth on this order. Related Case No. 2:16-cv00216 FMO(AFMx) (rn) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
38 MINUTES OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (DKT. 26 ) held before Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION and a ruling will be issued upon review of the parties' submissions. Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (ah) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
39 Supplemental BRIEF filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua, Lydia Hicks, National Lawyers Guild, Torie Rivera, Kyle Todd. regarding Order on Motion to Certify Class Action,, Motion Hearing, 38 . (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
40 DECLARATION of Carol A. Sobel re Brief (non-motion nonappeal) 39 filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua, Lydia Hicks, National Lawyers Guild, Torie Rivera, Kyle Todd. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
41 SUPPLEMENT to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 26 filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. (Miller, Craig) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
42 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER NOTIFYING PARTIES OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR COURT by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Effective December 19, 2016, Judge Kronstadt will relocate to the 1st Street Courthouse. His new address is 350 W. 1st Street, Courtroom 10B, Los Angeles, California 90012. All mandatory chambers copies shall be hand delivered to the mailbox for this Court outside the Clerk's Office, which is located on the 4th floor of the 1st Street Courthouse. The location for filing civil documents in paper format exempted from electronic filing and for viewing case files and other records services remains at the United States Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Room G-8, Los Angeles, California 90012. The location for filing criminal documents in paper format exempted from electronic filing remains at Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Room 178, Los Angeles, California 90012. THERE IS NO PDF

02/27/2017 02/28/2017 03/02/2017 03/02/2017 03/15/2017 05/22/2017
05/23/2017

DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/09/2016)
43 STIPULATION to Continue Date to Complete Court Ordered Mediation and to Report to Court from March 17, 2017 to June 12, 2017, Joint Report re Status of Settlement by June 19, 2017, and Post Mediation Status Conference for June 26, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. Re: Scheduling Conference, 35 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Craig) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
44 ORDER by Judge John A. Kronstadt GRANTING Stipulation for an Extension of the Date to Complete the Court Ordered Mediation and to Report to the Court, 43 The last date by which to complete the mediation/settlement conference is now set for June 12, 2017. The parties are to file a notice of settlement or a joint report regarding the status of settlement by June 16, 2017. The date of June 26, 2017 at 1:30 is set for a Post Mediation Status Conference. (shb) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
45 NOTICE of Change of other firm name or address information by Catherine Elizabeth Sweetser attorney for Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. Changing Address and Email Address. Filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Sweetser, Catherine) (Entered: 03/02/2017)
46 NOTICE of Change of address by Paul L Hoffman attorney for Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. Changing attorneys address to 11543 W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064. Filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Hoffman, Paul) (Entered: 03/02/2017)
47 NOTICE of Change of firm name and address by Colleen Marika Mullen attorney for Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua, Lydia Hicks, National Lawyers Guild, Torie Rivera, Kyle Todd. Changing firm name to Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP and address to 11543 W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064. Filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua, Lydia Hicks, National Lawyers Guild, Torie Rivera, Kyle Todd. (Mullen, Colleen) (Entered: 03/15/2017)
48 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Rachel Steinback on behalf of Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua, Lydia Hicks, National Lawyers Guild, Torie Rivera, Kyle Todd (Attorney Rachel Steinback added to party Charmaine Chua(pty:pla), Attorney Rachel Steinback added to party Lydia Hicks(pty:pla), Attorney Rachel Steinback added to party National Lawyers Guild(pty:pla), Attorney Rachel Steinback added to party Torie Rivera(pty:pla), Attorney Rachel Steinback added to party Kyle Todd(pty:pla))(Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
49 Joint STIPULATION to Reset filed by plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

05/25/2017 05/25/2017
05/26/2017 05/30/2017
06/06/2017 06/06/2017

50 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (DKT. 26 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Motion is GRANTED IN PART. The injunctive relief subclass is not certified, without prejudice to a later request for certification of a more narrowly defined class. (ah) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
51 ORDER RE JOINT REQUEST TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER (DKT. 49 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The following changes in the current scheduling order are made: Mediation Completion July 7, 2017. Post Mediation Status Conference July 31, 2017 at 1:30 PM. Last Day to File Motions August 21, 2017. The Final Pretrial Conference and Jury Trial are vacated. The parties will be invited to propose new dates for the final pretrial conference and trial upon the final ruling of all motions. (ah) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
52 REQUEST TO REASSIGN TEMPORARILY filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua as to Mag. Judge (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
53 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES RE REQUEST TO TEMPORARILY ASSIGN THIS MATTER TO ANOTHER MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Dkt. 52 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Please take notice that pursuant to Local Rule 5-4 and/or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following deficiency(ies) has been found with your electronically filed document: Pursuant to L.R. 52-4.1, a proposed order shall be e-filed as a separate attachment to any document seeking Court approval. Counsel shall file a "Notice of Lodging of Proposed Order Re..." with the proposed order e-filed as an attachment to the notice by June 1, 2017. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 05/30/2017)
54 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REFERRING PARTIES TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JAY C. GANDHI FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 52 by Judge John A Kronstadt: The Court refers cases CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx) and CV16-08781 JAK (GJSx) to Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi for a settlement conference. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ah) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
55 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: NOTICE TO PARTIES: Effective June 1, 2017, Judge Standish is located at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building, COURTROOM 640 on the 6th floor, located at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. All Court appearances shall be made in Courtroom 640 of the Roybal Federal Building, and all mandatory chambers copies shall be hand delivered to the judge's mail box located outside the Clerk's Office on the 12th floor of the Roybal Federal Building. The location for filing civil documents in paper format exempted from electronic filing and for viewing case files and other records services remains at the United States Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Room G-8, Los Angeles, California 90012. The location

06/07/2017
06/13/2017 06/13/2017 06/13/2017

for filing criminal documents in paper format exempted from electronic filing remains at the Roybal Federal Building, 255 East Temple Street, Room 178, Los Angeles, California 90012. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrey) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/06/2017)
56 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. IT IS ORDERED as follows: The parties and their lead trial counsel shall appear for a settlement conference on June 30, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 6A of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, 6th Floor, Santa Ana, California 92701. The parties and their lead trial counsel shall keep their schedule clear for the remaining part of the day. No party or counsel shall be excused absent leave from the Judge or until the settlement conference is adjourned. On or before June 23, 2017, each party shall submit a confidential mediation statement (or email) directly to the chambers of the Court at judge_gandhi_mediation@cacd.uscourts.gov. The Statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court, and they will not be made part of the case file. (kh) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
57 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Craig J Miller counsel for Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. Craig J. Miller is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by defendants City of Los Angeles, et al. (Miller, Craig) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
58 (STRICKEN PURSUANT TO DKT. 63 )Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Geoffrey R Plowden counsel for Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. Adding GEOFFREY PLOWDEN as counsel of record for City of Los Angeles, Chief Charlie Beck, Commander Andrew Smith and Captain Jeff Bert for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.. (Attorney Geoffrey R Plowden added to party Charlie Beck(pty:dft), Attorney Geoffrey R Plowden added to party Jeff Bert(pty:dft), Attorney Geoffrey R Plowden added to party City of Los Angeles(pty:dft), Attorney Geoffrey R Plowden added to party Andrew Smith(pty:dft))(Plowden, Geoffrey) Modified on 6/15/2017 (ah). (Entered: 06/13/2017)
59 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Geoffrey R Plowden counsel for Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. Adding Geoffrey Plowden as counsel of record for City of Los Angeles, Chief Charlie Beck, Commander Andrew Smith and Captain Jeff Bert for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by defendants City of Los Angeles, et al. (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 06/13/2017)

06/14/2017 06/15/2017
06/15/2017 06/15/2017 07/17/2017
07/18/2017 07/31/2017

60 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G123),, 58 . The following error(s) was found: Case number is incorrect or missing.Document submitted in the wrong case. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (ak) (Entered: 06/14/2017)
61 Joint STIPULATION for Order EXCUSE DEFENDANTS CHARLIE BECK, JEFFREY BERT AND ANDREW SMITH FROM THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Attorney Surekha A Pessis added to party Charlie Beck(pty:dft), Attorney Surekha A Pessis added to party Jeff Bert(pty:dft), Attorney Surekha A Pessis added to party City of Los Angeles(pty:dft), Attorney Surekha A Pessis added to party Andrew Smith(pty:dft))(Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 06/15/2017)
62 ORDER EXCUSING DEFENDANTS CHARLIE BECK, KURT GARCIA, JEFFREY BERT AND ANDREW SMITH FROM THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi, re Stipulation of Parties 61 . (kh) (Entered: 06/15/2017)
63 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS RE: Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G112A),, 60 by Judge John A. Kronstadt. The document is stricken. The Notice of Appearance was filed in the wrong case. (ah) (Entered: 06/15/2017)
64 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DIRECTING COUNSEL TO ADHERE TO COURT'S ORDER AND FILE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OR JOINT REPORT by Judge John A. Kronstadt: On May 25, 2017, the Court ordered the parties to file a notice of settlement or a joint report regarding the status of settlement by July 14, 2017. Dkt. 51 . Counsel shall file the notice or report no later than July 18, 2017. Counsel are reminded to adhere to the deadlines set by the Court. Any future failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions. 51 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/17/2017)
65 STATUS REPORT of SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 07/18/2017)
66 ORDER RE: JOINT REPORT RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND REQUEST TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR 45 DAYS 65 by Judge John A. Kronstadt. The stipulation is granted. The current case

08/02/2017 08/30/2017 08/30/2017
08/30/2017

schedule is stayed and continued for 45 days. No later than August 25, 2017, the parties are to file a joint report with the Court regarding the result of the further settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Ghandi. (ah) (Entered: 08/01/2017)
67 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REGARDING FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. IT IS ORDERED as follows: The parties and their lead trial counsel shall appear for a further settlement conference on August 31, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 6A of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, 6th Floor, Santa Ana, California 92701. The parties and their lead trial counsel shall keep their schedule clear for the remaining part of the day. No party or counsel shall be excused absent leave from the Judge or until the settlement conference is adjourned. On or before August 24, 2017, each party shall submit any additional confidential mediation statement (or email) directly to the chambers of the Court at judge_gandhi_mediation@cacd.uscourts.gov. (kh) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
68 SCHEDULING NOTICE VACATING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: The August 31, 2017 Settlement Conference is hereby VACATED. Counsel shall contact the Courtroom Deputy for rescheduling. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kh) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/30/2017)
69 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DIRECTING COUNSEL TO ADHERE TO COURT'S ORDER AND FILE JOINT REPORT by Judge John A. Kronstadt: On July 31, 2017, the Court ordered the parties to file a Joint Report by August 25, 2017. Dkt. 66 . The report has not been filed. On August 30, 2017, Magistrate Judge Gandhi issued an order vacating the settlement conference, scheduled for August 31, 2017. Dkt. 68 . The Order directs counsel to contact his Courtroom Deputy to reschedule the date for the conference. In light of the foregoing, counsel shall confer and contact Judge Gandhi's Clerk no later than September 6, 2017, to schedule a date for the conference. Counsel shall file a joint report by September 7, 2017, which includes the date for the settlement conference. Upon review of the report, the Court will set dates with respect to settlement. Counsel are reminded to adhere to the deadlines set by the Court. Any future failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/30/2017)
70 SCHEDULING NOTICE RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: The previously vacated Settlement Conference is now RESCHEDULED to September 11, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. in Courtroom 6A before Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. The

09/07/2017 09/08/2017 09/13/2017 09/28/2017 11/22/2017 11/22/2017

clients are excused.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kh) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/30/2017)
71 STATUS REPORT of Re Status of court-ordered mediation filed by Defendants Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Stipulation of the Parties Requesting an Extension of the Date to Complete the Court-Ordered Mediation and to Report to Court)(Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
72 SCHEDULING NOTICE RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: Due to scheduling conflicts, the September 11, 2017 Settlement Conference is hereby VACATED. Counsel shall immediately confer and notify the Court of the mutually agreed upon continued date. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kh) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/08/2017)
73 ORDER RE: STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF THE DATE TO COMPLETE THE COURT ORDERED MEDIATION AND TO REPORT TO COURT by Judge John A. Kronstadt. The last date by which to complete the mediation/settlement conference is now set for 11/27/17; The parties are to file a joint report regarding the status of settlement by 12/5/17; The post-mediation status conference is continued to 12/18/17 at 1:30 a.m.; provided, however, if a notice of settlement is filed prior to that date, the status conference will go off calendar. (bp) (Entered: 09/14/2017)
74 SCHEDULING NOTICE RE FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: The previously vacated Settlement Conference is now RESCHEDULED to November 27, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6A before Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. The clients are excused. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kh) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/28/2017)
75 SCHEDULING NOTICE RE: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. The Further Settlement Conference presently scheduled for November 27, 2017 is CONTINUED to January 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. Confidential mediation statements shall now be due on or before January 17, 218. The statements shall be submitted directly to chambers, or emailed to the chambers of the Court at judge_gandhi_mediation@cacd.uscourts.gov. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kh) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/22/2017)
76 Joint STIPULATION to Continue the date to Complete the CourtOrdered Mediation and to Report to Court from November 27, 2017 to February 5, 2018 Re: Order,,, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,, 73 filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith.

11/27/2017 01/03/2018 01/23/2018 02/27/2018 03/09/2018
03/09/2018

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order requesting extension of the date to complete the Court-Ordered Mediation and to Report to Court)(Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
77 ORDER RE: STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF THE DATE TO COMPLETE THE COURT ORDERED MEDIATION AND TO REPORT TO COURT 76 by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The last date by which to complete the mediation/settlement conference is set for February 5, 2018. The parties are to file a joint report regarding the status of settlement by February 27, 2018. The post-mediation status conference is continued to March 12, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. See Order for specifics. (ah) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
78 NOTICE of Change of address by Barrett S Litt attorney for Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua, Lydia Hicks, National Lawyers Guild, Torie Rivera, Kyle Todd. Changing attorneys address to 975 East Green Street, Pasadena, CA 91106. Filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua, Lydia Hicks, National Lawyers Guild, Torie Rivera, Kyle Todd. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 01/03/2018)
79 SCHEDULING NOTICE VACATING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: The Settlement Conference scheduled for January 24, 2018 is VACATED and the parties are invited to contact the Court for another convenient date. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kh) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/23/2018)
80 UPDATED REPORT REPORT of Requesting another Extension of the Date to Complete the Court-Ordered MediatIon filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
81 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TAKING POST MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE OFF CALENDAR AND SETTING DATE FOR UPDATED JOINT REPORT ON SETTLEMENT by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court has reviewed the parties' Updated Report. Dkt. 80 . The Court takes the March 12, 2018 Post Mediation Status Conference off calendar. Counsel shall confer and schedule a second settlement conference with Judge Gandhi. An updated report shall be filed by March 26, 2018, which shall include the scheduled date for the settlement conference. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/09/2018)
82 (IN CHAMBERS) AMENDED ORDER TAKING POST MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE OFF CALENDAR AND SETTING DATE FOR UPDATED JOINT REPORT ON SETTLEMENT by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court has reviewed the parties' Updated Report. Dkt. 80 . The Court takes the

03/26/2018 05/08/2018
05/08/2018

March 12, 2018 Post Mediation Status Conference and Scheduling Conference off calendar. Counsel shall confer and schedule a second settlement conference with Judge Gandhi. An updated report shall be filed by March 26, 2018, which shall include the scheduled date for the settlement conference. Dkt. 81 . THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/09/2018)
83 STATUS REPORT re Settlement filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
84 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REOPENING CASE AND SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge John A. Kronstadt. The Court has reviewed the parties' Joint Report regarding the status of settlement (Dkt. 62 , 83 ) (the "Report"). The Report also includes a request for an additional 45 day stay to complete settlement discussions with Magistrate Judge Gandhi before he leaves the bench or retain the services of Hon. Carla M. Woehrle (Ret.) or Richard Copeland. Id. The Court referred the parties to Judge Gandhi on June 6, 2017 for a settlement conference to be completed by July 7, 2017. Dkt. 51 , 54 . On July 31, 2017, the Court granted the parties request to stay the case and vacate all dates to permit the parties the opportunity to participate in a second session with Judge Gandhi. Dkt. 65 , 66 . The Court has granted several extensions of the stay. In light of this matter having been stayed for nearly a year, the Court does not find good cause to continue the stay. Accordingly, the stay is ordered LIFTED and this case is reinstated to the Court's active calendar. A Scheduling Conference is set for May June 4, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. Counsel shall file an updated Joint Rule 16(b)/26(f) Report no later than May 25, 2018, which shall attach a schedule of pretrial and trial dates. The report shall include: (i) the parties respective and/or collective views on whether the related cases should be consolidated; and (ii) the status of settlement. It shall not include the substantive contents of any settlement discussions but rather whether discussions are ongoing or whether a further mediation session with a third party neutral would be beneficial and, if so, the agreed upon neutral and the anticipated date mediation will be completed. The Court will determine whether the June 4 hearing is necessary upon review of the joint report. (pso) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
85 AMENDED (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REOPENING CASE AND SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge John A. Kronstadt. The Court has reviewed the parties' Joint Report regarding the status of settlement (Dkt. 62, 83 ) (the "Report"). The Report also includes a request for an additional 45 day stay to complete settlement discussions with Magistrate Judge Gandhi before he leaves the bench or retain the services of Hon. Carla M. Woehrle (Ret.) or Richard Copeland. Id. The Court referred the parties to Judge Gandhi on June 6, 2017 for a

05/25/2018 06/04/2018

settlement conference to be completed by July 7, 2017. Dkt. 51, 54 . On July 31, 2017, the Court granted the parties request to stay the case and vacate all dates to permit the parties the opportunity to participate in a second session with Judge Gandhi. Dkt. 65, 66 . The Court has granted several extensions of the stay. In light of this matter having been stayed for nearly a year, the Court does not find good cause to continue the stay. Accordingly, the stay is ordered LIFTED and this case is reinstated to the Court's active calendar. A Scheduling Conference is set for May June 4, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. Counsel shall file an updated Joint Rule 16(b)/26(f) Report no later than May 25, 2018, which shall attach a schedule of pretrial and trial dates. The report shall include: (i) the parties respective and/or collective views on whether the related cases should be consolidated; and (ii) the status of settlement. It shall not include t he substantive contents of any settlement discussions but rather whether discussions are ongoing or whether a further mediation session with a third party neutral would be beneficial and, if so, the agreed upon neutral and the anticipated date mediation will be completed. The Court will determine whether the June 4 hearing is necessary upon review of the joint report. 84 . (pso) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
86 STATUS REPORT re Settlement and Revised Scheduling Dates filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
88 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE JS-6: Case No. LACV16-08781 JAK(GJSx) ONLY held before Judge John A. Kronstadt. The scheduling conference is held. There is no appearance by or on behalf of Plaintiff Patricia Beers. The Court sets an Order to Show Cause why sanctions in the amount of $250 should not be imposed on counsel for Patricia Beers for her failure to appear. Counsel shall file a declaration under penalty of perjury no later than June 11, 2018, explaining the reason for the nonappearance. A hearing on the Order to Show Cause is set for July 2, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. Upon review of the declaration, the Court will determine whether the July2 hearing is necessary. A failure to file a declaration will result in the imposition of sanctions. The Court confers with counsel regarding the status of the case and the parties' May 25, 2018 Joint Report, filed in both actions, and sets the following deadlines: NonExpert Discovery Cut-Off, Last day to file motions. The Court deems Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx): Charmaine Chua, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al. as the Lead Case." Patricia Beers v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. LA CV16-08781 JAK (GJSx), is referred to as the "Consolidated Case." The Court orders the Consolidated Case to be consolidated with the Lead Case for pre-trial purposes with a later determination as to whether the matter will be bifurcated for trial. All future filings shall be made in the docket of the lead case. Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (SEE CIVIL MINUTES FOR FURTHER SPECIFICS) (bp) (Entered: 06/12/2018)

06/08/2018 06/12/2018 06/14/2018
06/14/2018
06/14/2018
06/21/2018 06/22/2018

87 ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 3 by Judge John A. Kronstadt. Case ordered to a private mediator based upon a stipulation of the parties or by the court order. ADR Proceeding to be held no later than TBD. (ake) (Entered: 06/09/2018)
89 DECLARATION of Morgan Ricketts re Beers Scheduling Conference Pursuant to Court's June 12 Order filed by Plaintiff Patricia Beers. (Ricketts, Morgan) (Entered: 06/12/2018)
90 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PLAINTIFF PATRICIA BEER'S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court has received and reviewed Morgan Ricketts's timely-filed declaration regarding her failure to appear on June 4, 2018. Dkt. 89 . The Court discharges the Order to Show Cause for failure to appear. Should there be another violation by counsel in this matter, sanctions will be imposed. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/14/2018)
91 (IN CHAMBERS) AMENDED ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PLAINTIFF PATRICIA BEER'S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court has received and reviewed Morgan Ricketts' timely-filed declaration regarding her failure to appear on June 4, 2018. Dkt. 89 . The Court discharges the Order to Show Cause for failure to appear. Should there be another violation by counsel in this matter, sanctions will be imposed. In light of the foregoing, the July 2, 2018 Order to Show Cause Hearing is vacated. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/14/2018)
92 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES RE DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL (DKT. 89 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Please take notice that the caption page of the Declaration does not comply with the Court's June 4, 2018 Order. Dkt. 88 . The Declaration is accepted. Any future document that is filed and fails to comply with the Order will be stricken. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/14/2018)
93 Notice of Settlement filed by Plaintiff Patricia Beers (Ricketts, Morgan) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
94 ORDER TO STRIKE ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS by Judge John A. Kronstadt: the following document(s) is STRICKEN for failure to comply with the Local Rules, General Order and/or the Courts Case Management Order: Miscellaneous Document 93 , for the following reasons: The Notice fails to comply with the Court's Order (Dkt. 88 ) with respect to the caption page. As a courtesy, Plaintiff's counsel was

07/02/2018 07/05/2018
07/11/2018 07/26/2018 07/27/2018 08/01/2018

instructed that any future document that failed to comply with the Order would be stricken. Dkt. 92. Accordingly, the Notice is stricken. Plaintiff shall refile the Notice with the proper caption no later than June 25, 2018. (pso) (Entered: 06/25/2018)
95 [STRICKEN PURSUANT TO DOCKET ENTRY #96] Notice of Settlement filed by Plaintiff Patricia Beers (Revised Caption Page to Conform With Court's Order) (Ricketts, Morgan) Modified on 7/6/2018 (bp). (Entered: 07/02/2018)
96 ORDER TO STRIKE ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENT by Judge John A. Kronstadt: the following document(s) be STRICKEN for failure to comply with the Local Rules, General Order and/or the Courts Case Management Order: Miscellaneous Document 95 , for the following reasons: The Notice fails to comply with the Court's Order (Dkt. 88) with respect to the caption page. The Court has provided an example of the caption page when applying to one or all cases. Counsel shall refer to the Order and refile the document by July 9, 2018.; (bp) (Entered: 07/06/2018)
97 Notice of Settlement filed by Plaintiff Patricia Beers With Amended Caption Page to Conform to Document #88 (Court's Order) (Ricketts, Morgan) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
98 Joint STIPULATION to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date to 9/12/2018, 9/26/2018, 10/9/2018 filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
99 ORDER by Judge John A. Kronstadt, GRANTING Stipulation to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date 98 . IT IS ORDERED that the Stipulation is GRANTED. The expert disclosure dates shall be amended as follows. Initial Expert Disclosure - proposed date 09-12-2018. Rebuttal Expert Disclosure - proposed date 09-26-2018. Expert Disclosure cut-Off proposed date 10-09-2018. (shb) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
100 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER SETTING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL RE CONSOLIDATED CASE LA CV16-08781 JAK (GJSx) (DKT. 97 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: On July 11, 2018, a Notice of Settlement was filed with respect to the Consolidated Case LA CV16-08781 JAK (GJSx): Patricia Beers v. City of Los Angeles, et al. The Notice states that the terms of the settlement will be finalized within 30 days, at which time a dismissal will be filed. The Court sets an Order to Show Cause re Dismissal for August 27, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. If the parties file a dismissal by August 13, 2018, the matter will be taken off calendar and no appearance by counsel will be required. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/14/2018 08/16/2018 08/20/2018
09/06/2018 09/11/2018
09/14/2018

101 STIPULATION to Dismiss Case pursuant to Settlement filed by Consolidated Case Plaintiff Patricia Beers. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ricketts, Morgan) (Entered: 08/14/2018)
102 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING RE DISMISSAL OF CONSOLIDATED CASE LA CV1608781 JAK (GJSx) (DKT. 101 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: In light of the Stipulated Dismissal, the Court vacates the August 27, 2018 Order to Show Cause Hearing. No appearance by counsel is required. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/16/2018)
103 ORDER RE STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF "CONSOLIDATED CASE" WITH PREJUDICE by Judge John A. Kronstadt, re Stipulation to Dismiss Case 101 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation is GRANTED. The above captioned Consolidated Case against Defendant City of Los Angeles, Chief Charlie Beck, Commander Andrew Smith, Captain Jeff Bert, and Officer Garcia are DISMISSED with prejudice. Each side is to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees with respect to the Consolidated Case only. (bp) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
104 REPORT of Settlement Status filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 09/06/2018)
105 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Geoffrey R Plowden counsel for Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. Elizabeth Anne Mitchell will no longer receive service of documents from the Clerks Office for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Elizabeth Anne Mitchell is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by defendants City of Los Angeles, Charlie Beck, Jeffrey Bert and Andrew Smith. (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
106 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER SETTING DATE TO FILE JOINT TRIAL REPORT by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The last date for the parties to file motions is September 10, 2018. Dkt. 88 . No motions have been filed. Accordingly, counsel shall confer and file a Joint Trial Report no later than September 19, 2018, which shall include the parties' respective and/or collective views on: (i) whether a further mediation session would be productive and, if so, when; (ii) a proposed date for the final pretrial conference and trial; (iii) the trial estimate and whether either party is requesting that the panel be prescreened and, if so, the basis for such; and (iv) any issues that need to be addressed prior to the commencement of trial. The Court will set dates upon review of the report and settlement report at Dkt. 104 . THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/14/2018)

09/19/2018 09/24/2018
09/25/2018
09/27/2018 10/01/2018

107 STATUS REPORT of Joint Trial Report filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 09/19/2018)
108 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE JOINT TRIAL REPORT (DKT. 106); REPORT OF SETTLEMENT STATUS (DKT. 104); AND ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES by Judge John A. Kronstadt: On September 6, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Report re Settlement and Request to Vacate and Reset Scheduling Dates (the Joint Request to Reset Expert Report Exchange Date). Dkt. 104. On September 14, 2018, an Order was issued requiring the parties to file a Joint Trial Report. Dkt. 106. They did so on September 19, 2018. Dkt. 107. March 19, 2019 at 9:00 am: Jury Trial. March 4, 2019 at 3:00 pm: Final Pre-Trial Conference, Status Conference re Disputed Exhibits, and Hearing on Motions in Limine (See minutes for further details) (yl) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
109 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Monique Amanda Alarcon counsel for Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua, Lydia Hicks, National Lawyers Guild, Torie Rivera, Kyle Todd. Adding Monique Amanda Alarcon as counsel of record for Charmaine Chua, Torie Rivera, Lydia Hicks, Kyle Todd, National Lawyers Guild for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua, et al.. (Attorney Monique Amanda Alarcon added to party Charmaine Chua(pty:pla), Attorney Monique Amanda Alarcon added to party Lydia Hicks(pty:pla), Attorney Monique Amanda Alarcon added to party National Lawyers Guild(pty:pla), Attorney Monique Amanda Alarcon added to party Torie Rivera(pty:pla), Attorney Monique Amanda Alarcon added to party Kyle Todd(pty:pla))(Alarcon, Monique) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
110 (STRICKEN) Joint STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Defendants Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Plowden, Geoffrey) Modified on 10/1/2018 (ec). (Entered: 09/27/2018)
111 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Stipulation for Protective Order 110 . The following error(s) was/were found: The Stipulation for Protective Order does not comply with Judge Standish's procedures. The stipulation does not comply with: L.R. 52-4.1 Separate Order. A separate proposed order shall be submitted with any stipulation, application, motion, or request of the parties requiring an order of the court. If the proposed order is the result of a stipulation, the pertinent elements requested in the stipulation shall be set forth in the order. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (ec) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/01/2018
10/03/2018 11/05/2018
11/08/2018 11/13/2018 11/15/2018 11/28/2018
01/10/2019

112 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS RE: Stipulation for Protective Order 110 by Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish. The document is stricken. Counsel shall review Judge Standish's procedures for submission of protective orders, strictly comply therewith, (including submitting a redlined version for the Court's review), and refile the protective order. Counsel shall further comply with L.R. 52-4.1 and attach a proposed Order to the Stipulation. Please note that counsel is required to use the Court's model protective order; only limited additions to the Court's model protective order will be considered. (ec) (Entered: 10/01/2018)
113 Joint STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith.(Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 10/03/2018)
114 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Damages --Classwide General Damages-- filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua. Motion set for hearing on 1/14/2019 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Avery Report, # 2 Exhibit Part 1, # 3 Exhibit Part 2, # 4 Exhibit Part 3, # 5 Exhibit Part 4(a), # 6 Exhibit Part 4(b), # 7 Exhibit Part 4(c), # 8 Exhibit B-Avery Resume) (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 11/05/2018)
115 NOTICE of UNAVAILABILITY filed by defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 11/08/2018)
116 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. correcting NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Damages --Classwide General Damages-- 114 (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 11/13/2018)
117 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Trial and Related Dates from March 19, 2019 to May 7, 2019 filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 11/15/2018)
118 ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES (DKT. 117) by Judge John A. Kronstadt. The trial date is continued to May 7, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.; The pretrial conference is continued to April 15, 2019 at 3:00 p.m.; The hearing on the Motion for General Damages (Dkt. 114) is continued to February 4, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. The Trial Readiness Conference is continued to February 4, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. (yl) (Entered: 11/29/2018)
119 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE FAILURE TO FILE OPPOSITION BRIEF PURSUANT TO A PRIOR ORDER by Judge John A. Kronstadt: On November 15, 2018, the parties stipulated to extend Defendants' deadline to file any opposition to Plaintiff's pending motion for general damages (Dkt. 114 ) to January 7, 2019. Dkt. 117 . That extension was

01/10/2019 01/10/2019 01/11/2019
01/11/2019 01/11/2019 01/22/2019

granted. Dkt. 118 . No timely opposition brief has been filed. On or before January 14, 2019, Defendants shall file an application to file an untimely opposition brief or a notice of non-opposition. The application shall include as attachments: (i) the proposed brief or notice of nonopposition; and (ii) a declaration stating the reason for the failure to adhere to the deadline to which Defendants previously stipulated. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jaklc4, ) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/10/2019)
120 NOTICE of Settlement (Provisional) filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 01/10/2019)
121 APPLICATION for Order for allowing an untimely Notice of NonOpposition, per the Court's Minute Order of Jan. 10, 2019. filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. Application set for hearing on 2/4/2019 at 10:00 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Notice of Non-Opposition, # 2 Declaration of Geoffrey Plowden) (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 01/10/2019)
122 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES RE APPLICATION FOR UNTIMELY NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR GENERAL DAMAES (DKT. 121 ) AND JOINT NOTICE OF PROVISIONAL SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST TO VACATE ALL PENDING DATES (DKT. 120 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Please take notice that pursuant to Local Rule 5-4 and/or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following deficiencies have been found with your electronically filed documents: Pursuant to L.R. 52-4.1, a proposed order shall be e-filed as a separate attachment to any document seeking Court approval. Counsel shall file a "Notice of Lodging of Proposed Order Re..." with a proposed order for the Application and Notice filed as attachments to the notice by January 14, 2019. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/11/2019)
123 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Morgan Ricketts counsel for Plaintiff Patricia Beers. Morgan Ricketts will no longer receive service of documents from the Clerks Office for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Patricia Beers. (Ricketts, Morgan) (Entered: 01/11/2019)
124 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Notice of Settlement 120 , Text Only Scheduling Notice,,, 122 (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Notice of Provisional Settlement, # 2 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 01/11/2019)
125 ORDER RE JOINT NOTICE OF PROVISIONAL SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST TO VACATE ALL PENDING DATES (DKT. 120 ); MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT CLASSWIDE GENERAL

01/24/2019 04/02/2019
04/26/2019 04/29/2019 07/05/2019

DAMAGES (DKT. 114 ); APPLICATION FOR UNTIMELY NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR GENERAL DAMAGES (DKT. 121 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt. On January 10, 2019, the parties filed a notice of provisional settlement and request to vacate all pending dates (the Notice). Dkt. 120. In light of the Notice, and good cause appearing for the request, all pending dates in this matter, including the hearings that have been set for February 4, 2019, and April 15, 2019, and the trial date of May 7, 2019, are VACATED. Counsel shall file a motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement on or before May 3, 2019. A hearingon the motion is set for June 10, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. In light of the Notice, Plaintiffs motion for leave to present classwide general damages (Dkt. 114) (the "Motion") is MOOT. Defendants' application to filean untimely notice of non-opposition to the Motion (the "Application") (Dkt. 121) is GRANTED. Defendants shall file the proposed notice of non-opposition that was attached to the Application (Dkt. 121-1) on or before January 25, 2019. (bp) (Entered: 01/23/2019)
126 NOTICE Notice of Non-Opposition filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. (filed pursuant to Judge Kronstadt's Order (Doc 125)) (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
127 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE NOTICE OF AMENDED STANDING ORDER by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Counsel are advised that on March 25, 2019, the Court amended its Consolidated Standing Order. Counsel shall refer to this Court's Procedures and Schedules found on the website for the United States District Court (http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-john-kronstadt) to obtain a copy of the Order. The March 25, 2019 version of the Consolidated Standing Order is effective in this action immediately. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrey) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/02/2019)
128 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Date for filing Motion for Preliminary Approval from May 3, 2019 to July 15, 2019 filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 04/26/2019)
129 ORDER by Judge John A. Kronstadt, Granting Stipulation to Continue May 3 Deadline for Filing the Motion for Preliminary Approval (Dkt. 128 ). SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on the motion is CONTINUED from June 10, 2019 to September 9, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. (twdb) (Entered: 04/29/2019)
130 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Colleen Marika Mullen counsel for Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. Colleen M. Mullen

07/15/2019 07/15/2019 07/15/2019 08/20/2019
08/21/2019 08/21/2019 08/22/2019

is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua, et al. (Mullen, Colleen) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
131 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua. Motion set for hearing on 9/9/2019 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A to Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit B to Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit C to Proposed Order, # 5 Exhibit D to Proposed Order) (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/15/2019)
132 DECLARATION of Barrett S. Litt In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 131 filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/15/2019)
133 DECLARATION of Carol A. Sobel In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 131 filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 3.1, # 5 Exhibit 4)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/15/2019)
134 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER; EXHIBITS (DKT. 131 , ATTACHMENT #1) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Plaintiffs filed a Proposed Preliminary Approval Order with the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Dkt. 131-1. On Page 3 of the Proposed Preliminary Approval Order, lines 1 through 21 appear to contain language from an unrelated case. Plaintiffs shall file an Amended Proposed Preliminary Order containing the correct, desired language for the proposed order by 8:00 a.m. on August 22, 2019. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jaklc2) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/20/2019)
135 SUPPLEMENT to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 131 Amended Preliminary Approval Order per Court's Order of 8/20/2019 filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 08/21/2019)
136 EXHIBIT Sobel Declaration 1 to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 131 Corrected CVs filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 08/21/2019)
137 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Supplement(Motion related) 135 ; Exhibit to Motion 136 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: 135 - Notice of Lodging; 136 Errata. Other error(s) with document(s): The document is accepted as

09/05/2019 09/05/2019 09/09/2019
09/11/2019 09/12/2019 09/12/2019 11/12/2019

filed. Counsel shall take notice of the CM/ECF procedures. Any future document will be stricken for failure to follow the procedures. (lom) (Entered: 08/22/2019)
138 SUPPLEMENT to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 131 re Administration of Class Claims filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
139 CORRECTED SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION RE: ADMINISTRATION OF CLASS CLAIMS re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 131 filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
140 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT (DKT. 131 ) before Judge John A. Kronstadt: The motion hearing is held. The Court adheres to its tentative views and GRANTS the Motion. Counsel shall amend the class notice accordingly and file an amended class notice on or before 9/13/2019. The hearing on the final approval of the class action settlement is set for 2/3/2020 at 8:30 AM. A separate and more detailed order will be issued. Court Reporter: Lisa Gonzalez. (SEE CIVIL MINUTES FOR FURTHER SPECIFICS). (jp) (Entered: 09/10/2019)
141 STRICKEN, see docket enttry no 142 - AMENDED CLASS NOTICE re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 131 Per Order at Dkt. #140 filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Litt, Barrett) Modified on 9/12/2019 (lom). (Entered: 09/11/2019)
142 ORDER TO STRIKE ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS by Judge John A. Kronstadt: the following document(s) be STRICKEN for failure to comply with the Local Rules, General Order and/or the Courts Case Management Order: Motion Related Document 141 , for the following reasons: Title page is missing. Counsel shall refile the Class Notice with a title/caption page pursuant to L.R. 11-3.8 no later than September 16, 2019. (lom) (Entered: 09/12/2019)
143 AMENDED CLASS NOTICE PER ORDER AT DKT. #140 re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 131 filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 09/12/2019)
144 Joint STIPULATION for Review of Joint Stipulation to Approve Class Notice and Relevant Dates Re Final Approval Hearing filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 11/12/2019)

11/15/2019
12/09/2019 12/20/2019 12/20/2019 12/20/2019 12/20/2019 02/13/2020

145 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT (DKT. 131 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: the Motion is GRANTED. The Class and Settlement Notice, which is attached as Exhibit A to the Joint Stipulation to Approve Class Notice, Relevant Dates Related to the Final Approval Hearing and the Contemporaneously Filed Preliminary Approval Order (Dkt. 144 -1), is approved. Within two weeks of the issuance of this Order, the City shall deposit or cause to be deposited into an account designated by the Class Administrator by check sent by overnight mail an amount of same day available funds equal to $20,000. If no Final Order of Approval and Settlement is entered by the Court, then all such funds paid to the Class Administrator that remain after payment of all accrued expenses shall be returned to Defendants. The schedule for class notification and the final approval hearing is 3/16/2020 at 8:30 AM. (SEE CIVIL MINUTES FOR SPECIFICS). (jp) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
146 NOTICE of Change of address by Rachel Steinback attorney for Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua, Lydia Hicks, National Lawyers Guild, Torie Rivera, Kyle Todd. Changing attorneys address to 3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2910, Los Angeles, CA 90010. Filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua, Lydia Hicks, National Lawyers Guild, Torie Rivera, Kyle Todd. (Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 12/09/2019)
147 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua. Motion set for hearing on 3/16/2020 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
148 DECLARATION of Barrett S. Litt In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 147 filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
149 DECLARATION of Carol A. Sobel In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 147 filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
150 DECLARATION of Richard M. Pearl In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 147 filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
151 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua. Motion set for hearing on 3/16/2020 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 02/13/2020)

02/13/2020 02/13/2020 03/02/2020 03/06/2020
03/13/2020
03/16/2020

152 DECLARATION of Carol A. Sobel In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 151 filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 02/13/2020)
153 DECLARATION of Weston C. Rowland In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 151 filed by Plaintiff Charmaine Chua. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 02/13/2020)
154 NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 151 filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 03/02/2020)
155 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DIRECTING COUNSEL TO COMPLY WITH COURT'S STANDING ORDER BY SUBMITTING EXCEL SPREADSHEET RE MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS (DKT. 147 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court has not received Plaintiffs' Counsel's courtesy copy with respect to the Motion pursuant to 10(e) and Ex. G of the Court's Standing Order. On or before March 9, 2020, counsel shall email to the Court's chambers email (jak_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov) an editable, electronic copy of Table 1 and Table 2 for the attorney's fees summary charts identified in Exhibit G to the Standing Order for the fees identified by Plaintiffs' Counsel, which shall be formatted for use with Microsoft Excel. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jaklc2) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/06/2020)
156 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER PERMITTING TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE AT HEARING ON MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS (DKT. 147) AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT (DKT. 151) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court has considered the matters raised with respect to the Motions and has concluded that counsel may appear by telephone (using a landline) at the March 16, 2020 hearing; provided, however, any such request must be made on or before 3:00 p.m. Pacific Time on March 13, 2020, by contacting the Courtroom Deputy Clerk at cheryl_wynn@cacd.uscourts.gov. An appearance by cell phone or on a speaker phone is not permitted. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jaklc2) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/13/2020)
157 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT (DKT. 151 ); PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS (DKT. 147 ) before Judge John A. Kronstadt: The motion hearing is held. The Court adheres to its tentative views and orders that the Motions be GRANTED with a

03/31/2020
04/01/2020 05/06/2020 05/11/2020

separate and more detailed order to be issued. Court Reporter: Lisa Gonzalez. (jp) (Entered: 03/18/2020)
158 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS (DKT. 147 ); MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT (DKT. 151 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: the Final Approval Motion and the Fee Motion were granted. The final settlement amounts are summarized in the following table: Expert Costs $20,210.00 Mediation Costs $5,500.00; Settlement Administration Costs $4121.49; Class Representative Awards $15,000.00; Award to Kyle Todd (putative class representative for uncertified sub-class) $5,000.00. Attorney's Fees $476,801.93; Litigation Costs $7488.07; Settlement Fund for Distribution to Class Members $215,878.51. Total $750,000.00. On or before 4/8/2020, Plaintiffs shall lodge a proposed judgment in accordance with the terms of this Order. Within seven days of Plaintiffs lodging a proposed judgment, Defendants shall file any objections to the form of the proposed judgment. (jp) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
159 NOTICE of Offer of Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Charmaine Chua. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
160 NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION Notice of Offer of Judgment 159 filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, Jeff Bert, City of Los Angeles, Andrew Smith. (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
161 JUDGMENT (DKT. 160 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt. Final approval of the class-action settlement in this action was granted. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $750,000. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (See Judgment for further specifics). (jp) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

10/15/2020 12:31:47

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse

Client Code:

Kanarek

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS End date: 10/15/2020

Billable Pages:

27

Cost:

2.70

Exempt flag: Not Exempt

Exempt reason:

Not Exempt

 
 Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:1

Carol A. Sobel, SBN 84483

1 Colleen Mullen SBN 299059

2

Justine M. Schneeweis SBN 305672 LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL

3

3110 Main Street, Suite 210 Santa Monica, CA 90405

4

(t) 310 393-3055; (f) 310 399-1854 (e) carolsobel@aol.com

5

(e) mullen.colleen1@gmail.com (e) Justine.schneeweis@gmail.com

6
Paul Hoffman, SBN 71244 7 Catherine Sweetser, SBN 271142
SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS & 8 HOFFMAN LLP
723 Ocean Front Walk 9 Venice, California 90291
(t) 310 396-0731; (f) 310 399-7040 10 (e) hoffpaul@aol.com
(e) catherine.sdshh@gmail.com
11

Barrett S. Litt, SBN 45527 KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT 234 Colorado Blvd., Suite 230 Pasadena, California 91101 (t) 626 844-7660; (f) 626 844-7670 (e) blitt@kmbllaw.com

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Additional Counsel on Following Page
13

14

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION
16

CHARMAINE CHUA, TORIE

Case No.:

17 RIVERA, LYDIA HICKS, and KYLE

18

TODD, individually and on behalf of a COMPLAINT: CLASS ACTION class of similarly situated persons, and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND

19 the NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD, DAMAGES

20

PLAINTIFFS, 42 U.S.C. § 1983: FIRST, FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH

21

vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a

AMENDMENT

22 municipal entity, CHIEF CHARLIE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION:

BECK, COMMANDER ANDREW ARTICLE I, § 1, 2, 3, 7

23 SMITH, and DOES 1-10 inclusive,

CALIF. CIVIL CODE §52.1

24

DEFENDANTS.

FALSE ARREST/ FALSE

25

IMPRISONMENT

26

CALIF. CIVIL CODE § 1798.14

27

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:2

Colleen Flynn, SBN 234281

1 LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN

2

3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010

3

(t) 213 252-9444 (f) 213 252-0091

4 (e) cflynn@yahoo.com

5

Matthew Strugar, SBN 232951 LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR

6 2108 Cove Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90039

7 (t) 323 696-2299

(e) matthewstrugar@gmail.com
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:3

1

1. This action arises out of the unlawful detention and arrest of

2 approximately 170 individuals engaged in demonstrations at or near the intersection

3 of Beverly and Alvarado Streets on November 24, 2014, and Sixth and Hope Streets

4 on November 26, 2014. The police herded Plaintiffs as they marched, finally

5 surrounding them and preventing them from moving forward on the sidewalk. By

6 kettling the demonstrators, detaining, interrogating and searching them, and

7 arresting those at Sixth and Hope without first issuing a lawful order to disperse,

8 Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the U.S. and California constitution, as

9 well as their statutory and common law rights.

10

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims

12 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights

13 jurisdiction), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction). This Court has

14 jurisdiction to issue declaratory or injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201

15 and 2202 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57.

16

3. Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 28

17 U.S.C. § 1391, as all Defendants and events giving rise to the claims herein occurred

18 in the Central District of California.

19

PARTIES

20

4. Plaintiff Charmaine Chua was peaceably and lawfully protesting in

21 downtown Los Angeles on November 26, 2014 in response to the decision of the

22 grand jury not to indict police officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of

23 Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Ms. Chua, without notice or warning, was

24 surrounded by police officers and kettled on the sidewalk at Sixth and Hope streets.

25 Immediately after she was kettled on the sidewalk, Ms. Chua approached an officer

26 and asked if she was being detained and asked to leave. The officer told Ms. Chua

27 that she was not permitted to leave. Ms. Chua was arrested and held for almost an

28

1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:4

1 entire day. No criminal charges were filed against Ms. Chua. She sues as an

2 individual and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals.

3

5. Plaintiff Lydia Hicks is a resident of Los Angeles. On November 26,

4 2014, she was engaged in lawful and peaceful protesting when she was kettled by

5 the LAPD at Sixth and Hope, when, without notice or warning, she was detained and

6 arrested. No criminal charges were filed against her. She sues as an individual and

7 on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals.

8

6. Plaintiff Torie John Rivera is a resident of Los Angeles County and

9 works in downtown Los Angeles. On November 26, 2014, Mr. Rivera was peaceably

10 and lawfully participating in a protest in downtown Los Angeles in response to a

11 grand jury decision not to indict police officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death

12 of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Mr. Rivera, without notice or warning,

13 was surrounded by police officers and kettled on the sidewalk at Sixth and Hope

14 streets. Mr. Rivera was arrested and held for almost an entire day. No criminal

15 charges were filed against Ms. Rivera. He sues as an individual and on behalf of a

16 class of similarly situated individuals.

17

7. Plaintiff Kyle Todd is an attorney and a member of the National

18 Lawyers Guild. He is a resident of Los Angeles. He acted as a legal observer during

19 a protest on November 28, 2014, when he was kettled by LAPD officers, without

20 notice or warning, while with a group of protestors on a public sidewalk at Beverly

21 and Alvarado. The entire assembly was detained for more than an hour, without a

22 prior dispersal order and an opportunity to leave. Todd, like the others with him,

23 had his personal property searched, even though Todd expressly did not consent to

24 the search. On threat of arrest, he was required to provide personal identifying

25 information to the LAPD before he was finally cleared and given an individual

26 dispersal order. He sues as an individual and on behalf of similarly situated

27 individuals.

28

2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 5 of 31 Page ID #:5

1

8. Plaintiff National Lawyers Guild, Los Angeles Chapter (“NLG-LA”),

2 is the local chapter of the nation’s first racially integrated voluntary bar association,

3 formed in 1937 with a mandate to advocate for fundamental principles of human and

4 civil rights, including the protection of rights guaranteed by the United States

5 Constitution. Since then, the Guild has been at the forefront of efforts to develop

6 and ensure respect for the rule of law and basic legal principles. The NLG-LA works

7 to ensure legal and practical access to demonstrations in Southern California by

8 regularly providing legal observers at demonstrations to observe and document

9 potentially unlawful or unjustified interference with demonstrators’ rights from law

10 enforcement. The NLG-LA also works to ensure the right to protest by helping to

11 secure legal representation for demonstrators facing criminal charges arising out of

12 demonstration activity and affirmative civil cases against local governments and law

13 enforcement agencies for unlawful interference with demonstrators’ rights. It

14 expends money conducting work to protect the right to lawfully demonstrate without

15 police interference in Los Angeles. The NLG-LA has also served as an

16 organizational Plaintiff in cases challenging interference with demonstrators’ rights,

17 including an action arising from the disruption of lawful assemblies and use of

18 unlawful force during the Democratic National Convention (“DNC”) in Los Angeles

19 in 2000 and a subsequent demonstration on October 22, 2000. The settlement in that

20 action provided for important changes in the policy and practices of the LAPD as

21 applied to demonstrations.

22

9. In addition, the NLG-LA has long advocated against unlawful

23 surveillance of persons engaged in protected First Amendment activity, including

24 the compilation of databases of participants in public protest. The NLG-LA suffered

25 injury when the Defendants kettled the demonstrators, issued an unlawful and

26 inadequate dispersal order, arrested them, denied them released on their own

27 recognizance, and collected personal identifiers on individuals engaged in lawful

28 First Amendment activity. On information and belief, the NLG-LA alleges that the

3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 6 of 31 Page ID #:6

1 LAPD used both individual officers and electronic equipment to collect personal

2 information on those engaged in the protests in November 2014, including the use

3 of a Stingray and similar electronic equipment to sweep up any cell phone numbers

4 used at the time and in the vicinity of the protests. Defendants’ actions interfered

5 with the NLG-LA’s right to assembly and speech. The NLG-LA plans to assist, plan,

6 participate in, hold similar events in the future, on its own or in conjunction with

7 others, and is fearful that the police actions of November, 2014, including the

8 unlawful collection of information on those participating in First Amendment

9 activity in public places, will be repeated absent injunctive relief to prohibit the

10 practices, policies, and customs of the LAPD that resulted in the unlawful action

11 against peaceful demonstrators on November 26, 2014 in downtown Los Angeles.

12

10. The Plaintiff class consists of approximately 170 individuals who were

13 unlawfully kettled by the LAPD in November 2014 in the protests against a number

14 of recent widely publicized police killings of civilians, the most recent spark being

15 the grand jury decision in Ferguson, Missouri. The class consists of two subclasses:

16 all those at Beverly and Alvarado on November 28, 2014, who were kettled, detained,

17 interrogated and forced to give up personal information; and all those detained and

18 arrested at Sixth and Hope on November 26, 2014, then denied OR release, but who,

19 ultimately, were not prosecuted. The Beverly and Alvarado subclass consists of

20 approximately 40 persons; the Sixth and Hope subclass consists of approximately

21 130 persons.

22

11. Defendant City of Los Angeles is a municipal corporation duly

23 organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California.

24 The Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) is a local government entity and an

25 agency of Defendant City of Los Angeles, and all actions of the LAPD are the legal

26 responsibility of the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles is sued in its own

27 right on the basis of its policies, customs, and practices which gave rise to Plaintiffs’

28

4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 7 of 31 Page ID #:7

1 federal rights claims, and on the basis of respondent superior, under California

2 Government Code § 815.2, for Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

3

12. Defendant Chief Charlie Beck, is and was, at all times relevant to this

4 action, the LAPD police chief and a policymaker for his department. He is sued in

5 both his individual and official capacities.

6

13. Defendant Commander Andrew Smith, was the field commander

7 directing the operations. He is sued in both his individual and official capacities in

8 that he was delegated the policy making authority by Defendant Chief Beck for these

9 incidents.

10

14. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that Does 1

11 through 10 were the agents, servants, and employees of Defendants City of Los

12 Angeles and/or the LAPD. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of

13 Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sue these

14 Defendant by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege

15 their true names and capacities when ascertained. The individual Doe Defendants

16 are sued in both their individual and official capacities.

17

15. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that at all times

18 relevant hereto Does 1 through 10, in addition to the named Defendants, are

19 responsible in some manner for the damages and injuries alleged herein.

20

16. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that at all times

21 relevant hereto Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants and

22 employees of the other Defendants and were acting at all times within the scope of

23 their agency and employment and with the knowledge and consent of their principal

24 and employer. At all times Defendants were acting under color of state law.

25

17. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that the practices,

26 policies, and customs of the City of Los Angeles and/or the LAPD caused the

27 unlawful action taken against Plaintiffs.

28

5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 8 of 31 Page ID #:8

1

2

3

FACTS

4 THE ARRESTS AT SIXTH AND HOPE:

5

18. On Wednesday, November 26, 2014, a crowd of peaceful protesters

6 gathered in front of the federal courthouse on Temple and Spring Street at 3:00 pm

7 in protest over a grand jury’s decision not to indict Ferguson, Missouri police officer

8 Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown.

9

19. At the conclusion of the rally at the Federal Courthouse, the protesters

10 peacefully marched to the LAPD Headquarters on 1st Street. LAPD officers

11 monitored and traveled alongside the march.

12

20. From LAPD Headquarters, the protesters marched through part of

13 downtown Los Angeles. At approximately 7:00 p.m., the protesters marched south

14 on Flower street and attempted to turn west on 7th Street. LAPD officers formed a

15 line on Seventh Street to the west of the demonstrators and in front of Figueroa Street

16 and prevented the demonstrators from continuing west on Seventh Street.

17

21. Soon thereafter, LAPD officers formed a line at Flower and Seventh,

18 preventing the demonstrators from heading east on Seventh and cutting off all access

19 to Flower Street. These two lines blocked all access to both Flower and Figueroa

20 Streets, kettling the protesters on the single block of Seventh Street.

21

22. Once LAPD established the line at Seventh and Flower and kettled the

22 protesters, the LAPD officers at Seventh and Figueroa moved their line to the east,

23 pushing the demonstrators east and concentrating them on the eastern portion of the

24 block of Seventh Street between Figueroa and Flower.

25

23. According to subsequent media reports, LAPD Captain Jeff Bert issued

26 a dispersal order around this time. See, e.g., “L.A. files few charges in Ferguson

27 police shooting protests despite mass arrests”” LOS ANGELES TIMES, July 29, 2015:

28 http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-lapd-mass-arrests-20150716-story.html.

6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 9 of 31 Page ID #:9

1 However, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, Captain Bert concedes that the

2 dispersal order was inadequate. Plaintiffs never heard a dispersal order, if one was

3 given. After approximately ten to fifteen minutes of kettling the protesters on

4 Seventh Street, LAPD officers then opened the police line on Flower and Seventh

5 Streets to allow the protesters to proceed north on Flower. Based on this action,

6 Plaintiffs believed that they were free to continue to protest since they were released

7 by the LAPD with no instruction to disperse. The LAPD continued to block Flower

8 to the South and Seventh to the east and west. With northbound on Flower as the

9 only option, the protesters proceeded in that direction.

10

24. When the demonstrators attempted to head west on Wilshire Boulevard,

11 the LAPD blocked the intersection of Wilshire and Figueroa. The demonstrators

12 continued north on Lebanon Street, an alley-like street that runs north-south from

13 Seventh to Sixth Streets between Figueroa and Flower Streets. When Lebanon Street

14 came to a dead end at Sixth Street, the protesters turned west of Sixth Street.

15

25. LAPD formed another line at the intersection of Sixth and Figueroa

16 Streets, blocking Figueroa Street on the south side of the intersection and Sixth Street

17 on the west side of the intersection. LAPD officers in full “tactical” or “riot” gear

18 were seen running north up Figueroa toward the police line and protesters. Having

19 come from the east and without access to the south or west, the protesters turned

20 north up Figueroa.

21

26. One block up, at Fifth and Figueroa, the LAPD formed lines at the

22 intersection blocking Fifth Street to the west and Figueroa to the north. LAPD

23 officers, including the officers in full “tactical” or “riot” gear, continued up Figueroa

24 from the south. The only direction open to the protesters was east on Fifth Street.

25 The protesters went east.

26

27. At Fifth and Flower Streets, LAPD officers instructed demonstrators to

27 continue east on Fifth Street. But when the demonstrators began to head east on Fifth

28

7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 10 of 31 Page ID #:10

1 Street, they saw a separate group of LAPD officers in full “tactical” or “riot” gear

2 jogging toward them from the east on Fifth Street.

3

28. Without other options, the protesters proceeded through the walkways

4 of the Central Library. LAPD officers closed in around the bushes on the north and

5 west sides of the Library. The protesters proceeded through the walkways around

6 the Central Library to the south side of the building where Hope Street dead-ends at

7 Library building, just north of Sixth Street.

8

29. LAPD officers then kettled the demonstrators on Hope Street between

9 Sixth Street and the Central Library. Throughout all of this time, since the failed

10 attempt to give a dispersal order some distance away, no further attempt was made

11 to give a dispersal order of any type. Chua and other Plaintiffs requested but were

12 denied permission to leave. After approximately fifteen minutes after they were

13 trapped on Hope Street, without any instruction or information, the LAPD

14 announced that all of the Plaintiffs were under arrest.

15

30. Officers arrested approximately 130 individuals at this location. Each

16 was arrested on charges of misdemeanor Failure to Disperse pursuant to Penal Code

17 § 409.

18

31. Among those who were indiscriminately kettled and arrested were

19 individuals who were not participating in the demonstration but were simply

20 bystanders waiting for the bus on the northeast corner of the intersection of Sixth

21 and Hope Streets, or walking by, or otherwise present in the area at the time the

22 LAPD kettled the area. The statute applied to Plaintiffs, Penal Code § 409, has long

23 been interpreted to require that law enforcement distinguish between participants

24 who engaged in a clear and present danger of imminent violence and innocent

25 bystanders. This cardinal rule was not applied in this instance.

26

32. Officers separated Plaintiffs into groups of six and each group was

27 processed on-site by two LAPD officers. The officers photographed Plaintiffs,

28

8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 11 of 31 Page ID #:11

1 collected and recorded their names, searched them, handcuffed them using zip-ties,

2 and loaded them onto buses.

3

33. Plaintiffs were then transported to the LAPD’s Metropolitan Detention

4 Center (MDC) or the Van Nuys jail. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that,

5 prior to their release, many of those arrested at Sixth and Hope were first transported

6 to the 77th Station jail in South Los Angeles.

7

34. The majority of Plaintiffs were incarcerated for approximately 14 hours,

8 despite the fact that they were entitled to release on their own recognizance (OR)

9 pursuant to California Penal Code § 853.6.

10

35. LAPD Lieutenant Andy Neiman was quoted in the media as saying all

11 demonstrators who were unable to post bail would be held until they were able to

12 appear in court early the following week. Commander Andy Smith told news media

13 that while LAPD would typically release individuals with similar charges OR, “In

14 this case, because these people are part of a protest that is continuing, they will not

15 be released on their own recognizance.” After holding Plaintiffs for an extended

16 period of time, they were finally released OR only because Chief Beck decided to

17 let them go at that time.

18

36. Penal Code § 853.6 imposes a mandatory requirement to release

19 misdemeanor violators on their own recognizance either before or immediately after

20 booking unless individualized probable cause exists to believe that one or more

21 exceptions to the statute exists as a basis to deny OR release. There was no

22 reasonable basis to believe that each and every one of the Plaintiffs came within any

23 of these enumerated exceptions, but no individual assessment was made. The entire

24 Plaintiff class was denied the individuals assessment of criminal liability that is the

25 hallmark of due process and each had their liberty unlawfully restricted as a result

26 of a deliberate decision by Defendant City to ignore the command of Penal Code

27 § 853.6.

28

9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 12 of 31 Page ID #:12

1

37. This action was in keeping with the City’s unlawful policy, beginning

2 on or around November 17. 2011, of denying OR release to individuals arrested for

3 engaging in civil disobedience. According to LAPD Deputy Chief Perez, who first

4 announced this policy during the Occupy protests in Los Angeles in 2011, the

5 decision was made to deny OR release to those engaged in First Amendment activity

6 to “teach people a lesson.” Subsequently, small groups of individuals involved in

7 acts of civil disobedience at the Bank of America headquarters on November 17,

8 2011, were arrested on non-violent misdemeanor offenses arising from protest

9 activity and denied OR release. Again, on November 30, 2011, the City denied OR

10 release to the nearly 300 people arrested in connection with the mass arrests at City

11 Hall made in connection with the Occupy L.A. demonstration.

12

38. Such a basis for a blanket decision to deny Plaintiffs’ liberty and detain

13 them without justification for prolonged times violates the First, Fourth, and

14 Fourteenth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs and the class members, and was done

15 with the specific and deliberate intent to interfere with the exercise of Plaintiffs’

16 rights to assembly and due process.

17

18 THE DETENTION AT BEVERLY AND ALVARADO:

19

39. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on November 28, 2014, Plaintiffs gathered

20 at Grand Park across from Los Angeles City Hall. Peaceful protestors, legal

21 observers, pedestrians, and members of the media spoke out against the Ferguson

22 grand jury’s decision not to indict Darren Wilson for the murder of Mike Brown.

23

40. After an hour, Plaintiffs began to march peacefully west on Beverly

24 Boulevard. They traveled approximately 2.5 miles, with LAPD officers monitoring

25 the march, traveling alongside by foot, bicycle, motorcycle, patrol car, and,

26 eventually, helicopter. At the start of the march, officers instructed Plaintiffs that

27 they would be arrested if they marched in the street. Plaintiffs adhered to this

28 instruction and marched on the sidewalks. After some time, however, the LAPD

10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 13 of 31 Page ID #:13

1 intentionally blocked the Beverly Boulevard sidewalk with officers and motorcycles,

2 forming a line across the sidewalk and the bike lane. The demonstrators were ordered

3 by the LAPD to continue the protest by marching in the street. Plaintiffs proceeded

4 with some hesitation to obey this new contradictory command. Not long after,

5 officers approached Plaintiffs again and threatened to arrest anyone marching in the

6 street. Plaintiffs quickly returned to the sidewalk, only to be faced with another

7 LAPD motorcycle blockade just ahead of them. Once again, the officers directed

8 Plaintiffs to walk in the street. At least one protestor responded that he would not

9 walk in the street, because he feared he would be arrested.

10

41. Notwithstanding the LAPD’s disruptive activities, the march was

11 peaceful, with no violence or threat of violence by the protestors. The only threats

12 to traffic or safety were created by the LAPD when they ordered Plaintiffs to march

13 in the street because the LAPD was blocking the sidewalks with officers and

14 motorcycles. At approximately 5:15 p.m., Plaintiffs turned north onto Alvarado

15 Street. Plaintiffs did not get much farther; LAPD officers lined the road ahead,

16 waiting to kettle and detain Plaintiffs. Approximately 100 riot-gear clad LAPD

17 officers advanced on Plaintiffs. LAPD officers on foot, bicycles, motorcycles, in

18 patrol cars, and helicopters, quickly surrounded approximately forty Plaintiffs even

19 though at this point, the march had not been declared an “unlawful assembly” and

20 no order to disperse was given.

21

42. More than an hour after Plaintiffs were kettled, the LAPD finally read

22 a “dispersal order” in English and Spanish. Many of those present did not hear or

23 understand the announcement. The Order stated that the march had been declared

24 an unlawful assembly and that Plaintiffs would not be released until after being

25 questioned individually. It did not inform the protestors of the possibility to leave

26 within a set time and by an announced route.

27

43. The pretext for the LAPD’s actions was the purported interference with

28 traffic caused by the march. Several LAPD officials represented to the media that

11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 14 of 31 Page ID #:14

1 the march constituted an unlawful assembly because “demonstrators ran into traffic

2 and blocked motorists” after being “warned repeatedly” to “stay off the street” and

3 “remain on the sidewalk.” Contrary to these assertions, video footage of the march

4 shows the LAPD blocking the sidewalk with motorcycles and ordering the

5 demonstrators to walk in the street. Any “interference” with traffic was caused and

6 created by the LAPD itself.

7

44. The LAPD detained the Plaintiffs, handcuffed them with zip-ties, and

8 compelled them to provide private identifying information, including social security

9 numbers, birthplace, employment, telephone numbers, and home addresses before

10 being released. At least one person was asked to identify any non-visible tattoos

11 although he did not have any tattoos visible to the officer. The officers patted down

12 the demonstrators’ clothing and searched their personal belongings, including

13 backpacks and wallets, without consent or proper cause. LAPD officers ran wants

14 and warrants on each Plaintiff. After all of this, an officer read a dispersal order to

15 one individual at a time. Another officer stood nearby, video recording the faces of

16 each individual as the other officer read the dispersal letter.

17

45. On information and belief, the LAPD collected Plaintiffs’ personal

18 information for the purpose of maintaining a database of protestors and for the

19 dissemination of this information to other law enforcement and government agencies.

20 The LAPD has a long history of engaging in unlawful surveillance and information

21 collecting on those engaged in lawful expressive activity, a practice declared

22 unconstitutional by both the California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal in two

23 separate cases. The LAPD also has a history of allowing its confidential information

24 to be shared with private advocacy and ideological groups.

25

26

MONELL ALLEGATIONS

27

46. The City, through Chief Charlie Beck and the LAPD, has failed to train

28 its officers in the constitutional responses to peaceful demonstrations as revealed by

12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 15 of 31 Page ID #:15

1 the above allegations. The City is well aware of its constitutional duties in light of

2 the settlement agreements discussed below in National Lawyers Guild v. City of Los

3 Angeles and MIWON v. City of Los Angeles, as well as other agreements entered into

4 on these issues over the years. The need for training and discipline to enforce

5 constitutional guarantees in such circumstances is obvious. The City has known of

6 the deficiencies in its training since at least 2000 and entered into a settlement

7 agreements in June 2005 and June 2009, each time agreeing to revised policies and

8 training, yet the City has failed to promulgate adequate policies effectuating the

9 terms of the settlement agreement and/or to train its command staff and officers on

10 the revised policies, if any exist.

11 12 THE SETTLEMENT IN NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES:

13

47. In June, 2005, the City of Los Angeles entered into a settlement

14 agreement in National Lawyers Guild, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., CV 01-

15 6877 FMC (CWx), an action arising from the disruption of lawful assemblies and

16 use of unlawful force during the Democratic National Convention (“DNC”) in Los

17 Angeles in 2000 and a subsequent demonstration on October 22, 2000. The

18 settlement provided for important changes in the policy and practices of the LAPD

19 as applied to demonstrations. At least three of those provisions were violated by the

20 LAPD’s actions at Beverly and Alvarado as alleged above.

21

48. Under the terms of the settlement in National Lawyers Guild,

22 demonstrators, while participating in lawful assemblages, are not to be prevented

23 from using public sidewalks to march.

24

49. The terms of the settlement also expressly provided that LAPD officers

25 are not to use their motorcycles as a form of crowd control against peaceful

26 demonstrators.

27

50. Finally, the settlement provided that, prior to declaring an unlawful

28 assembly, the LAPD Incident Commander should evaluate the feasibility of isolating

13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 16 of 31 Page ID #:16

1 and arresting those responsible for any unlawful conduct, and if feasible, take action

2 only against those individuals.

3

4 THE SETTLEMENT IN MULTI-ETHNIC WORKER ORGANIZING NETWORK V. CITY 5 OF LOS ANGELES:

6

51. On May 1, 2007, the LAPD assaulted a peaceful, permitted

7 immigration march in MacArthur Park. The attack on the demonstrators was

8 without warning. No dispersal order was given until more than three minutes into

9 the police action and, even then, the dispersal order was grossly inadequate, given

10 from helicopters in English to a largely Spanish-speaking assembly. During the

11 course of litigating the MIWON action, the LAPD conceded that it had not fully

12 implemented training and policy orders regarding the NLG settlement two years

13 earlier. In fact, no policy changes were ever finalized.

14

52. On June 24, 2009, the federal district court approved and entered a

15 Structural Relief Order as part of the settlement of a class action lawsuit brought on

16 behalf of all those subjected to the LAPD’s May Day action. Through this settlement,

17 the LAPD agreed that it would not obstruct the use of sidewalks by protestors and,

18 significantly, that, where practicable, the LAPD would consider facilitating

19 demonstrations that may temporarily block traffic. This latter provision is consistent

20 with established law in the Ninth Circuit, recognizing the need for local agencies to

21 accommodate “spontaneous” protests in the streets, particularly in response to

22 allegations of police misconduct.

23

53. The MIWON order also set out requirements to declare an unlawful

24 assembly: an amplified loudspeaker system with an officer at the far side of the

25 crowd to record the officer; if there is no serious violence occurring, the order shall

26 be made repeatedly over a period of time, including an “objectively reasonable”

27 period of time to disperse and identification of “a clear and safe route” to follow to

28

14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 17 of 31 Page ID #:17

1 disperse. The order should be given so that it is heard by the entire crowd. These

2 requirements were not met in this instance.

3

54. The terms of the MIWON structural relief agreement were to be

4 included in the LAPD’s Crowd Control and Use of Force Manuals and every officer

5 at the rank of Sergeant I and above, as well as the entire Metropolitan Division, were

6 to undergo training every two years. Chief Beck, as well as those members of his

7 command staff officers to whom he has delegated his responsibility to enact and

8 implement lawful policies on the declaration of an unlawful assembly and the use of

9 motorcycles as a crowd control tool, are aware of the unlawful policies, practices,

10 and customs of the City and the LAPD which resulted in the settlement in National

11 Lawyers Guild v. City of Los Angeles in June, 2005. Moreover, Chief Beck and his

12 delegated command staff are aware that the use of unlawful dispersal orders to break

13 up lawful protests, in particular, is a custom so ingrained in the marrow of the LAPD

14 that it was critical to take all steps necessary to ensure that official policy was

15 implemented in a manner sufficient to address the deeply rooted custom to violate

16 First Amendment rights in the specific ways identified in the National Lawyers

17 Guild settlement agreement. The failure to take such steps directly lead to the injuries

18 suffered by the Plaintiffs. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that this did

19 not occur.

20

55. Chief Beck, as well as those members of his command staff officers to

21 whom he has delegated his responsibility to enact and implement lawful policies on

22 the declaration of an unlawful assembly, are aware of the unlawful policies, practices,

23 and customs of the City and the LAPD which resulted in the settlements in NLG and

24 MIWON. Moreover, Chief Beck and his delegated command staff are aware that the

25 use of unlawful dispersal orders to break up lawful protests is a custom so ingrained

26 in the marrow of the LAPD that it was critical to take all steps necessary to ensure

27 that official policy was implemented in a manner sufficient to address the deeply

28 rooted custom to violate First Amendment rights in the specific ways identified in

15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 18 of 31 Page ID #:18

1 the settlement agreements. The failure to take such steps directly lead to the injuries

2 suffered by the Plaintiffs. This failure amounted to an “acquiescence in the

3 constitutional deprivations of which [the] complaint is made” and deliberate

4 indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact, and

5 constituted a conscious choice by the City not to properly train its law enforcement

6 personnel on these issues.

7

56. The City, through Chief Beck and his command staff to whom he

8 delegated decision-making, also knew from the recent litigation involving the

9 Occupy-protest arrests, Aichele v. City of Los Angeles, that it violated Plaintiffs’

10 right to due process and deprived them of their liberty interest in violation of Penal

11 Code § 853.6 based on their perceived association with the protest.

12

57. On information and belief, Chief Beck delegated final responsibility

13 and authority to persons within his command staff to act as the final policy maker in

14 declaring the assembly unlawful at the November 26 and 28, 2014 marches. The

15 persons who made these decisions, including Defendant Commander Andrew Smith,

16 acted as the delegated policy maker for the City of Los Angeles on these issues.

17 There was no time, opportunity, or procedure for anyone to review or revise the

18 decisions made by these delegated policy makers prior to their final implementation.

19

20

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

21

58. Plaintiffs timely filed class claims with the Defendant City pursuant to

22 Cal. Gov’t Code § 910 et seq. Defendant City of Los Angeles denied the claims.

23

24

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

25

59. The named Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a

26 proposed class of all other persons similarly situated pursuant to FRCivP Rule

27 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3). The damages class is defined as persons who were

28 present at either Sixth and Hope on November 26, 2014, or Beverly and Alvarado

16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 19 of 31 Page ID #:19

1 on November 28, 2014, and who were kettled, detained, and/or arrested, then denied

2 OR release by the LAPD, all in association with the protest against the grand jury

3 decision in Ferguson, Missouri in the killing of Michael Brown.

4

60. There are two damages sub-classes: the first damages sub-class (“Sixth

5 and Hope Sub-Class”) is defined as those persons who were present on November

6 26, 2014 near or at Sixth and Hope Streets and who were arrested by the LAPD in

7 association with a protest against the grand jury decision in Ferguson, Missouri in

8 the killing of Michael Brown. This sub-class is represented by Plaintiffs Chua, Hicks

9 and Rivera. The second damages sub-class (“Beverly and Alvarado sub-class”) is

10 defined as those persons who were present on November 28, 2014, near or at the

11 intersection of Alvarado and Beverly Boulevard and who were detained, handcuffed,

12 interrogated and/or searched in association with a protest against the grand jury

13 decision in Ferguson, Missouri in the killing of Michael Brown. This sub-class is

14 represented by Plaintiff Todd. Each class is inclusive of people present in order to

15 peacefully protest and those otherwise present in the vicinity as bystanders. The first

16 sub-class consists of approximately 130 individuals; the second sub-class consists

17 of approximately 40 individuals.

18

61. The injunctive relief class is defined as all persons who have in the past,

19 or may in the future, participate in, or be present at, demonstrations within the City

20 of Los Angeles in the exercise of their rights of free speech and petition. Without

21 intervention by this Court, those class members are at risk of having their rights

22 violated in the future due to the City's past and threatened future actions. The

23 injunctive relief Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to protect the future

24 lawful exercise of their constitutional rights, and, without action by this court, will

25 suffer irreparable injury, thereby entitling them to injunctive and declaratory relief.

26 The injunctive relief class is represented by the National Lawyers Guild, as well as

27 the individual class representatives.

28

17 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 20 of 31 Page ID #:20

1

62. Because the issues in the damages sub-classes are the same (except for

2 the addition of the arrest and denial of OR release for the Sixth and Hope Sub-Class),

3 the Rule 23 criteria for the classes and sub-classes are discussed jointly without

4 differentiating between the different classes.

5

63. Questions of law or fact common to putative class members

6 predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action

7 is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this

8 lawsuit. Alternatively, Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the

9 class, thereby making class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate.

10

64. The claims of the putative class satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule

11 of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and, alternatively, Rule 23(b)(2).

12

65. The putative class consists of approximately 170 individuals – 130

13 individuals in the Sixth and Hope Sub-Class and 40 in the Beverly and Alvarado

14 Sub-Class -- and is so numerous as to render joinder impractical.

15

66. Defendants detained and/or arrested the putative class and sub-classes

16 as a group and treated all similarly, acting on ground applicable to the putative class.

17 The named Plaintiffs’ claims that the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment

18 rights—and their analogous state Constitution, statutory, and common law rights—

19 were violated raise common question of law and fact. the Defendants have acted,

20 threaten to act, and will continue to act, on grounds generally applicable to the class,

21 thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or declaratory relief with respect

22 to the class as a whole.

23

67. Questions of law and fact are common to the class and sub-classes,

24 including whether the putative class and sub-classes were detained and/or arrested

25 without probable cause and based on unlawful or non-existent dispersal orders and

26 whether the Sixth and Hope sub-class members were denied the liberty interest in

27 OR release as codified in California Penal Code § 853.6.

28

18 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 21 of 31 Page ID #:21

1

68. The legal theories and factual predicates upon which the damages

2 classes and sub-classes seek relief predominate over any questions affecting only

3 individual members. The legal harms suffered by the named Plaintiffs and the class

4 Plaintiffs are identical.

5

69. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the putative class

6 and sub-class each represents, as each was engaged in or associated with peaceable

7 and lawful free speech and assembly activity when each was detained or arrested on

8 November 26, 2014 and November 28, 2014.

9

70. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the common

10 class interest. The named Plaintiffs have a strong interest in achieving the relief

11 requested in this Complaint, they have no conflicts with members of the Plaintiff

12 class, and they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

13

71. The named Plaintiffs are represented by counsel who are well-

14 experienced in civil rights and class action litigation and are familiar with the issues

15 in this case. Attorneys Paul Hoffman, Barry Litt, and Carol Sobel have successfully

16 litigated a number of class action cases on behalf of protesters in Los Angeles. Most

17 recently, they were appointed by the court as class counsel in Aichele, et al. v. City

18 of Los Angeles, et al., No. 2:12-CV-10863-DMG (C.D. Cal. August 26, 2012),

19 challenging, inter alia, the LAPD’s denial of OR release to those arrested during the

20 Occupy action at Los Angeles City Hall. They were also appointed as class counsel

21 in Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Worker Network v. City of Los Angeles, 24 F.R.D. 631

22 (C.D. Cal. 2007), challenging the LAPD’s assault on a lawful immigrant-rights rally

23 in MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007. That case resulted in a settle of $12,850,000 --

24 the largest amount ever paid nationally in a protest case in which there were no

25 arrests of the Plaintiffs. In addition to class action protest litigation, attorneys

26 Hoffman, Litt, and Sobel have served as class counsel in a number of other class

27 actions redressing civil rights violations.

28

19 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 22 of 31 Page ID #:22

1

72. Counsel for the named Plaintiffs know of no conflicts among or

2 between members of the class, the named Plaintiffs, or the attorneys in this action.

3

73. The Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally

4 applicable to the putative class. Injunctive and declaratory relief for the putative

5 class as a whole is appropriate.

6

74. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class

7 would create a risk of inconsistent standards of conduct for the Defendants, thereby

8 making a class action a superior method of adjudicating this lawsuit.

9

75. Plaintiffs do not know the identities of all of the class members.

10 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the identities of class

11 members may be obtained from the personal information compelled by Defendants

12 at the November 28, 2014 incident at Beverly and Alvarado, and from the arrest

13 records from the November 26, 2014 incident at Sixth and Hope.

14

15

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

16

76. Defendants improperly declared the assemblies unlawful. All the

17 Plaintiffs involved in the demonstrations at issue herein on November 26 and

18 November 28, 2014, were peaceful. The few protestors who were walking in the

19 street were forced to do so as a result of the LAPD’s unlawful blockade of public

20 sidewalks; this is no justification for declaring a peaceful assembly unlawful, nor

21 does it justify Defendants’ infringement on the First Amendment rights of the

22 peaceful majority.

23

77. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants

24 declared each gathering an “unlawful assembly,” and ordered the peaceful

25 participants to disperse, and unlawfully kettled Plaintiffs for the purpose of

26 interfering with the First Amendment rights of the peaceful participants.

27

78. Assuming that a dispersal order could have been legally justified under

28 all the facts and circumstances, the orders given were, nonetheless, deficient as they

20 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 23 of 31 Page ID #:23

1 were not given until long after the officers kettled those participating in the marches,

2 failed to allow the participants any opportunity to disperse, and were unheard or

3 unintelligible by the vast majority of the demonstrators, some of whom were not

4 even participating in the protest at the point where the police allege they gave an

5 admittedly deficient dispersal order. Any such dispersal orders were not in

6 compliance with state law as well as prior agreements and court orders regarding the

7 LAPD’s use of such dispersal orders.

8

79. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the LAPD

9 officers acted in accordance with orders given by supervisors from the highest

10 command positions, in accordance with policies and procedures instituted by the

11 LAPD and the City of Los Angeles, including an order to collect personal identifiers

12 on the demonstrators.

13

80. As a direct and proximate cause of the conduct described herein, the

14 named individual Plaintiffs have been denied their constitutional statutory, and legal

15 rights as stated herein, and have suffered general and special damages, including but

16 not limited to, mental and emotional distress, physical injuries and bodily harm, pain,

17 fear, humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, and anxiety and other damages in an

18 amount according to proof.

19

81. Defendants’ acts were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, and

20 done with conscious or reckless disregard for, and deliberate indifference to,

21 Plaintiffs’ rights.

22

82. Defendants’ polices practices, customs, conduct and acts alleged herein

23 resulted in, and will continue to result in, irreparable injury the Plaintiffs, including

24 but not limited to violation of their constitutional and statutory rights. Plaintiffs have

25 no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to address the wrong described herein.

26 The Plaintiffs and class members intend in the future to exercise their constitutional

27 rights of freedom of speech and association by engaging in expressive activities in

28 the City of Los Angeles. Defendants’ conduct described herein has created

21 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 24 of 31 Page ID #:24

1 uncertainty among Plaintiffs with respect to their exercise now and in the future of

2 these constitutional rights. Specifically, Plaintiffs are concerned that, if arrested,

3 whether lawfully or unlawfully, they will again be denied the liberty interest codified

4 at California Penal Code § 853.6 and will be detained until their arraignment unless

5 and until they post a monetary bond. The Beverly and Alvarado sub-class is

6 concerned that Defendants have created a database with the information Plaintiffs

7 were forced to provide to the LAPD and that Plaintiffs will be treated more harshly

8 if an unlawful assembly order issues in the future when they engage in First

9 Amendment activities, even though their identification was compelled under threat

10 of arrest and they were released without arrest. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive

11 relief from this court to ensure that Plaintiffs and persons similarly situated will not

12 suffer violations of their rights from Defendants’ illegal and unconstitutional policies,

13 customs, and practices described herein.

14

83. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring

15 that Defendants seal and destroy and records derived from Plaintiffs’ arrests,

16 including fingerprints, photographs, and other identification and descriptive

17 information, and all information, and biological samples and information obtained

18 from such biological samples collected from the Plaintiff class, and identify to the

19 Plaintiff class all entities and agencies to which such information has been

20 disseminated; and that all such disseminated records be collected and destroyed.

21

84. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants in that

22 Plaintiffs contend that the policies, practices, and conduct of Defendants alleged

23 herein are unlawful and unconstitutional, whereas Plaintiffs are informed and

24 believe that Defendants contend that said policies, practices, and conduct are lawful

25 and constitution. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of rights with respect to this

26 controversy.

27

85. All of the following claims for relief are asserted against all Defendants

28

22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 25 of 31 Page ID #:25

1

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983); California

3

Constitution, Article I, §§ 2 & 3

4

86. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

5 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

6

87. Defendants’ above-described conduct violated Plaintiffs’ rights to

7 freedom of speech, assembly, and association under the First Amendment to the

8 United States Constitution and the analogous provisions of the California

9 Constitution.

10
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11
Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983); California

12

Constitution, Article I, § 7

13

88. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

14 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

15

89. Defendants’ above-described conduct violated Plaintiffs’ rights to be

16 free from unreasonable seizures, excessive or arbitrary force, and arrest or detention

17
without reasonable or probably caused under the Fourth Amendment to the United

18
States Constitution. Defendants detained, seized, handcuffed, searched their persons

19
and their personnel property and, in the case of those at Sixth and Hope, arrested

20
Plaintiffs without legal authority when Defendants could not have reasonably

21
believed that they had committed or were about to commit any crime or public

22
offense. Plaintiffs were falsely arrested without probable cause for such arrests.

23

24

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

25

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983);

26

California Constitution, Article I, § 7

27

90. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

28 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

23 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 26 of 31 Page ID #:26

1

91. Defendants’ conduct deprived Plaintiffs of liberty without due process

2 of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Based on

3 their perceived association with the protests against the grand jury’s decision not to

4 indict police officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of Michael Brown in

5 Ferguson, Missouri and their purported engagement in “civil disobedience,”

6 Plaintiffs were uniformly denied the mandatory “liberty” interested codified at

7 California Penal Code § 853.6 when they were denied release on their own

8 recognizance and held in custody for approximately fourteen hours.

9

10

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983);

12

California Constitution, Article I, § 13

13

92. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

14 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

15

93. Defendants’ above-described conduct violated Plaintiffs’ rights to

16 equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

17 Constitution.

18

94. Defendants, in kettling Plaintiffs, refusing to allow Plaintiffs to disperse,

19 and arresting them without legal justification, intentionally and unlawfully

20 restrained and confined Plaintiffs and intentionally and unlawfully violated Plaintiffs’

21 personal liberty in violation of California law.

22

23

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

24

Violation of California Constitution, Article I, § 1 – Right of Privacy

25

95. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

26 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

27

96. The Defendants, by their conduct, violated the right of privacy of the

28 Beverly & Alvarado sub-class members by compelling them to disclose personal

24 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 27 of 31 Page ID #:27

1 identifiers as a condition of being allowed to disperse from the area without arrest.

2 The collection of such information, including Social Security numbers and other

3 personal information, was done based on Plaintiffs’ perceived association with the

4 demonstration against police killings of civilians.

5

97. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that their private identifiers

6 were compelled for the purpose of compiling a database of protestors and for the

7 dissemination of this information to other law enforcement and government agencies.

8 As a consequence of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered irreparable injury to

9 their constitutional rights.

10

11

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

12

Violation of California Civil Code § 52.1

13

98. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

14 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

15

99. The Defendants by their conduct interfered by threats, intimidation, or

16 coercion, or attempted to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the

17 exercise or enjoyment of Plaintiffs’ rights as secured by the First, Fourth, and

18 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution or laws of the United

19 States, and of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the state of California,

20 including but not limited to California Article I, §§ 1, 2 &7.

21

100. There was no lawful justification for Defendants to threaten, intimidate

22 or coerce any of the Plaintiffs or the putative class members or to attempt to use

23 threats, intimidation, or coercion to interfere with Plaintiffs’ and the putative class

24 members’ rights from being present at the lawful demonstration.

25

26

27

28

25 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 28 of 31 Page ID #:28

1

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

INFORMATION PRACTICES ACT – CIVIL CODE § 1798.14

3

101. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

4 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

5

102. California Civil Code Section 1798.14, part of the Information

6 Practices Act of 1977, provides that public agencies “shall maintain in its records

7 only personal information which is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose

8 of the agency required or authorized by the California Constitution or statute or

9 mandated by the federal government.”

10

103. California Civil Code Section 1798.45(c) authorizes an individual to

11 bring a civil action for any violation of the Information Practices Act of 1977 when

12 the agency fails to comply with any provision of the law in “a way as to have an

13 adverse effect on an individual.” Any agency that fails to comply with any provision

14 of the Information Practices Act of 1977 may be enjoined by any court of competent

15 jurisdiction.

16

104. The retention of Plaintiffs’ credit card information, phone numbers,

17 social security numbers, places of birth, home address, and place of employment, is

18 not information “relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency

19 required or authorized by the California Constitution or statute or mandated by the

20 federal government.” The retention of such information will have an adverse effect

21 on Plaintiffs. Moreover, the dissemination of this information to other law

22 enforcement agencies and other groups will also have an adverse effect on Plaintiffs.

23

24

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

25

FALSE ARREST/FALSE IMPRISONMENT

26

105. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

27 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

28

26 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 29 of 31 Page ID #:29

1

106. In kettling Plaintiffs, refusing to let them disperse, handcuffing and

2 arresting them without probable cause, then denying them OR release, Defendants

3 intentionally and unlawfully restrained and confined Plaintiffs and intentionally and

4 unlawfully violated Plaintiffs’ personal liberty in contravention of California law.

5

6

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

7

Wherefore, Plaintiffs seek judgment as follows:

8

1. An order certifying the class and each sub-class defined herein pursuant

9 to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2) and (3);

10

2. A preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendants from

11 engaging in the unlawful and unconstitutional actions detailed above;

12

3. A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants to seal

13 and destroy all records derived from this arrest, including all fingerprints,

14 photographs, identification, and descriptive information collected the Plaintiff class;

15

4. Entry of an order that disclosure be make in writing to Plaintiffs, the

16 class they represent, and the Court as to all entities and agencies to which such

17 material has been disseminated and by whom gathered; and that all records

18 disseminated be collected and sealed, including all copies of such disseminated

19 records that may have been subject to dissemination by others;

20

5. Entry of an order declaring the arrests of the Sixth and Hope sub-class

21 null and void;

22

6. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ conduct detailed herein was a

23 violation of the rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States and

24 California of Plaintiffs and the class members;

25

7. General and compensatory damages for Plaintiffs and the class they

26 represent for the violations of their federal and state constitutional and statutory

27 rights, pain and suffering, all to be determined according to proof;

28

27 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 30 of 31 Page ID #:30

1

8. An award of punitive and exemplary damages against the individual

2 Defendants to be determined according to proof;

3

9. An award of statutory damages and penalties pursuant to Cal. Civil

4 Code § 52(b) to be determined according to proof;

5

10. An award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 188 and Cal. Civil

6 Code §§ 52(b) & 52.1(h) and Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1021.5;

7

11. Costs of suit;

8

12. Pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law;

9

13. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

10

11 Dated: January 12, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

12

13

Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt, LLP

Law Office of Carol A. Sobel

14

Schonbrun, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman

15

Law Office of Colleen Flynn

Law Office of Matthew Strugar

16

17

/s/ Carol A. Sobel

18
By: CAROL A. SOBEL

19

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 31 of 31 Page ID #:31

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs

3 respectfully request a jury trial on all issues and claims triable to a jury.

4
5 Dated: January 12, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

6
/s/ Carol A. Sobel

7

By: CAROL A. SOBEL

8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 
 Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:156

Carol A. Sobel, SBN 84483

1 Colleen Mullen SBN 299059

2

Justine M. Schneeweis SBN 305672 LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL

3

3110 Main Street, Suite 210 Santa Monica, CA 90405

4

(t) 310 393-3055; (f) 310 399-1854 (e) carolsobel@aol.com

5

(e) mullen.colleen1@gmail.com (e) Justine.schneeweis@gmail.com

6
Paul Hoffman, SBN 71244

7 Catherine Sweetser, SBN 271142

SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS &

Barrett S. Litt, SBN 45527

8 HOFFMAN LLP

KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT

723 Ocean Front Walk

234 Colorado Blvd., Suite 230

9 Venice, California 90291

Pasadena, California 91101

(t) 310 396-0731; (f) 310 399-7040 (t) 626 844-7660; (f) 626 844-7670

10 (e) hoffpaul@aol.com

(e) blitt@kmbllaw.com

(e) catherine.sdshh@gmail.com
11

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Additional Counsel on Following Page
13

14

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION
16

CHARMAINE CHUA, TORIE

Case No.: 16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS

17 RIVERA, LYDIA HICKS, and KYLE

18

TODD, individually and on behalf of a COMPLAINT: CLASS ACTION class of similarly situated persons, and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND

19 the NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD, DAMAGES

20

PLAINTIFFS, 42 U.S.C. § 1983: FIRST, FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH

21

vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a

AMENDMENT

22 municipal entity, CHIEF CHARLIE BECK, COMMANDER ANDREW

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE I, § 1, 2, 3, 7

23 SMITH, CAPT. JEFF BERT, and

DOES 1-10 inclusive,

CALIF. CIVIL CODE §52.1

24

DEFENDANTS. FALSE ARREST/ FALSE

25

IMPRISONMENT

26

CALIF. CIVIL CODE § 1798.14

27

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:157

Colleen Flynn, SBN 234281

1 LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN

2

3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010

3

(t) 213 252-9444 (f) 213 252-0091

4 (e) cflynn@yahoo.com

5

Matthew Strugar, SBN 232951 LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR

6 2108 Cove Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90039

7 (t) 323 696-2299

(e) matthewstrugar@gmail.com
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:158

1

1. This action arises out of the unlawful detention and arrest of

2 approximately 170 individuals engaged in demonstrations at or near the intersection

3 of Beverly and Alvarado Streets on November 24, 2014, and 6th and Hope Streets

4 on November 26, 2014. The police herded Plaintiffs as they marched, finally

5 surrounding them and preventing them from moving forward on the sidewalk. By

6 kettling the demonstrators, detaining, interrogating and searching them, and

7 arresting those at 6th and Hope without first issuing a lawful order to disperse,

8 Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the U.S. and California constitution, as

9 well as their statutory and common law rights.

10

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims

12 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights

13 jurisdiction), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction). This Court has

14 jurisdiction to issue declaratory or injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201

15 and 2202 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57.

16

3. Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 28

17 U.S.C. § 1391, as all Defendants and events giving rise to the claims herein occurred

18 in the Central District of California.

19

PARTIES

20

4. Plaintiff Charmaine Chua was peaceably and lawfully protesting in

21 downtown Los Angeles on November 26, 2014 in response to the decision of the

22 grand jury not to indict police officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of

23 Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Ms. Chua, without notice or warning, was

24 surrounded by police officers and kettled on the sidewalk at 6th and Hope streets.

25 Immediately after she was kettled on the sidewalk, Ms. Chua approached an officer

26 and asked if she was being detained and asked to leave. The officer told Ms. Chua

27 that she was not permitted to leave. Ms. Chua was arrested and held for almost an

28

1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:159

1 entire day. No criminal charges were filed against Ms. Chua. She sues as an

2 individual and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals.

3

5. Plaintiff Lydia Hicks is a resident of Los Angeles. On November 26,

4 2014, she was engaged in lawful and peaceful protesting when she was kettled by

5 the LAPD at 6th and Hope, when, without notice or warning, she was detained and

6 arrested. No criminal charges were filed against her. She sues as an individual and

7 on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals.

8

6. Plaintiff Torie John Rivera is a resident of Los Angeles County and

9 works in downtown Los Angeles. On November 26, 2014, Mr. Rivera was peaceably

10 and lawfully participating in a protest in downtown Los Angeles in response to a

11 grand jury decision not to indict police officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death

12 of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Mr. Rivera, without notice or warning,

13 was surrounded by police officers and kettled on the sidewalk at 6th and Hope streets.

14 Mr. Rivera was arrested and held for almost an entire day. No criminal charges were

15 filed against Ms. Rivera. He sues as an individual and on behalf of a class of similarly

16 situated individuals.

17

7. Plaintiff Kyle Todd is an attorney and a member of the National

18 Lawyers Guild. He is a resident of Los Angeles. He acted as a legal observer during

19 a protest on November 28, 2014, when he was kettled by LAPD officers, without

20 notice or warning, while with a group of protestors on a public sidewalk at Beverly

21 and Alvarado. The entire assembly was detained for more than an hour, without a

22 prior dispersal order and an opportunity to leave. Todd, like the others with him,

23 had his personal property searched, even though Todd expressly did not consent to

24 the search. On threat of arrest, he was required to provide personal identifying

25 information to the LAPD before he was finally cleared and given an individual

26 dispersal order. He sues as an individual and on behalf of similarly situated

27 individuals.

28

2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 5 of 31 Page ID #:160

1

8. Plaintiff National Lawyers Guild, Los Angeles Chapter (“NLG-LA”),

2 is the local chapter of the nation’s first racially integrated voluntary bar association,

3 formed in 1937 with a mandate to advocate for fundamental principles of human and

4 civil rights, including the protection of rights guaranteed by the United States

5 Constitution. Since then, the Guild has been at the forefront of efforts to develop

6 and ensure respect for the rule of law and basic legal principles. The NLG-LA works

7 to ensure legal and practical access to demonstrations in Southern California by

8 regularly providing legal observers at demonstrations to observe and document

9 potentially unlawful or unjustified interference with demonstrators’ rights from law

10 enforcement. The NLG-LA also works to ensure the right to protest by helping to

11 secure legal representation for demonstrators facing criminal charges arising out of

12 demonstration activity and affirmative civil cases against local governments and law

13 enforcement agencies for unlawful interference with demonstrators’ rights. It

14 expends money conducting work to protect the right to lawfully demonstrate without

15 police interference in Los Angeles. The NLG-LA has also served as an

16 organizational Plaintiff in cases challenging interference with demonstrators’ rights,

17 including an action arising from the disruption of lawful assemblies and use of

18 unlawful force during the Democratic National Convention (“DNC”) in Los Angeles

19 in 2000 and a subsequent demonstration on October 22, 2000. The settlement in that

20 action provided for important changes in the policy and practices of the LAPD as

21 applied to demonstrations.

22

9. In addition, the NLG-LA has long advocated against unlawful

23 surveillance of persons engaged in protected First Amendment activity, including

24 the compilation of databases of participants in public protest. The NLG-LA suffered

25 injury when the Defendants kettled the demonstrators, issued an unlawful and

26 inadequate dispersal order, arrested them, denied them released on their own

27 recognizance, and collected personal identifiers on individuals engaged in lawful

28 First Amendment activity. On information and belief, the NLG-LA alleges that the

3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 6 of 31 Page ID #:161

1 LAPD used both individual officers and electronic equipment to collect personal

2 information on those engaged in the protests in November 2014, including the use

3 of a Stingray and similar electronic equipment to sweep up any cell phone numbers

4 used at the time and in the vicinity of the protests. Defendants’ actions interfered

5 with the NLG-LA’s right to assembly and speech. The NLG-LA plans to assist, plan,

6 participate in, hold similar events in the future, on its own or in conjunction with

7 others, and is fearful that the police actions of November, 2014, including the

8 unlawful collection of information on those participating in First Amendment

9 activity in public places, will be repeated absent injunctive relief to prohibit the

10 practices, policies, and customs of the LAPD that resulted in the unlawful action

11 against peaceful demonstrators on November 26, 2014 in downtown Los Angeles.

12

10. The Plaintiff class consists of approximately 170 individuals who were

13 unlawfully kettled by the LAPD in November 2014 in the protests against a number

14 of recent widely publicized police killings of civilians, the most recent spark being

15 the grand jury decision in Ferguson, Missouri. The class consists of two subclasses:

16 all those at Beverly and Alvarado on November 28, 2014, who were kettled, detained,

17 interrogated and forced to give up personal information; and all those detained and

18 arrested at 6th and Hope on November 26, 2014, then denied OR release, but who,

19 ultimately, were not prosecuted or who had the charges against them favorably

20 resolved. The Beverly and Alvarado subclass consists of approximately 40 persons;

21 the 6th and Hope subclass consists of approximately 160 persons.

22

11. Defendant City of Los Angeles is a municipal corporation duly

23 organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California.

24 The Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) is a local government entity and an

25 agency of Defendant City of Los Angeles, and all actions of the LAPD are the legal

26 responsibility of the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles is sued in its own

27 right on the basis of its policies, customs, and practices which gave rise to Plaintiffs’

28

4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 7 of 31 Page ID #:162

1 federal rights claims, and on the basis of respondent superior, under California

2 Government Code § 815.2, for Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

3

12. Defendant Chief Charlie Beck, is and was, at all times relevant to this

4 action, the LAPD police chief and a policymaker for his department. He is sued in

5 both his individual and official capacities.

6

13. Defendant Commander Andrew Smith, was the field commander

7 directing the operations. He is sued in both his individual and official capacities in

8 that he was delegated the policy making authority by Defendant Chief Beck for these

9 incidents.

10

14. Defendant Captain Jeff Bert was the field commander at the 6th and

11 Hope incident. He is sued in both his individual and official capacities in that he

12 was delegated the policy making authority by Defendant Chief Beck for this incident.

13

15. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that Does 1

14 through 10 were the agents, servants, and employees of Defendants City of Los

15 Angeles and/or the LAPD. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of

16 Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sue these

17 Defendant by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege

18 their true names and capacities when ascertained. The individual Doe Defendants

19 are sued in both their individual and official capacities.

20

16. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that at all times

21 relevant hereto Does 1 through 10, in addition to the named Defendants, are

22 responsible in some manner for the damages and injuries alleged herein.

23

17. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that at all times

24 relevant hereto Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants and

25 employees of the other Defendants and were acting at all times within the scope of

26 their agency and employment and with the knowledge and consent of their principal

27 and employer. At all times Defendants were acting under color of state law.

28

5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 8 of 31 Page ID #:163

1

18. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that the practices,

2 policies, and customs of the City of Los Angeles and/or the LAPD caused the

3 unlawful action taken against Plaintiffs.

4

5

FACTS

6 THE ARRESTS AT 6TH AND HOPE:

7

19. On Wednesday, November 26, 2014, a crowd of peaceful protesters

8 gathered in front of the federal courthouse on Temple and Spring Street at 3:00 pm

9 in protest over a grand jury’s decision not to indict Ferguson, Missouri police officer

10 Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown.

11

20. At the conclusion of the rally at the Federal Courthouse, the protesters

12 peacefully marched to the LAPD Headquarters on 1st Street. LAPD officers

13 monitored and traveled alongside the march.

14

21. From LAPD Headquarters, the protesters marched through part of

15 downtown Los Angeles. At approximately 7:00 p.m., the protesters marched south

16 on Flower street and attempted to turn west on 7th Street. LAPD officers formed a

17 line on 7th Street to the west of the demonstrators and in front of Figueroa Street and

18 prevented the demonstrators from continuing west on 7th Street.

19

22. Soon thereafter, LAPD officers formed a line at Flower and 7th,

20 preventing the demonstrators from heading east on 7th and cutting off all access to

21 Flower Street. These two lines blocked all access to both Flower and Figueroa

22 Streets, kettling the protesters on the single block of 7th Street.

23

23. Once LAPD established the line at 7th and Flower and kettled the

24 protesters, the LAPD officers at 7th and Figueroa moved their line to the east,

25 pushing the demonstrators east and concentrating them on the eastern portion of the

26 block of 7th Street between Figueroa and Flower.

27

24. According to subsequent media reports, LAPD Captain Jeff Bert issued

28 a dispersal order around this time. See, e.g., “L.A. files few charges in Ferguson

6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 9 of 31 Page ID #:164

1 police shooting protests despite mass arrests”” LOS ANGELES TIMES, July 29, 2015:

2 http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-lapd-mass-arrests-20150716-story.html.

3 However, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, Captain Bert concedes that the

4 dispersal order was inadequate. Plaintiffs never heard a dispersal order, if one was

5 given. After approximately ten to fifteen minutes of kettling the protesters on 7th

6 Street, LAPD officers then opened the police line on Flower and 7th Streets to allow

7 the protesters to proceed north on Flower. Based on this action, Plaintiffs believed

8 that they were free to continue to protest since they were released by the LAPD with

9 no instruction to disperse. The LAPD continued to block Flower to the South and

10 7th to the east and west. With northbound on Flower as the only option, the protesters

11 proceeded in that direction.

12

25. When the demonstrators attempted to head west on Wilshire Boulevard,

13 the LAPD blocked the intersection of Wilshire and Figueroa. The demonstrators

14 continued north on Lebanon Street, an alley-like street that runs north-south from

15 7th to 6th Streets between Figueroa and Flower Streets. When Lebanon Street came

16 to a dead end at 6th Street, the protesters turned west on 6th Street.

17

26. LAPD formed another line at the intersection of 6th and Figueroa

18 Streets, blocking Figueroa Street on the south side of the intersection and 6th Street

19 on the west side of the intersection. LAPD officers in full “tactical” or “riot” gear

20 were seen running north up Figueroa toward the police line and protesters. Having

21 come from the east and without access to the south or west, the protesters turned

22 north up Figueroa.

23

27. One block up, at 5th and Figueroa, the LAPD formed lines at the

24 intersection blocking 5th Street to the west and Figueroa to the north. LAPD officers,

25 including the officers in full “tactical” or “riot” gear, continued up Figueroa from

26 the south. The only direction open to the protesters was east on 5th Street. The

27 protesters went east.

28

7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 10 of 31 Page ID #:165

1

28. At 5th and Flower Streets, LAPD officers instructed demonstrators to

2 continue east on 5th Street. But when the demonstrators began to head east on 5th

3 Street, they saw a separate group of LAPD officers in full “tactical” or “riot” gear

4 jogging toward them from the east on 5th Street.

5

29. Without other options, the protesters proceeded through the walkways

6 of the Central Library, the only avenue of dispersal open to them by the LAPD, who 7 knew that this route would lead to the marchers being kettled in the cul-de-sac at 6th

8 and Hope. LAPD officers closed in around the bushes on the north and west sides

9 of the Library. The protesters proceeded through the walkways around the Central

10 Library to the south side of the building where Hope Street dead-ends at Library

11 building, just north of 6th Street.

12

30. LAPD officers then kettled the demonstrators on Hope Street between

13 6th Street and the Central Library. Throughout all of this time, since the failed

14 attempt to give a dispersal order some distance away, no further attempt was made

15 to give a dispersal order of any type. Chua and other Plaintiffs requested but were

16 denied permission to leave. After approximately fifteen minutes after they were

17 trapped on Hope Street, without any instruction or information, the LAPD

18 announced that all of the Plaintiffs were under arrest.

19

31. Officers arrested approximately 130 individuals at this location. Each

20 was arrested on charges of misdemeanor Failure to Disperse pursuant to Penal Code

21 § 409.

22

32. Among those who were indiscriminately kettled and arrested were

23 individuals who were not participating in the demonstration but were simply

24 bystanders waiting for the bus on the northeast corner of the intersection of 6th and

25 Hope Streets, or walking by, or otherwise present in the area at the time the LAPD

26 kettled the area. The statute applied to Plaintiffs, Penal Code § 409, has long been

27 interpreted to require that law enforcement distinguish between participants who

28

8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 11 of 31 Page ID #:166

1 engaged in a clear and present danger of imminent violence and innocent bystanders.

2 This cardinal rule was not applied in this instance.

3

33. Officers separated Plaintiffs into groups of six and each group was

4 processed on-site by two LAPD officers. The officers photographed Plaintiffs,

5 collected and recorded their names, searched them, handcuffed them using zip-ties,

6 and loaded them onto buses.

7

34. Plaintiffs were then transported to the LAPD’s Metropolitan Detention

8 Center (MDC) or the Van Nuys jail. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that,

9 prior to their release, many of those arrested at 6th and Hope were first transported

10 to the 77th Station jail in South Los Angeles.

11

35. The majority of Plaintiffs were incarcerated for approximately 14 hours,

12 despite the fact that they were entitled to release on their own recognizance (OR)

13 immediately upon completion of booking pursuant to California Penal Code § 853.6.

14

36. LAPD Lieutenant Andy Neiman was quoted in the media as saying all

15 demonstrators who were unable to post bail would be held until they were able to

16 appear in court early the following week. Commander Andy Smith was reported to

17 have told news media that, while LAPD would typically release individuals with

18 similar charges OR, “In this case, because these people are part of a protest that is

19 continuing, they will not be released on their own recognizance.” After holding

20 Plaintiffs for an extended period of time, they were finally released OR only because

21 Chief Beck decided to let them go at that time.

22

37. Penal Code § 853.6 imposes a mandatory requirement to release

23 misdemeanor violators on their own recognizance either before or immediately after

24 booking unless individualized probable cause exists to believe that one or more

25 exceptions to the statute exists as a basis to deny OR release. By statute, keeping

26 individuals in custody beyond booking requires law enforcement to prepare a

27 specific form and note the applicable exception to mandatory release. There was no

28 reasonable basis to believe that each and every one of the Plaintiffs came within any

9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 12 of 31 Page ID #:167

1 of these enumerated exceptions, but no individual assessment was made and no

2 forms were completed at the time of Plaintiffs’ booking noting the reason for not

3 releasing them immediately. The entire Plaintiff class was denied the individualized

4 assessment of criminal liability that is the hallmark of due process and each had their

5 liberty unlawfully restricted as a result of a deliberate decision by Defendant City to

6 ignore the explicit command of Penal Code § 853.6.

7

38. This action was in keeping with the City’s unlawful policy, beginning

8 on or around November 17. 2011, of denying OR release to individuals arrested for

9 engaging in civil disobedience. According to LAPD Deputy Chief Perez, who first

10 announced this policy during the Occupy protests in Los Angeles in 2011, the

11 decision was made to deny OR release to those engaged in First Amendment activity

12 to “teach people a lesson.” Subsequently, small groups of individuals involved in

13 acts of civil disobedience at the Bank of America headquarters on November 17,

14 2011, were arrested on non-violent misdemeanor offenses arising from protest

15 activity and denied OR release. Again, on November 30, 2011, the City denied OR

16 release to the nearly 300 people arrested in connection with the mass arrests at City

17 Hall made in connection with the Occupy L.A. demonstration.

18

39. Such a basis for a blanket decision to deny Plaintiffs’ liberty and detain

19 them without justification for prolonged times violates the First, Fourth, and

20 Fourteenth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs and the class members, and was done

21 with the specific and deliberate intent to interfere with the exercise of Plaintiffs’

22 rights to assembly and due process.

23

24 THE DETENTION AT BEVERLY AND ALVARADO:

25

40. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on November 28, 2014, Plaintiffs gathered

26 at Grand Park across from Los Angeles City Hall. Peaceful protestors, legal

27 observers, pedestrians, and members of the media spoke out against the Ferguson

28 grand jury’s decision not to indict Darren Wilson for the murder of Mike Brown.

10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 13 of 31 Page ID #:168

1

41. After an hour, Plaintiffs began to march peacefully west on Beverly

2 Boulevard. They traveled approximately 2.5 miles, with LAPD officers monitoring

3 the march, traveling alongside by foot, bicycle, motorcycle, patrol car, and,

4 eventually, helicopter. At the start of the march, officers instructed Plaintiffs that

5 they would be arrested if they marched in the street. Plaintiffs adhered to this

6 instruction and marched on the sidewalks. After some time, however, the LAPD

7 intentionally blocked the Beverly Boulevard sidewalk with officers and motorcycles,

8 forming a line across the sidewalk and the bike lane. The demonstrators were ordered

9 by the LAPD to continue the protest by marching in the street. Plaintiffs proceeded

10 with some hesitation to obey this new contradictory command. Not long after,

11 officers approached Plaintiffs again and threatened to arrest anyone marching in the

12 street. Plaintiffs quickly returned to the sidewalk, only to be faced with another

13 LAPD motorcycle blockade just ahead of them. Once again, the officers directed

14 Plaintiffs to walk in the street. At least one protestor responded that he would not

15 walk in the street, because he feared he would be arrested.

16

42. Notwithstanding the LAPD’s disruptive activities, the march was

17 peaceful, with no violence or threat of violence by the protestors. The only threats

18 to traffic or safety were created by the LAPD when they ordered Plaintiffs to march

19 in the street because the LAPD was blocking the sidewalks with officers and

20 motorcycles. At approximately 5:15 p.m., Plaintiffs turned north onto Alvarado

21 Street. Plaintiffs did not get much farther; LAPD officers lined the road ahead,

22 waiting to kettle and detain Plaintiffs. Approximately 100 riot-gear clad LAPD

23 officers advanced on Plaintiffs. LAPD officers on foot, bicycles, motorcycles, in

24 patrol cars, and helicopters, quickly surrounded approximately forty Plaintiffs even

25 though at this point, the march had not been declared an “unlawful assembly” and

26 no order to disperse was given.

27

43. More than an hour after Plaintiffs were kettled, the LAPD finally read

28 a “dispersal order” in English and Spanish. Many of those present did not hear or

11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 14 of 31 Page ID #:169

1 understand the announcement. The Order stated that the march had been declared

2 an unlawful assembly and that Plaintiffs would not be released until after being

3 questioned individually. It did not inform the protestors of the possibility to leave,

4 or afford them an opportunity to do so within a set time and by an announced route

5 prior to subjecting them to a compelled interrogation as a condition of release.

6

44. The pretext for the LAPD’s actions was the purported interference with

7 traffic caused by the march. Several LAPD officials represented to the media that

8 the march constituted an unlawful assembly because “demonstrators ran into traffic

9 and blocked motorists” after being “warned repeatedly” to “stay off the street” and

10 “remain on the sidewalk.” Contrary to these assertions, video footage of the march

11 shows the LAPD blocking the sidewalk with motorcycles and ordering the

12 demonstrators to walk in the street. Any “interference” with traffic was caused and

13 created by the LAPD itself, who made the sidewalks impassable for Plaintiffs.

14

45. Although the protestors were not going to be arrested and presented no

15 threat to the officers, the LAPD detained the Plaintiffs, handcuffed them with zip-

16 ties, and compelled them to provide private identifying information, including social

17 security numbers, birthplace, employment, telephone numbers, and home addresses

18 before being released. At least one person was asked to identify any non-visible

19 tattoos although he did not have any tattoos visible to the officer. The officers patted

20 down the demonstrators’ clothing and searched their personal belongings, including

21 backpacks and wallets, without consent or proper cause. LAPD officers ran wants

22 and warrants on each Plaintiff. After all of this, an officer read a dispersal order to

23 one individual at a time. Another officer stood nearby, video recording the faces of

24 each individual as the other officer read the dispersal letter.

25

46. On information and belief, the LAPD collected Plaintiffs’ personal

26 information for the purpose of maintaining a database of protestors and for the

27 dissemination of this information to other law enforcement and government agencies.

28 The LAPD has a long history of engaging in unlawful surveillance and information

12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 15 of 31 Page ID #:170

1 collecting on those engaged in lawful expressive activity, a practice declared

2 unconstitutional by both the California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal in two

3 separate cases. The LAPD also has a history of allowing its confidential information

4 to be shared with private advocacy and ideological groups.

5

47. For both incidents alleged above, the LAPD mobilized vans and SUVs

6 equipped with a variety of surveillance equipment, including cameras, “stingray”

7 devices, the “Freedom-on-the-move” system and drones. This equipment was used

8 to conduct warrantless collection of private communications contained on the cell

9 phones of the Plaintiffs, including telephone numbers of associates and family of

10 Plaintiffs. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the personal information

11 collected by these means, as well as as the information from the compelled

12 detentions and interrogations, has been shared with other law enforcement agencies,

13 including but not limited to federal agencies such as FUSION centers. The

14 collection of this information in various criminal investigative databases maintained

15 by law enforcement has labeled Plaintiffs’ lawful First Amendment activity as

16 “Suspicious Activity” within the scope of the SAR (“Suspicious Activity Report”)

17 program and has caused Plaintiffs’ friends, family members and associates to be

18 entered into a government database used to collect information on potential

19 “suspicious” activity without their knowledge.

20

21

MONELL ALLEGATIONS

22

48. The City, through Chief Charlie Beck and the LAPD, has failed to train

23 its officers in the constitutional responses to peaceful demonstrations as revealed by

24 the above allegations. The City is well aware of its constitutional duties in light of

25 the settlement agreements discussed below in National Lawyers Guild v. City of Los

26 Angeles and MIWON v. City of Los Angeles, as well as other agreements entered into

27 on these issues over the years. The need for training and discipline to enforce

28 constitutional guarantees in such circumstances is obvious. The City has known of

13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 16 of 31 Page ID #:171

1 the deficiencies in its training since at least 2000 and entered into settlement

2 agreements in June 2005 and June 2009, each time agreeing to revised policies and

3 training, yet the City has failed to promulgate adequate policies effectuating the

4 terms of the settlement agreement and/or to train its command staff and officers on

5 the revised policies, if any exist.

6 7 THE SETTLEMENT IN NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES:

8

49. In June, 2005, the City of Los Angeles entered into a settlement

9 agreement in National Lawyers Guild, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., CV 01-

10 6877 FMC (CWx), an action arising from the disruption of lawful assemblies and

11 use of unlawful force during the Democratic National Convention (“DNC”) in Los

12 Angeles in 2000 and a subsequent demonstration on October 22, 2000. The

13 settlement provided for important changes in the policy and practices of the LAPD

14 as applied to demonstrations. At least three of those provisions were violated by the

15 LAPD’s actions at Beverly and Alvarado as alleged above.

16

50. Under the terms of the settlement in National Lawyers Guild,

17 demonstrators, while participating in lawful assemblages, are not to be prevented

18 from using public sidewalks to march.

19

51. The terms of the settlement also expressly provided that LAPD officers

20 are not to use their motorcycles as a form of crowd control against peaceful

21 demonstrators.

22

52. Finally, the settlement provided that, prior to declaring an unlawful

23 assembly, the LAPD Incident Commander should evaluate the feasibility of isolating

24 and arresting those responsible for any unlawful conduct, and if feasible, take action

25 only against those individuals.

26

27 THE SETTLEMENT IN MULTI-ETHNIC WORKER ORGANIZING NETWORK V. CITY 28 OF LOS ANGELES:

14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 17 of 31 Page ID #:172

1

53. On May 1, 2007, the LAPD assaulted a peaceful, permitted

2 immigration march in MacArthur Park. The attack on the demonstrators was

3 without warning. No dispersal order was given until more than three minutes into

4 the police action and, even then, the dispersal order was grossly inadequate, given

5 from helicopters in English to a largely Spanish-speaking assembly. During the

6 course of litigating the MIWON action, the LAPD conceded that it had not fully

7 implemented training and policy orders regarding the NLG settlement two years

8 earlier. In fact, no policy changes were ever finalized.

9

54. On June 24, 2009, the federal district court approved and entered a

10 Structural Relief Order as part of the settlement of a class action lawsuit brought on

11 behalf of all those subjected to the LAPD’s May Day action. Through this settlement,

12 the LAPD agreed that it would not obstruct the use of sidewalks by protestors and,

13 significantly, that, where practicable, the LAPD would consider facilitating

14 demonstrations that may temporarily block traffic. This latter provision is consistent

15 with established law in the Ninth Circuit, recognizing the need for local agencies to

16 accommodate “spontaneous” protests in the streets, particularly in response to

17 allegations of police misconduct.

18

55. The MIWON order also set out requirements to declare an unlawful

19 assembly: an amplified loudspeaker system with an officer at the far side of the

20 crowd to record the officer; if there is no serious violence occurring, the order shall

21 be made repeatedly over a period of time, including an “objectively reasonable”

22 period of time to disperse and identification of “a clear and safe route” to follow to

23 disperse. The order should be given so that it is heard by the entire crowd. These

24 requirements were not met in this instance.

25

56. The terms of the MIWON structural relief agreement were to be

26 included in the LAPD’s Crowd Control and Use of Force Manuals and every officer

27 at the rank of Sergeant I and above, as well as the entire Metropolitan Division, were

28 to undergo training every two years. Chief Beck, as well as those members of his

15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 18 of 31 Page ID #:173

1 command staff officers to whom he has delegated his responsibility to enact and

2 implement lawful policies on the declaration of an unlawful assembly and the use of

3 motorcycles as a crowd control tool, are aware of the unlawful policies, practices,

4 and customs of the City and the LAPD which resulted in the settlement in National

5 Lawyers Guild v. City of Los Angeles in June, 2005. Moreover, Chief Beck and his

6 delegated command staff are aware that the use of unlawful dispersal orders to break

7 up lawful protests, in particular, is a custom so ingrained in the marrow of the LAPD

8 that it was critical to take all steps necessary to ensure that official policy was

9 implemented in a manner sufficient to address the deeply rooted custom to violate

10 First Amendment rights in the specific ways identified in the National Lawyers

11 Guild settlement agreement. The failure to take such steps directly lead to the injuries

12 suffered by the Plaintiffs. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that this did

13 not occur.

14

57. Chief Beck, as well as those members of his command staff officers to

15 whom he has delegated his responsibility to enact and implement lawful policies on

16 the declaration of an unlawful assembly, are aware of the unlawful policies, practices,

17 and customs of the City and the LAPD which resulted in the settlements in NLG and

18 MIWON. Moreover, Chief Beck and his delegated command staff are aware that the

19 use of unlawful dispersal orders to break up lawful protests is a custom so ingrained

20 in the marrow of the LAPD that it was critical to take all steps necessary to ensure

21 that official policy was implemented in a manner sufficient to address the deeply

22 rooted custom to violate First Amendment rights in the specific ways identified in

23 the settlement agreements. The failure to take such steps directly lead to the injuries

24 suffered by the Plaintiffs. This failure amounted to an “acquiescence in the

25 constitutional deprivations of which [the] complaint is made” and deliberate

26 indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact, and

27 constituted a conscious choice by the City not to properly train its law enforcement

28 personnel on these issues.

16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 19 of 31 Page ID #:174

1

58. The City, through Chief Beck and his command staff to whom he

2 delegated decision-making, also knew from the recent litigation involving the

3 Occupy-protest arrests, Aichele v. City of Los Angeles, that it violated Plaintiffs’

4 right to due process and deprived them of their liberty interest in violation of Penal

5 Code § 853.6 based on their perceived association with the protest.

6

59. On information and belief, Chief Beck delegated final responsibility

7 and authority to persons within his command staff to act as the final policy maker in

8 declaring the assembly unlawful at the November 26 and 28, 2014 marches. The

9 persons who made these decisions, including Defendant Commander Andrew Smith,

10 acted as the delegated policy maker for the City of Los Angeles on these issues.

11 There was no time, opportunity, or procedure for anyone to review or revise the

12 decisions made by these delegated policy makers prior to their final implementation.

13

14

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

15

60. Plaintiffs timely filed class claims with the Defendant City pursuant to

16 Cal. Gov’t Code § 910 et seq. Defendant City of Los Angeles denied the claims.

17

18

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

19

61. The named Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a

20 proposed class of all other persons similarly situated pursuant to FRCivP Rule

21 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3). The damages class is defined as persons who were

22 present at either 6th and Hope on November 26, 2014, or Beverly and Alvarado on

23 November 28, 2014, and who were kettled, detained, and/or arrested, then denied

24 OR release by the LAPD, all in association with the protest against the grand jury

25 decision in Ferguson, Missouri in the killing of Michael Brown.

26

62. There are two damages sub-classes: the first damages sub-class (“6th

27 and Hope Sub-Class”) is defined as those persons who were present on November

28 26, 2014 near or at 6th and Hope Streets and who were arrested by the LAPD in

17 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 20 of 31 Page ID #:175

1 association with a protest against the grand jury decision in Ferguson, Missouri in

2 the killing of Michael Brown and who either were not prosecuted or had their

3 criminal charges resolved favorably. This sub-class is represented by Plaintiffs Chua,

4 Hicks and Rivera. The second damages sub-class (“Beverly and Alvarado sub-

5 class”) is defined as those persons who were present on November 28, 2014, near or

6 at the intersection of Alvarado and Beverly Boulevard and who were detained,

7 handcuffed, interrogated and/or searched in association with a protest against the

8 grand jury decision in Ferguson, Missouri in the killing of Michael Brown. This

9 sub-class is represented by Plaintiff Todd. Each class is inclusive of people present

10 in order to peacefully protest and those otherwise present in the vicinity as

11 bystanders. The first sub-class consists of approximately 130 individuals; the second

12 sub-class consists of approximately 40 individuals.

13

63. The injunctive relief class is defined as all persons who have in the past,

14 or may in the future, participate in, or be present at, demonstrations within the City

15 of Los Angeles in the exercise of their rights of free speech and petition. Without

16 intervention by this Court, those class members are at risk of having their rights

17 violated in the future due to the City's past and threatened future actions. The

18 injunctive relief Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to protect the future

19 lawful exercise of their constitutional rights, and, without action by this court, will

20 suffer irreparable injury, thereby entitling them to injunctive and declaratory relief.

21 The injunctive relief class is represented by the National Lawyers Guild, as well as

22 the individual class representatives.

23

64. Because the issues in the damages sub-classes are the same (except for

24 the addition of the arrest and denial of OR release for the 6th and Hope Sub-Class),

25 the Rule 23 criteria for the classes and sub-classes are discussed jointly without

26 differentiating between the different classes.

27

65. Questions of law or fact common to putative class members

28 predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action

18 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 21 of 31 Page ID #:176

1 is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this

2 lawsuit. Alternatively, Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the

3 class, thereby making class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate.

4

66. The claims of the putative class satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule

5 of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and, alternatively, Rule 23(b)(2).

6

67. The putative class consists of approximately 170 individuals – 130

7 individuals in the 6th and Hope Sub-Class and 40 in the Beverly and Alvarado Sub-

8 Class -- and is so numerous as to render joinder impractical.

9

68. Defendants detained and/or arrested the putative class and sub-classes

10 as a group and treated all similarly, acting on ground applicable to the putative class.

11 The named Plaintiffs’ claims that the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment

12 rights—and their analogous state Constitution, statutory, and common law rights—

13 were violated raise common question of law and fact. the Defendants have acted,

14 threaten to act, and will continue to act, on grounds generally applicable to the class,

15 thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or declaratory relief with respect

16 to the class as a whole.

17

69. Questions of law and fact are common to the class and sub-classes,

18 including whether the putative class and sub-classes were detained and/or arrested

19 without probable cause and based on unlawful or non-existent dispersal orders and

20 whether the 6th and Hope sub-class members were denied the liberty interest in OR

21 release as codified in California Penal Code § 853.6.

22

70. The legal theories and factual predicates upon which the damages

23 classes and sub-classes seek relief predominate over any questions affecting only

24 individual members. The legal harms suffered by the named Plaintiffs and the class

25 Plaintiffs are identical.

26

71. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the putative class

27 and sub-class each represents, as each was engaged in or associated with peaceable

28

19 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 22 of 31 Page ID #:177

1 and lawful free speech and assembly activity when each was detained or arrested on

2 November 26, 2014 and November 28, 2014.

3

72. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the common

4 class interest. The named Plaintiffs have a strong interest in achieving the relief

5 requested in this Complaint, they have no conflicts with members of the Plaintiff

6 class, and they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

7

73. The named Plaintiffs are represented by counsel who are well-

8 experienced in civil rights and class action litigation and are familiar with the issues

9 in this case. Attorneys Paul Hoffman, Barry Litt, and Carol Sobel have successfully

10 litigated a number of class action cases on behalf of protesters in Los Angeles. Most

11 recently, they were appointed by the court as class counsel in Aichele, et al. v. City

12 of Los Angeles, et al., No. 2:12-CV-10863-DMG (C.D. Cal. August 26, 2012),

13 challenging, inter alia, the LAPD’s denial of OR release to those arrested during the

14 Occupy action at Los Angeles City Hall. They were also appointed as class counsel

15 in Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Worker Network v. City of Los Angeles, 24 F.R.D. 631

16 (C.D. Cal. 2007), challenging the LAPD’s assault on a lawful immigrant-rights rally

17 in MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007. That case resulted in a settle of $12,850,000 --

18 the largest amount ever paid nationally in a protest case in which there were no

19 arrests of the Plaintiffs. In addition to class action protest litigation, attorneys

20 Hoffman, Litt, and Sobel have served as class counsel in a number of other class

21 actions redressing civil rights violations.

22

74. Counsel for the named Plaintiffs know of no conflicts among or

23 between members of the class, the named Plaintiffs, or the attorneys in this action.

24

75. The Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally

25 applicable to the putative class. Injunctive and declaratory relief for the putative

26 class as a whole is appropriate.

27

28

20 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 23 of 31 Page ID #:178

1

76. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class

2 would create a risk of inconsistent standards of conduct for the Defendants, thereby

3 making a class action a superior method of adjudicating this lawsuit.

4

77. Plaintiffs do not know the identities of all of the class members.

5 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the identities of class

6 members may be obtained from the personal information compelled by Defendants

7 at the November 28, 2014 incident at Beverly and Alvarado, and from the arrest

8 records from the November 26, 2014 incident at 6th and Hope.

9

10

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

11

78. Defendants improperly declared the assemblies unlawful. All the

12 Plaintiffs involved in the demonstrations at issue herein on November 26 and

13 November 28, 2014, were peaceful. The few protestors who were walking in the

14 street were forced to do so as a result of the LAPD’s unlawful blockade of public

15 sidewalks; this is no justification for declaring a peaceful assembly unlawful, nor

16 does it justify Defendants’ infringement on the First Amendment rights of the

17 peaceful majority.

18

79. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants

19 declared each gathering an “unlawful assembly,” and ordered the peaceful

20 participants to disperse, and unlawfully kettled Plaintiffs for the purpose of

21 interfering with the First Amendment rights of the peaceful participants.

22

80. Assuming that a dispersal order could have been legally justified under

23 all the facts and circumstances, the orders given were, nonetheless, deficient as they

24 were not given until long after the officers kettled those participating in the marches,

25 failed to allow the participants any opportunity to disperse, or were unheard or

26 unintelligible by the vast majority of the demonstrators, some of whom were not

27 even participating in the protest at the point where the police allege they gave an

28 admittedly deficient dispersal order. Any such dispersal orders were not in

21 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 24 of 31 Page ID #:179

1 compliance with state law as well as prior agreements and court orders regarding the

2 LAPD’s use of such dispersal orders.

3

81. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the LAPD

4 officers acted in accordance with orders given by supervisors from the highest

5 command positions, in accordance with policies and procedures instituted by the

6 LAPD and the City of Los Angeles, including an order to collect personal identifiers

7 on the demonstrators.

8

82. As a direct and proximate cause of the conduct described herein, the

9 named individual Plaintiffs have been denied their constitutional statutory, and legal

10 rights as stated herein, and have suffered general and special damages, including but

11 not limited to, mental and emotional distress, physical injuries and bodily harm, pain,

12 fear, humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, and anxiety and other damages in an

13 amount according to proof.

14

83. Defendants’ acts were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, and

15 done with conscious or reckless disregard for, and deliberate indifference to,

16 Plaintiffs’ rights.

17

84. Defendants’ polices practices, customs, conduct and acts alleged herein

18 resulted in, and will continue to result in, irreparable injury the Plaintiffs, including

19 but not limited to violation of their constitutional and statutory rights. Plaintiffs have

20 no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to address the wrong described herein.

21 The Plaintiffs and class members intend in the future to exercise their constitutional

22 rights of freedom of speech and association by engaging in expressive activities in

23 the City of Los Angeles. Defendants’ conduct described herein has created

24 uncertainty among Plaintiffs with respect to their exercise now and in the future of

25 these constitutional rights. Specifically, Plaintiffs are concerned that, if arrested,

26 whether lawfully or unlawfully, they will again be denied the liberty interest codified

27 at California Penal Code § 853.6 and will be detained until their arraignment unless

28 and until they post a monetary bond. The Beverly and Alvarado sub-class is

22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 25 of 31 Page ID #:180

1 concerned that Defendants have created a database with the information Plaintiffs

2 were forced to provide to the LAPD and that Plaintiffs will be treated more harshly

3 if an unlawful assembly order issues in the future when they engage in First

4 Amendment activities, even though their identification was compelled under threat

5 of arrest and they were released without arrest. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive

6 relief from this court to ensure that Plaintiffs and persons similarly situated will not

7 suffer violations of their rights from Defendants’ illegal and unconstitutional policies,

8 customs, and practices described herein.

9

85. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring

10 that Defendants seal and destroy and records derived from Plaintiffs’ arrests,

11 including fingerprints, photographs, and other identification and descriptive

12 information, and all information, and biological samples and information obtained

13 from such biological samples collected from the Plaintiff class, and identify to the

14 Plaintiff class all entities and agencies to which such information has been

15 disseminated; and that all such disseminated records be collected and destroyed.

16

86. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants in that

17 Plaintiffs contend that the policies, practices, and conduct of Defendants alleged

18 herein are unlawful and unconstitutional, whereas Plaintiffs are informed and

19 believe that Defendants contend that said policies, practices, and conduct are lawful

20 and constitution. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of rights with respect to this

21 controversy.

22

87. All of the following claims for relief are asserted against all Defendants

23

24

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

25 First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983); California

26

Constitution, Article I, §§ 2 & 3

27

88. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

28 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

23 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 26 of 31 Page ID #:181

1

89. Defendants’ above-described conduct violated Plaintiffs’ rights to

2 freedom of speech, assembly, and association under the First Amendment to the

3 United States Constitution and the analogous provisions of the California

4 Constitution.

5

6

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

7 Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983); California

8

Constitution, Article I, § 7

9

90. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

10 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

11

91. Defendants’ above-described conduct violated Plaintiffs’ rights to be

12 free from unreasonable seizures, excessive or arbitrary force, and arrest or detention

13 without reasonable or probable cause under the Fourth Amendment to the United

14 States Constitution. Defendants detained, seized, handcuffed, searched their persons

15 and their personnel property and, in the case of those at 6th and Hope, arrested

16 Plaintiffs without legal authority when Defendants could not have reasonably

17 believed that they had committed or were about to commit any crime or public

18 offense. Plaintiffs were falsely arrested without probable cause for such arrests.

19
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983);

21
California Constitution, Article I, § 7

22
92. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

23
and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

24

93. Defendants’ conduct deprived Plaintiffs of liberty without due process

25
of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Based on

26 their perceived association with the protests against the grand jury’s decision not to

27
indict police officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of Michael Brown in

28 Ferguson, Missouri and their purported engagement in “civil disobedience,”

24 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 27 of 31 Page ID #:182

1 Plaintiffs were uniformly denied the mandatory “liberty” interested codified at

2 California Penal Code § 853.6 when they were denied individualized assessment,

3 denied release on their own recognizance and held in custody for approximately

4 fourteen hours.

5

6

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

7

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983);

8

California Constitution, Article I, § 13

9

94. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

10 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

11

95. Defendants’ above-described conduct violated Plaintiffs’ rights to

12 equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

13 Constitution.

14

96. Defendants, in kettling Plaintiffs, refusing to allow Plaintiffs to disperse,

15 and arresting them without legal justification, intentionally and unlawfully

16 restrained and confined Plaintiffs and intentionally and unlawfully violated Plaintiffs’

17 personal liberty in violation of California law.

18

19

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

Violation of California Constitution, Article I, § 1 – Right of Privacy

21

97. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

22 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

23

98. The Defendants, by their conduct, violated the right of privacy of the

24 Beverly & Alvarado sub-class members by compelling them to disclose personal

25 identifiers as a condition of being allowed to disperse from the area without arrest.

26 The collection of such information, including presumptively private Social Security

27 numbers and other personal information, was done based on Plaintiffs’ perceived

28 association with the demonstration against police killings of civilians.

25 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 28 of 31 Page ID #:183

1

99. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that their private identifiers

2 were compelled for the purpose of compiling a database of protestors and for the

3 dissemination of this information to other law enforcement and government agencies.

4 As a consequence of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered irreparable injury to

5 their constitutional rights.

6

7

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

8

Violation of California Civil Code § 52.1

9

100. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

10 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

11

101. The Defendants by their conduct interfered by threats, intimidation, or

12 coercion, or attempted to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the

13 exercise or enjoyment of Plaintiffs’ rights as secured by the First, Fourth, and

14 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution or laws of the United

15 States, and of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the state of California,

16 including but not limited to California Article I, §§ 1, 2 &7.

17

102. There was no lawful justification for Defendants to threaten, intimidate

18 or coerce any of the Plaintiffs or the putative class members or to attempt to use

19 threats, intimidation, or coercion to interfere with Plaintiffs’ and the putative class

20 members’ rights from being present at the lawful demonstration.

21

22

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

23

INFORMATION PRACTICES ACT – CIVIL CODE § 1798.14

24

103. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

25 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

26

104. California Civil Code Section 1798.14, part of the Information

27 Practices Act of 1977, provides that public agencies “shall maintain in its records

28 only personal information which is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose

26 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 29 of 31 Page ID #:184

1 of the agency required or authorized by the California Constitution or statute or

2 mandated by the federal government.”

3

105. California Civil Code Section 1798.45(c) authorizes an individual to

4 bring a civil action for any violation of the Information Practices Act of 1977 when

5 the agency fails to comply with any provision of the law in “a way as to have an

6 adverse effect on an individual.” Any agency that fails to comply with any provision

7 of the Information Practices Act of 1977 may be enjoined by any court of competent

8 jurisdiction.

9

106. The retention of Plaintiffs’ credit card information, phone numbers,

10 social security numbers, places of birth, home address, and place of employment, is

11 not information “relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency

12 required or authorized by the California Constitution or statute or mandated by the

13 federal government.” The retention of such information will have an adverse effect

14 on Plaintiffs. Moreover, the dissemination of this information to other law

15 enforcement agencies and other groups will also have an adverse effect on Plaintiffs.

16

17

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

18

FALSE ARREST/FALSE IMPRISONMENT

19

107. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

20 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

21

108. In kettling Plaintiffs, refusing to let them disperse, handcuffing and

22 arresting them without probable cause, then denying them OR release, Defendants

23 intentionally and unlawfully restrained and confined Plaintiffs and intentionally and

24 unlawfully violated Plaintiffs’ personal liberty in contravention of California law.

25

26

27

28

27 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 30 of 31 Page ID #:185

1

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

2

Wherefore, Plaintiffs seek judgment as follows:

3

1. An order certifying the class and each sub-class defined herein pursuant

4 to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2) and (3);

5

2. A preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendants from

6 engaging in the unlawful and unconstitutional actions detailed above;

7

3. A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants to

8 expunge, seal and destroy all records derived from this arrest, including all

9 fingerprints, photographs, identification, and descriptive information collected the

10 Plaintiff class;

11

4. Entry of an order that disclosure be made in writing to Plaintiffs, the

12 class they represent, and the Court as to all entities and agencies to which such

13 material has been disseminated and by whom gathered; and that all records

14 disseminated be collected, expunged and sealed, including all copies of such

15 disseminated records that may have been subject to dissemination by others;

16

5. Entry of an order declaring the arrests of the 6th and Hope sub-class

17 null and void;

18

6. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ conduct detailed herein was a

19 violation of the rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States and

20 California of Plaintiffs and the class members;

21

7. General and compensatory damages for Plaintiffs and the class they

22 represent for the violations of their federal and state constitutional and statutory

23 rights, pain and suffering, all to be determined according to proof;

24

8. An award of punitive and exemplary damages against the individual

25 Defendants to be determined according to proof;

26

9. An award of statutory damages and penalties pursuant to Cal. Civil

27 Code § 52(b) to be determined according to proof;

28

28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 15 Filed 04/27/16 Page 31 of 31 Page ID #:186

1

10. An award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 188 and Cal. Civil

2 Code §§ 52(b) & 52.1(h) and Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1021.5;

3

11. Costs of suit;

4

12. Pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law;

5

13. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

6

7 Dated: April 27, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

8

9

Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt, LLP

Law Office of Carol A. Sobel

10

Schonbrun, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman

11

Law Office of Colleen Flynn

Law Office of Matthew Strugar

12

13

/s/ Carol A. Sobel

14

By: CAROL A. SOBEL

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15

16
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
17

18

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial in this action.

19 Dated: April 27, 2016
20
21

Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL

22

23

/s/ Carol A. Sobel

By: CAROL A. SOBEL

24

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

25

26

27

28

29 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 
 Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:454
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

Present: The Honorable

JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Andrea Keifer Deputy Clerk

Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (DKT. 26)

I.

Introduction

Charmaine Chua (“Chua”), Torie Rivera (“Rivera”), Lydia Hicks (“Hicks”), Kyle Todd (“Todd”) and the National Lawyers Guild (“NLG”), brought this putative class action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated (collectively “Plaintiffs”) against the City of Los Angeles (“City”), Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) Chief Charlie Beck (“Beck”), LAPD Commander Andrew Smith (“Smith”) and Does 1-10 (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated their rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as their rights under the California Constitution and Cal. Civ. Code §§ 52.1 and 1798.14. The alleged basis for these claims is that, while involved in two protests in November 2014, Plaintiffs were detained and then arrested by officers of the LAPD. Dkt. 1.

Plaintiffs brought this Motion for Class Certification (“Motion”). Dkt. 26. Defendants filed a statement of Non-Opposition to the Motion. Dkt. 33. A hearing was held on November 7, 2016 and this motion was taken under submission. Dkt. 38. As directed at the hearing, Plaintiffs and Defendant then submitted supplemental briefing. Dkts. 39, 41. For the reasons stated in this Order, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART.

II. Factual Background

A. Arrests at 6th and Hope

On November 26, 2014, a group of protestors began demonstrating in front of a Los Angeles federal
courthouse, and then marched first to the LAPD headquarters and then south on Flower Street. Dkt.1
¶¶ 18-20. The Complaint alleges that as the protestors attempted to turn West on 7th Street, LAPD
officers formed a line in front of them and blocked their pathway on 7th Street. Dkt. ¶ 20. It also alleges that the LAPD officers blocked access to Flower and Figueroa Streets, thereby “kettling”1 the protestors

1 Plaintiffs use this term throughout the Complaint and their Motion. It’s defined as a police practice of confining a group of demonstrators or protesters to a small area, as a method of crowd control during a demonstration.
Page 1 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:455
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

on a single block of 7th Street. Id. ¶ 21. The Complaint alleges that LAPD Captain Jeff Bert issued a dispersal order to the demonstrators at this time, but that Plaintiffs could not and did not hear it. Id. ¶ 23.
The Complaint alleges that the protestors eventually made their way to Fifth and Flower Streets. Id. ¶¶ 24-27. It alleges that the protestors continued to be kettled by the LAPD officers, but walked to the Central Library. Id. ¶ 28. The Complaint alleges that the LAPD officers did not attempt to issue a dispersal order and denied the protestors permission to leave the area. Id. ¶ 29. It alleges that the LAPD officers then announced that all of the approximately 130 protestors had been placed under arrest. Id. ¶ 29. Each was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor, “Failure to Disperse,” pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 409. Id. ¶ 30. The Complaint alleges that some bystanders in the area, who were not protesting, were also arrested. Id. ¶ 31. It alleges that this violated Cal. Penal Code § 409. Id. ¶ 32.
The Complaint alleges that the LAPD officers then “separated Plaintiffs into groups of six and each group as processed on-site by two LAPD officers.” Id. The LAPD officers allegedly “photographed Plaintiffs, collected and recorded their names, searched them, handcuffed them using zip-ties, and loaded them onto buses.” Id. The protestors were then transported to one of three locations: the LAPD Metropolitan Detention Center, the Van Nuys jail or the 77th Station jail. Id. ¶ 33. The Complaint alleges that most of the protestors were kept in custody for approximately 14 hours before they were released on their own recognizance (“OR release”). Id. ¶¶ 34-35.
The Complaint alleges that “Penal Code § 853.6 imposes a mandatory requirement to release misdemeanor violators on their own recognizance either before or immediately after booking unless individualized probable cause exists to believe that one or more exceptions to the statute exists as a basis to deny OR release.” Id. ¶ 36. The Complaint alleges that no individualized assessment was made for any of the Plaintiffs and each of the Plaintiffs had his or her liberty unlawfully restricted by the decision to detain them. Id.
The Complaint alleges that these actions were “in keeping with the City’s unlawful policy . . . of denying OR release to individuals arrested for engaging civil disobedience.” Id. ¶ 37. The Complaint alleges that this was not the first time the LAPD applied this policy. Id. It alleges that the decision by the LAPD to do so was “with the specific and deliberate intent to interfere with the exercise of Plaintiffs’ rights to assembly and due process.” Id. ¶ 38.
B. Detention at Beverly and Alvarado
On November 28, 2014, a group of protestors gathered at Grand Park and began to march west on Beverly Boulevard. Id. ¶¶ 39-40. The Complaint alleges that at the start of the march, LAPD officers instructed the protestors that they would be arrested if they marched in the street. Id. ¶ 40. It alleges that the protestors complied with this instruction and marched on the sidewalk. Id. It alleges that the LAPD officers then intentionally blocked the Beverly Boulevard sidewalk by having officers stand and placing motorcycles there. It is also alleged that the officers ordered the protestors to proceed by marching in the street. Id. The Complaint alleges that the protestors were then threatened with arrest by LAPD officers for doing so. Id. It further alleges that the protestors then returned to the sidewalk, only to encounter another police blockade and receive another order to continue marching in the street. Id.
Page 2 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:456
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

The Complaint alleges that the protestors turned onto Alvarado Street where they encountered a line of LAPD officers waiting to kettle and detain them. Id. ¶ 41. It alleges a group of approximately 40 protestors was surrounded by the LAPD officers. Id. It alleges that no LAPD officer made a dispersal order until more than an hour after the protestors had been kettled. Id. ¶ 42. The LAPD officer who made the order allegedly stated that “the march had been declared an unlawful assembly and that Plaintiffs would not be released until after being questioned individually.” Id. The Complaint alleges that the order did not inform the protestors of their ability to leave within a set time and by and announced route in order to avoid detention. Id. It alleges that “[m]any of those present did not hear or understand the announcement.” Id.
The LAPD officers then “detained the Plaintiffs, handcuffed them with zip-ties, and compelled them to provide private identifying information, including social security numbers, birthplace, employment, telephone numbers, and home addresses before being released.” Id. ¶ 44. The Complaint alleges that the LAPD officers patted down the protestors’ clothing and “searched their personal belongings, including backpacks and wallets, without consent or proper cause.” Id. It alleges that the LAPD then conducted electronic checks about those detained to determine, inter alia, if there were outstanding warrants as to any of them. Id. An officer then “read a dispersal order to one individual at a time,” while another officer made a video recording of the face of each individual as the dispersal order was read. Id. The Complaint also alleges that “[a]t least one person was asked to identify any non-visible tattoos although he did not have any tattoos visible to the officer.” Id. The Complaint alleges that the LAPD collected this personal information “for the purpose of maintaining a database of protestors and for the dissemination of this information to other law enforcement and government agencies.” Id. ¶ 45.
C. The Parties
1. Defendants
The City is sued for the actions of the LAPD, a city entity, as well as under Monell, for policies of the LAPD. Beck was the LAPD Chief and policymaker at all relevant times. Id. ¶ 12. He is sued in both his official and personal capacities. Id. Smith was the field commander directing operations. Id. ¶ 13. The Complaint alleges that Beck delegated to him the LAPD policymaking authority during these incidents. Id. He is sued in both his individual and official capacities. Id.
2. Plaintiffs
Chua was protesting in downtown Los Angeles on November 26, 2014. Id. ¶ 4. She was among the protestors arrested at 6th and Hope Streets. Id. After police officers kettled a group of protestors, Chua approached an officer, asked if she were being detained and requested permission to leave the area. Id.; Declaration of Charmaine Chua (“Chua Decl.”), Dkt. 29 at 4 ¶ 3. She was told that she was not permitted to leave. Id. She did not hear a dispersal order that was given. Chua Decl. ¶ 5. She was then arrested and held in custody until approximately 10 a.m. the following day on charges of violating Cal. Penal Code § 409. Id. ¶ 6. She was denied release on her own recognizance notwithstanding that she had no criminal history. Id. ¶ 7. She declares that there was no reasonable suspicion that she would immediately engage
Page 3 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:457
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

in the same allegedly, unlawful activities. Id. Ultimately, no criminal charges were filed against her. Id. ¶ 8; Dkt. 1 ¶ 4. She declares that she understands her responsibilities as a class representative and does not know of any conflicts with other putative class members. Chua Decl. ¶ 10.
Rivera is a resident of Los Angeles. Dkt. 1 ¶ 6. He was protesting in downtown Los Angeles on November 26, 2014. Id. He was among the protestors arrested at 6th and Hope Streets. Id. He declares that he heard an officer on a megaphone order the crowd to disperse. Declaration of Torie Rivera (“Rivera Decl.”), Dkt. 29 at 11 ¶ 3. The Complaint alleges that he was detained and arrested at 6th and Hope Streets. Dkt 1 ¶ 5. He was arrested and held in custody until about 10 a.m. the following day on charges of violating Cal. Penal Code § 409. Rivera Decl. ¶ 4. He was denied release on his own recognizance notwithstanding that there was no reasonable suspicion that he would immediately engage in the same allegedly unlawful activities. Id. ¶ 5. No criminal charges were filed against him, although he made an initial court appearance. Id. ¶ 6. He declares that he understands his responsibilities as a class representative and does not know of any conflicts with other putative class members. Id. ¶ 8.
Hicks is a resident of Los Angeles County. Dkt. 1 ¶ 5. She was protesting in downtown Los Angeles on November 26, 2014. Id. She was among the protestors arrested at 6th and Hope Streets. Id. She did not hear a dispersal order. Declaration of Lydia Hicks (“Hicks Decl.”), Dkt. 29 at 18 ¶ 4. The Complaint alleges that she was detained and arrested without notice or warning at 6th and Hope Streets. Dkt. 1 ¶ 5. She was then arrested and held in custody until about 3 p.m. the following day on charges of violating Cal. Penal Code § 409. Hicks Decl. ¶ 5. She was denied release on her own recognizance notwithstanding that she had no criminal history. Id. ¶ 6. She declares that there was no reasonable suspicion that she would immediately engage in the same allegedly unlawful activities. Id. No criminal charges were filed against her. Id. ¶ 7. She declares that she understands her responsibilities as a class representative and does not know of any conflicts with other members of the putative class. Id. ¶ 9.
Todd is a resident of Los Angeles as well as a lawyer and member of the National Lawyers Guild. Dkt. 1 ¶ 7; Declaration of Kyle Todd (“Todd Decl.”), Dkt. 29 at 23 ¶ 1. He was acting as a legal observer during the protest in downtown Los Angeles on November 28, 2014. Todd Decl. ¶ 3. He was kettled by LAPD officers with a group of protestors on a public sidewalk at Beverly and Alvarado Streets without notice or warning. Id. ¶ 4. He declares that he was detained with the entire group of protestors for more than an hour and was not permitted to leave. Id. His personal property was searched even after he expressly refused to give consent. Id. ¶ 5. He witnessed other people being searched. Id. He declares that his ID was checked and he was asked for his address, Social Security Number, telephone number and employer. Id. After providing this information he was given an individual dispersal order. Another officer then recorded a video of his face. Id. He declares that he understands his responsibilities as a class representative and does not know of any conflicts with other members of the putative class. Id. ¶ 7.
The NLG is a voluntary bar association. Its mandate is to advocate for human and civil rights. Dkt. 1 ¶ 8. It works to ensure legal and practical access to demonstrations in Southern California by regularly providing legal observers at demonstrations. Their role is to observe and document potentially unlawful or unjustified interference by law enforcement personnel with the rights of the demonstrators. Id. The NLG also “works to ensure the right to protest by helping to secure legal representation for demonstrators facing criminal
Page 4 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 5 of 19 Page ID #:458
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

charges arising out of demonstration activity and affirmative civil cases against local governments and law enforcement agencies for unlawful interference with demonstrators’ rights.” Id. The Complaint alleges that the NLG “has long advocated against unlawful surveillance of persons engaged in protected First Amendment activity, including the compilation of databases of participants in public protest.” Id. ¶ 9.
The Complaint also alleges that the NLG “suffered injury when the Defendants kettled the demonstrators, issued an unlawful and inadequate dispersal order, arrested them, denied them released on their own recognizance, and collected personal identifiers on individuals engaged in lawful First Amendment activity.” Id. It alleges that Defendants actions interfered with NLG’s right to assembly and speech because it “plans to assist, plan, participate in, hold similar events in the future, on its own or in conjunction with others, and is fearful that the police actions of November, 2014 including the unlawful collection of information on those participating in First Amendment activity in public places, will be repeated absent injunctive relief to prohibit the practices, policies, and customs of the LAPD that resulted in the unlawful action against peaceful demonstrators on November 26, 2015 in downtown Los Angeles.” Id.
3. The Putative Class
The putative class consists of approximately 170 individuals who were allegedly kettled by the LAPD during the two protests in November, 2014. The class consists of two damages subclasses and an injunctive relief class. Id. ¶¶ 60-61.
The first damages subclass is the 6th and Hope subclass. It is defined as approximately 130 persons who were detained and arrested at 6th and Hope Streets on November 26, 2014, denied release on their own recognizance but never prosecuted. Id. ¶¶ 10, 60. This putative subclass is to be represented by Chua, Hicks and Rivera. Id. ¶ 60.
The second damages subclass is the Beverly and Alvarado subclass. It is defined as approximately 40 persons who were kettled, detained, interrogated and forced to give up personal information at Beverly and Alvarado Streets on November 28, 2014. Id. ¶¶ 10, 60. This subclass is represented by named Plaintiff Todd. Id. ¶ 60.
The injunctive relief class is defined as “all persons who have in the past, or may in the future, participate in, or be present at, demonstrations within the City of Los Angeles in the exercise of their rights of free speech and petition.” Id. ¶ 61. This class is represented by the NLG and all the other named representatives. Id.
D. Claims and Requests for Relief
The Complaint advances eight claims for relief: (1) violations of rights to speech, assembly and association pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the California Constitution, Art. I, §§ 2 & 3; (2) violations of rights to be free from unreasonable seizures, excessive or arbitrary force and arrest or detention without probably cause or reasonable suspicion pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the California Constitution, Art. I, § 7;(3) violation of rights to not be deprived of liberty without due process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under the Fourteenth Amendment; (4) violation of rights to equal protection pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Page 5 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 6 of 19 Page ID #:459
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

California Constitution, Art. I, § 13; (5) violations of the right to privacy under the California Constitution, Art. I, § 1; (6) violations of Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1; (7) violations of Cal. Civil Code § 1798.14, Information Practices Act; and (8) false arrest/false imprisonment. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 86-106.
The Complaint seeks an injunction that would restrain Defendants from engaging in the unlawful and unconstitutional actions described in the Complaint. It also seeks and order that would require Defendants “to seal and destroy all records” derived from the arrests and detentions. Dkt. 1 at 27 ¶ 3. It also seeks an order directing Defendant to disclose the identities of all of the entities to which the records and personal information of the class members have been provided. The Complaint seeks a declaration that Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. It also seeks compensatory, general, punitive, exemplary and statutory damages pursuant to Cal. Civil Code § 52(b). Dkt. 1 at 29-30.
III. Analysis
A. Legal Standard
“The class action is an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 348 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, a class “may only be certified if the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied.” Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982). That “rigorous analysis” will “frequently” include “some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 351. “Sometimes the issues are plain enough from the pleadings to determine whether the interests of the absent parties are fairly encompassed within the named plaintiff's claim, and sometimes it may be necessary for the court to probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question.” Falcon, 457 U.S. at 160; see also Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184, 1194-95 (2013) (“Although we have cautioned that a court’s class-certification analysis must be rigorous and may entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim, Rule 23 grants courts no license to engage in free-ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage. Merits questions may be considered to the extent -- but only to the extent -- that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Advisory Committee’s 2003 Note on subd. (c)(1) of Fed. Rule Civ. P. 23, 28 U.S.C. App. at 144 (“[A]n evaluation of the probable outcome on the merits is not properly part of the certification decision.”).
The first step in establishing the propriety of class certification requires that a putative class representative show that the proposed class meets each of the prerequisites of Rule 23(a). Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350; see also Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992). These are: (1) numerosity; (2) commonality; (3) typicality; and (4) adequacy of representation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)-(4). Further, “Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard. A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule—that is, he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350 (emphasis in original).
Page 6 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 7 of 19 Page ID #:460
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

If these four prerequisites are met, the analysis proceeds to a consideration of whether the proposed class meets an applicable requirement of Rule 23(b). See, e.g., Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, Plaintiffs rely on Rule 23(b)(3), (b)(2) and (b)(1). Rule 23(b) provides in pertinent part that a class action may be maintained if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole,” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)), or “the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). If the plaintiff meets his or her burden under Rule 23, then the court has broad discretion to certify the class. Zinser v. Accufix Res. Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186, amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001).
B. Application
1. The Requirements of Rule 23(a)
a) Numerosity
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) requires that a proposed class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” “Impracticability does not mean impossibility, but only the difficulty or inconvenience of joining all members of the class.” Harris v. Palm Springs Alpine Estates, Inc., 329 F.2d 909, 913-14 (9th Cir. 1964) (internal quotation marks omitted). No specific number of members is required to meet this standard. Cypress v. Newport News Gen. & Nonsectarian Hospital Ass’n, 375 F.2d 648, 653 (4th Cir. 1967). “However, numerosity is presumed where the plaintiff class contains forty or more members.” In re Cooper Companies Inc. Sec. Litig., 254 F.R.D. 628, 634 (C.D. Cal. 2009).
Plaintiffs contend that there are 170 members in the proposed damages class. They propose that these members be divided into two subclasses -- one with 130 people and the other with 40. Plaintiffs argue that the subclasses meet the numerosity requirement because individual adjudication would be impractical. Further, they argue that each class member’s damages are not sufficiently large to incentivize bringing an individual action. Declaration of Barrett S. Litt (“Litt Decl.”), Dkt. 27 ¶ 20. They also argue that joining all members in individual actions would be unrealistic because some of the class members may reside outside of Southern California and others may fear retaliation for bringing an action.
Based on these facts, which Defendants do not dispute, the numerosity requirement is satisfied.
b) Commonality
(1) In General
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) provides that a class may be certified only if “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” Commonality requires a showing that “the class members have suffered the same injury” and “does not mean merely that they have all suffered a violation of the same provision of law.”
Page 7 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 8 of 19 Page ID #:461
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350 (internal quotation marks removed). The class claims must “depend upon a common contention … of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution--which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Id. For the purposes of commonality, “even a single common question will do.” Id. at 359 (internal markings omitted).
Plaintiffs contend that commonality exists as to all members of the classes. They argue that the LAPD created the common issues by engaging in unified actions toward all members. Plaintiffs also claim that these actions violated longstanding rights of the class members to participate in protests as well as the specific order entered in Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers Org. Network v. City of Los Angeles (MIWON), No. 07-cv-03072 AHM (FFM) (C. D. Cal. June 24, 2009), Ex. C, Dkt. 27 at 36, which restricted police tactics with respect to protests.
The details as to commonality with respect to each proposed Subclass are next addressed.
(2) 6th and Hope Streets Subclass
Plaintiffs argue that, although the senior LAPD personnel at this location did not declare the presence of an unlawful assembly, the arrests at 6th and Hope Streets were retroactively justified on that basis. They also argue that the LAPD officers kettled and arrested those potential class members who gathered at 6th and Hope Streets, and refused to grant them OR release. Plaintiffs contend that the common questions of law and fact in the 6th and Hope Streets subclass include the circumstances and propriety of: (1) kettling and arresting the putative class members who were protesting at 6th and Hope Streets; and (2) denying all of those arrested there OR release based on a global decision, not individual ones.
Plaintiffs contend that, in light of the foregoing, a common issue of law is presented as to an alleged violation of Cal. Penal Code § 853.6. That statute requires that a person arrested for allegedly committing a misdemeanor is to be released after booking unless a statutory exception applies, which is identified by the arresting officer in the corresponding report. This section is “mandatory in all cases of warrantless misdemeanor arrests.” Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto, 157 Cal. App. 4th 728, 761 (2007), as modified (Jan. 2, 2008).
Based on these facts, which Defendants do not dispute for purposes of the present Motion, the commonality requirement is satisfied as to the 6th and Hope subclass.
(3) Beverly and Alvarado Subclass
Plaintiffs contend that the LAPD officers kettled, detained and took personal information from all members of the putative Beverly and Alvarado subclass. Consequently, Plaintiffs contend that common questions of law and fact are presented, including as to the circumstances and propriety of the kettling, prolonged detention, warrantless searches of, and compelled disclosure of personal information by, the members of the proposed subclass. These are similar to the common questions presented as to the classes certified in Aichele v. City of Los Angeles, 314 F.R.D. 478, 489 (C.D. Cal. 2013), and Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers Org. Network v. City of Los Angeles (MIWON), 246 F.R.D. 621, 631 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
Page 8 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 9 of 19 Page ID #:462
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

Plaintiffs next argue that, although the scope of the personal information provided by putative subclass members may vary, the commonality analysis does not. Thus, the overarching issues concern the propriety of the kettling and detention. The collection of personal information was incident to this other conduct. Moreover, the scope of the claims that can be asserted can, if appropriate, be revisited later in this matter, without affecting the outcome as to certification. Thus, a class may be certified as long as there is “a single common question.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 376.
Based on these facts, which Defendants have not disputed for purposes of the present Motion, the commonality requirement is satisfied as to the Beverly and Alvarado Subclass.
(4) Commonality Between the Subclasses
Plaintiffs argue that even without establishing subclasses, there is commonality as to the claims of the members of both. They all contend that they were subject to “unlawful detentions and/or arrest.” Dkt. 26 at 27. This argument is not persuasive. Although the reason for the protest by each group was the same, they occurred on different days, involved different people, as well as different police officers. Further, the members of the proposed 6th and Hope subclass were arrested and detained and then released on bail rather than on OR. In contrast the members of the proposed Beverly and Alvarado subclass were detained, searched and subjected to the collection of personal information. They were never arrested.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs have not shown that the members of both subclasses “have suffered the same injury” as opposed to merely “suffered a violation of the same provision of law.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350. Therefore, the commonality requirement has not been satisfied if all members of the two subclasses were combined into a single class. However, as noted above, it is satisfied as to each subclass individually.
c) Typicality
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) requires that the “claims or defense of the representative parties” be “typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” This requirement is met if the “representative claims are ‘typical,’” i.e., “if they are reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998). Representative claims “need not be substantially identical.” Id.
(1) 6th and Hope Subclass
The claims of the named representatives for the 6th and Hope Streets subclass all arise from their arrests, detention in jail and denial of OR release. Chua, Rivera and Hicks, who are the named plaintiffs as to this Subclass, were all detained, arrested and denied OR release as a result of their participation in the protests. They challenge this conduct. Chua and Rivera were both held until 10 a.m. and Hicks was held until 3 p.m. These claims overlap with those of the members of the putative subclass. Two of the named representatives did not hear any order by LAPD calling for the protestors to disperse. However, even assuming that others may have heard such an order, the core issues are sufficient to satisfy the typicality requirement.
Page 9 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 10 of 19 Page ID #:463
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

For the foregoing reasons, this requirement is satisfied for the 6th and Hope subclass.
(2) Beverly and Alvarado Subclass
Todd is the named plaintiff as to the Beverly and Alvarado subclass. His claims arise from his detention during the protest and the gathering of personal information, including taking his photograph, without his consent. He was subjected to a mass detention that included all members of the proposed subclass. His claims overlap entirely with those of the members of the putative subclass. Therefore, the typicality requirement is satisfied as to this subclass.
d) Adequacy of Representation
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) requires that the “representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” “Resolution of two questions determines legal adequacy: (1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020.
(1) 6th and Hope Subclass
Plaintiffs argue that each of the named Plaintiffs is an adequate representative of the corresponding subclass because each has declared that he or she has no conflicts with the subclass members. Rivera Decl. ¶ 8; Hicks Decl. ¶ 9; Chua Decl. ¶ 10. Each of the named representatives also has declared that he or she understands the responsibilities of a class representative and are prepared to fulfill them. Id. Because the named representatives of the 6th and Hope subclass suffered similar injuries as a result of similar conduct, they will adequately represent the interests of the subclass.
Class counsel have met the second requirement. They have submitted evidence reflecting their substantial experience in handling civil rights class actions, including those involving the mass arrest of protestors. Litt Decl. ¶ 20. The named representatives and their counsel are adequate to pursue the action on behalf of the 6th and Hope subclass.
(2) Beverly and Alvarado Subclass
Plaintiffs argue that Todd is an adequate representative of the Beverly and Alvarado subclass because he has declared that he has no conflicts of interest with the class. Todd Decl. ¶ 7. Plaintiffs also argue that, because Todd’s alleged injuries do not arise from his role as a legal observer, he is not distinct from, or in conflict with, any other member of this subclass. Dkt. 29 at 5. These assertions are not sufficient in light of other evidence. Although Todd was present at the relevant time, he was not a protestor. Instead, he was there as a legal observer on behalf of the NLG. This is significant because the roles of a legal observer and a protestor are distinct. Todd was not exercising the same First Amendment right to free expression as the potential class members. His claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his First Amendment rights is not co-extensive with those of the protestors. These variations may lead to different claims for relief as well as the need to present different types of trial evidence.
Page 10 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 11 of 19 Page ID #:464
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

Furthermore, Todd declares that he told the LAPD that he did not consent to a search of his person or to any taking or recording of his personal information. Todd Decl. ¶ 5. There is no allegation or showing that the putative subclass members made such statements. This could affect Todd’s ability adequately to represent the subclass members on the Fourth Amendment and California right to privacy and Information Act claims. If some consented, it may affect their claims. If issues arise as to whether the consent was voluntary, Todd is not in a position to serve as a representative; as noted, he did not consent. Further, in pursuing his own claims, Todd may elect to focus on the significance of his refusal to consent as part of his assertions as to liability and damages. Once again, this could present conflicts between his position and those of the members of the proposed subclass. Further, in light of Todd’s role as a lawyer and legal observer, his claims of injury and damages due to the taking of his personal information may vary from those advanced by other members of the subclass.

For these reasons, Todd is not an adequate representative of the Beverly and Alvarado subclass.

*

*

*

For the forgoing reasons, the requirements of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied as to the 6th and Hope subclass. The Rule 23(a) requirements have not been satisfied as to the Beverly and Alvarado subclass. Through an amended complaint, Plaintiffs may propose another person to serve in this role in order to address the Rule 23(a) issue.

2. Requirements of Rule 23(b)

a) Legal Standards

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) provides that a class may be certified if a “court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” The following factors are to be considered in making this determination: “(A) the class members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.” Id.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) applies when “class-action treatment is not as clearly called for as [(b)(1) and (b)(2)], but it may nevertheless be convenient and desirable depending upon the particular facts.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) advisory committee’s note to 1966 amendment. It “encompasses those cases in which a class action would achieve economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable results.” Id.

Page 11 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 12 of 19 Page ID #:465
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

b) Application
(1) Predominance
Under Rule 23(b)(3), the Plaintiffs must show that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” The “predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623 (1997). “This analysis presumes that the existence of common issues of fact or law have been established pursuant to Rule 23(a)(2); thus, the presence of commonality alone is not sufficient to fulfill Rule 23(b)(3). In contrast to Rule 23(a)(2), Rule 23(b)(3) focuses on the relationship between the common and individual issues.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022. “An individual question is one where ‘members of a proposed class will need to present evidence that varies from member to member,’ while a common question is one where ‘the same evidence will suffice for each member to make a prima facie showing [or] the issue is susceptible to generalized, class-wide proof.’” Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1045 (2016) (quoting 2 W. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 4:50, pp. 196-197 (5th ed. 2012)). “When common questions present a significant aspect of the case and they can be resolved for all members of the class in a single adjudication, there is clear justification for handling the dispute on a representative rather than on an individual basis.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022 (citing Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1778 (2d ed. 1986)).
(a) Common Questions of Liability
Plaintiffs argue that common issues predominate. In their motion, Plaintiffs combine their arguments on commonality and predominance arguments. Each is analyzed separately in this Order because of the distinctions between the two subclasses.
(i) 6th and Hope Subclass
Plaintiffs argue that common questions predominate as to the lawfulness of the kettling and arrest of those at 6th and Hope Streets and of the global decision not to grant those persons OR release. The Plaintiffs were detained while protesting and then arrested as a group. The Complaint alleges that there were no individualized determinations made as to the probable cause for this group seizure and arrest. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 30-31. It also alleges that the Plaintiffs were then booked, and required to provide personal information Id. ¶ 32. The Plaintiffs were detained and denied OR release, and the “majority” of them were not released for nearly 14 hours. Id. ¶ 35. Plaintiffs argue that whether there is liability based on the lawfulness of these actions is at that heart of their claims and predominates over any individualized determinations.
The Complaint also alleges that at some point prior to the arrests, the LAPD made an order directing the protestors to disperse. It also alleges that this order was not sufficient, in part because many of the putative subclass members could not hear it. Id. ¶ 29. As to those who did not hear it, the Complaint alleged that their arrests for failure to comply with it were unlawful. Id.
Page 12 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 13 of 19 Page ID #:466
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

Whether the dispersal order was per se adequate is a common question that predominates over the individualized questions of whether individual subclass members heard the order. If the answer to that question is that the order was per se inadequate, then it does not matter whether individual subclass members heard it, because its inadequacy could affect the propriety of all of the arrests. The common subclass-wide question would resolve the individualized issues of liability. Although certain individualized inquiries may arise as to alleged violations arising from the booking and collection of personal information from individual subclass members, e.g., whether they consented to provide the information, the remaining issues would be sufficient to have this matter proceed as a class action on the broader issues of liability.
Some of the Plaintiffs may have been exempt from the general OR release requirements of Cal. Penal Code § 853.6. This could present certain, limited individualized issues. However, the Complaint alleges that the LAPD did not make an individualized determination for any of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, it contends that there was no basis for the detention of those subclass members who might otherwise have been detained. Further, this narrow issue is not sufficient to offset the benefits or a class proceeding in measuring the common legal and factual issues.
For the foregoing reasons, common questions of liability predominate over individual questions in the 6th and Hope subclass.
(ii) Beverly and Alvarado Subclass
Plaintiffs argue that the common questions as to the lawfulness of the kettling, prolonged detention, and the warrantless search of the persons and property, as well as compelled disclosure of personal information from those at Beverly and Alvarado, predominate over individual questions as to members of the Beverly and Alvarado subclasses. The question of the legality of the kettling and detention before the dispersal order was given and whether the dispersal order was legally adequate, are common questions that do predominate over any individual ones.
However, individualized questions are presented as to whether the disclosure of personal information was compelled, or if certain subclass members consented to its disclosure. This could result in the need to adjudicate separate issues as to any such subclass members. For example, if it is determined that the detention was reasonable, Defendants may be able to present the defense that it was appropriate to collect certain personal information, such as the name and address of a person who was detained. But, this may not have warranted the collection of information such as a social security number. The content and nature of other personal information that was collected may also vary among members of the proposed subclass. Therefore, individualized questions as to the claims based on the collection of Plaintiffs’ personal information predominate over the common legal and factual issues.
For the foregoing reasons, common questions as to liability predominate over individual ones as to the legality of the kittling and detention of members of the Beverly and Alvarado subclass. That is not so as to the propriety of the collection of personal information from members of the Beverly and Alvarado subclass.
Page 13 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 14 of 19 Page ID #:467
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

(b) Common Questions of Damages
Where damages are sought on a class-wide basis, it must be shown that their calculation is subject to common proof. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1433 (2013). Such calculations “need not be exact.” Id. However, at the class-certification stage, “any model supporting a plaintiff’s damages case must be consistent with its liability case . . . [and] courts must conduct a rigorous analysis to determine whether that is so.” Id. at 1433 (internal quotation marks omitted). Still, “damage calculations alone cannot defeat certification,” even if individual issues predominate. Leyva v. Medline Indus. Inc., 716 F.3d 510, 513 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 765 F.3d 1161, 1167-68 (9th Cir. 2014); Yokoyama v. Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 594 F.3d 1087, 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010).
“At class certification, plaintiff must present a likely method for determining class damages, though it is not necessary to show that his method will work with certainty at this time.” Chavez v. Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co., 268 F.R.D. 365, 379 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff must support a damages theory with evidence, not mere allegations. Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC, 300 F.R.D. 444, 460-61 (S.D. Cal. 2014). When discovery has not yet closed, it may be appropriate to certify a class based on proposed damages modeling and subject to possible decertification after the close of discovery. E.g., Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, 2014 WL 2466559, at *18-20 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2014). But “as long as an efficient mechanism exists to calculate damages on a class-wide basis, the existence of potential individualized damages will not defeat the predominance requirement.” Aichele, 314 F.R.D. at 496. Plaintiffs must still be able “to show that their damages stemmed from the defendant’s actions that created the legal liability.” Vaquero v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc., 824 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2016).
Plaintiffs argue that notwithstanding that there may be a need for certain individualized calculations of damages, certification as to liability is appropriate. They add that the subclasses should also be certified for general damages, because common questions of law and fact predominate on that issue.
(i) 6th and Hope Subclass
Plaintiffs argue that the alleged damages of this subclass are uniform because all class members were allegedly detained, arrested, handcuffed, denied OR release. Plaintiffs seek general damages not special damages. General damages are available in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Tortu v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 556 F.3d 1075, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiffs argue that the issue of general damages is a common one that could be presented at trial. They add that a jury could set the amount of general damages as to each alleged wrongdoing. However, Plaintiffs have provided neither evidence in support of their theory of general damages nor a coherent method for how damages might be calculated. Nor do they explain how subclass members could be separately categorized with respect to claimed general damages. In light of these shortcomings, the request to certify this subclass as to a determination of general damages, is unsupported and unpersuasive. However, this determination is without prejudice to renewing this request later in the proceedings based on a more complete factual record. Furthermore, because statutory damages are available, this determination as to general damages does not itself preclude class certification as to that form of relief. Leyva, 716 F.3d at 513.
Page 14 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 15 of 19 Page ID #:468
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

Cal. Civil Code § 52.1 provides for statutory damages for violations of civil rights protected under the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution. Plaintiffs contend that the calculation of such damages presents an issue that is common to the subclass as a whole. This position is persuasive. Cal. Civil Code Thus, a resolution of the common issues as to liability could lead to a corresponding award of these statutory damages.
For the foregoing reasons, the subclass can be certified as to the demand for statutory damages, but not as to the claim for either general of specific damages.
(ii) Beverly and Alvarado Subclass
Plaintiffs make little mention of damages as to the Beverly and Alvarado subclass. It is limited to the following: “Personal information waws [sic] obtained from all those at Beverly & Alvarado.” Dkt. 26 at 31. There are not common questions presented as to the specific claims for damages made by members of this subclass for the same reasons stated above as to the 6th and Hope subclass. Furthermore, the members of that subclass were arrested and denied OR release. The members of the Beverly and Alvarado subclass claim damages due to their being detained, searched and required to provide certain personal information. Although Plaintiffs did not mention whether statutory damages could be available as to the claims made on behalf of the members of this subclass, for the same reasons stated above as to the 6th and Hope subclass, statutory damages pursuant to Cal. Civil Code § 52.1 may be available to the Beverly and Alvarado subclass, and suitable for classwide adjudication. For the foregoing reasons, common questions do not predominate as to specific damages for members of the Beverly and Alvarado subclass, but common questions may predominate as to statutory damages.
(2) Superiority and Manageability
Plaintiffs argue that a class proceeding would be manageable and superior to having individual actions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). They also argue that a class action here is superior because it will allow for the efficient administrative of justice in light of the relatively small size of the individualized damage claims. Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1190 (9th Cir.), amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001). These arguments are persuasive. Therefore, superiority and manageability have been shown.
3. Injunctive Relief Class
The proposed injunctive relief class is defined as “all persons who have in the past, or may in the future, participate in, or be present at, demonstrations within the City of Los Angeles in the exercise of their rights of free speech and petition.” Id. ¶ 61. This class is represented by the NLG and all the other named representatives. Id. The Complaint seeks an injunction restraining Defendants from engaging in the actions described in the Complaint and requiring Defendant to seal and destroy all records developed as a result of the arrests and detention of class members.

Page 15 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 16 of 19 Page ID #:469
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

a) Rule 23(b)(2)
A class may be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) “applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class. It does not authorize class certification when each individual class member would be entitled to a different injunction or declaratory judgment against the defendant.” Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2557. In determining whether certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2), a court must “look at whether class members seek uniform relief from a practice applicable to all of them.” Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1125 (9th Cir. 2010). “The fact that some class members may have suffered no injury or different injuries from the challenged practice does not prevent the class from meeting the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).” Id. (citing Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9th Cir. 1998)).
Plaintiffs argue that the injunctive relief class should be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because its members seek declaratory and injunctive relief. In Defendants’ supplemental briefing, which was submitted to address issues raised by the Court at the hearing, Defendants contend that the injunctive relief class is overbroad.
b) Scope of the Injunctive Relief Class
“A party seeking class certification must first demonstrate that an identifiable class exists.” Aichele, 314 F.R.D. at 485. “A class definition should be ‘precise, objective, and presently ascertainable.’” O’Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 184 F.R.D. 311, 319 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation (Third) § 30.14, at 217 (1995)). “[T]he class need not be ‘so ascertainable that every potential member can be identified at the commencement of the action.’” Id. (quoting Wright, Miller & Kane § 1760 at 117). But must be “definite enough so that it is administratively feasible for the court to ascertain whether an individual is a member.” Id. “Class membership may not ‘depend on the beliefs or state of mind of any individuals’ and must be ‘readily susceptible to judicial determination.’” Aichele, 314 F.R.D. at 485 (quoting MIWON, 246 F.R.D. at 630). This requirement has been applied to Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief classes. See, e.g., Aichele, 314 F.R.D. at 485; MIWON, 246 F.R.D. at 630.
As presently defined, the injunctive relief class is not ascertainable. There are no objective criteria provided that could be applied to determine membership in this class, i.e., the identities of all persons who may seek to be present within the City of Los Angeles at protests or to participate in them in a manner that constitutes the exercise of First Amendment rights. As defined, this proposed class would include any person who happens to be present at a protest, on any topic, anywhere in Los Angeles, at any time. It also does not provide a means of determining if potential members of this class would be exercising any First Amendment rights or if any would believe that such rights may be infringed. Although unidentified persons who may later qualify as class members may be included in a class, this is only when “the court can determine at any given time whether a particular individual is a member of the class.” Manual for Complex Litigation, 4th ed., § 21.222. Plaintiffs have presented no criteria by which such a determination could be made.
Page 16 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 17 of 19 Page ID #:470
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

Other courts have approved more narrowly tailored injunctive relief classes. In MIWON, the injunctive relief class included those persons “who in the past have engaged in or who in the future may engage in peaceful demonstrations or protest in the City of Los Angeles,” but limited the class to those who were members of certain organizations, and had participated in protests that these organizations had arranged and promoted. 246 F.R.D. at 629-30. Aichele permitted an injunctive relief class defined as individuals, including those identified in the future, arrested for unlawful assembly and denied OR release without the benefit of an individualized determination. 314 F.R.D. at 493. In both cases, the membership of these classes could be readily ascertained. The MIWON class required affiliation with defined organizations or demonstrations organized by those organizations and its “membership is based on the putative class members’ conduct, activities, and affiliations.” 246 F.R.D. at 631. The members of the Aichele class could be determined from LAPD arrest records. 314 F.R.D. at 493.
The proposed class here is overbroad. It includes anyone present at a “demonstration” in Los Angeles where persons are exercising “their rights of free speech and petition.” This is indeterminate and overbroad. It could include those attending a large public demonstration only as observers, a person attending a play with a political theme, or those waving signs at a sporting event.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED as to the injunctive relief class, without prejudice to a later request for certification of narrow and defined version of such a class.
c) Whether the NLG Is an Adequate Class Representative
As noted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) requires that the “representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” “Resolution of two questions determines legal adequacy: (1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. In addition to the class representatives for the damages subclasses, who are also representatives of the injunctive relief class, Plaintiffs seek to have the NLG certified as a class representative of the injunctive relief class.
Even if such a class were certified, the NLG would not be an adequate representative for its members. NLG members often serve as legal observers at demonstrations. See Dkt. 1 ¶ 8 (“The NLG-LA works to ensure legal and practical access to demonstrations . . . by regularly providing legal observers at demonstrations to observe and document potentially unlawful or unjustified interference with demonstrators’ rights.”). As previously discussed with respect to Todd, the goals, rights and obligations of legal observers do not always overlap with those who are protesting. This has particular force here given that the identities of the putative class members and their reason(s) for protesting are both unknown.
Furthermore, the injuries claimed by the NLG include a frustration of its mission, which is to work “to ensure legal and practical access to demonstrations” and to advocate “against unlawful surveillance of persons engaged in protected First Amendment activity, including the compilation of databases of participants in public protest.” Id. ¶¶ 8-9. NLG’s injuries also include a need to expend resources. Id. ¶ 8. In contrast, the protestors here have alleged that their injuries include being subjected to kittling, arrest,
Page 17 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 18 of 19 Page ID #:471
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

detention, warrantless searches, denial of OR release and the seizure and disclosure of their personal information. These interests and those of the NLG may not always align. Again, this issue is of particular concern given that the identities of the members of this proposed class and their respective purposes and missions are presently unknown. Further, the NLG has priorities that may not always align with those of the members of the putative class. The NLG may be concerned with its ability to have its personnel serve as legal observers and advisers at future demonstrations. This could include the ability to consult with the LAPD on a range of issues. These are matters that may not be priorities for future demonstrators.
Finally, as Defendant has argued, protestors and NLG legal observers may develop adverse interests at future protests. For example, an NLG legal observer could confer with the LAPD and agree to a particular limitation on the actions of those protesting. But, when the NLG observer communicated this to the protestors, they may disagree and refuse to comply. Defendant contends that in such a situation, “an NLG legal observer might be called as a defense witness by the City to establish the reasonableness of the actions taken by the police in situations where the police conferred with an NLG legal observer prior to taking action.” Dkt. 41 at 3 n.2.
For these reasons, neither the NLG nor Todd is an adequate representative for the injunctive relief class. However, Chua, Hicks and Rivera, for the same reasons stated above as to the 6th and Hope damages subclass, may be adequate representatives. However, a final determination of that issue cannot be made unless and until this proposed class is redefined and certified.
d) Whether the NLG Has Standing
“[T]hose who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983). Where a plaintiff lacks standing, a federal court “lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the suit.” Cetacean Cmty. v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2004). A party seeking to invoke this Court’s limited jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that it has standing. Lopez v. Candaele, 630 F.3d 775, 784-85 (9th Cir. 2010).
“[T]o satisfy Article III's standing requirements, a plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000).
“An association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, the interests at stake are germane to the organization's purpose, and neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 181. “[A]n organization has direct standing to sue when it showed a drain on its resources from both a diversion of its resources and frustration of its mission.” Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC, 666 F.3d 1216, 1219 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
Page 18 of 19

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 50 Filed 05/25/17 Page 19 of 19 Page ID #:472
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date May 25, 2017

Plaintiffs contend that the NLG has standing because it has suffered an injury as have its members. Plaintiffs argue that the Complaint adequately alleges that NLG has been injured due to the frustration of its mission by the actions of Defendants. They argue that the NLG’s mission is “work[ing] to ensure legal and practical access to demonstrations in Southern California” and “advocat[ing] against unlawful surveillance of persons engaged in protected First Amendment activity, including the compilation of databases of participants in public protest” has been frustrated by the alleged actions Defendant has taken against protestors in this case. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 8-9. Plaintiffs contend that the allegations with respect to the violations of the rights of protestors to assembly and the unlawful surveillance satisfy the mission frustration prong of the analysis. See, e.g., Smith v. Pac. Properties & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1105 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Any violation of the [Fair Housing Act] would therefore constitute a ‘frustration of [the plaintiff’s] mission,’” where the plaintiff was “organized with the principal purpose of helping to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities by ensuring compliance with laws intended to provide access to housing, public buildings, transportation, goods and services.”).
Plaintiffs also contend that a substantial amount of NLG resources have been consumed due to the need to respond to Defendants’ actions. Thus, they argue that the NLG “expends money conducting work to protect the right to lawfully demonstrate without police interference in Los Angeles.” Dkt. 1 ¶ 8. This alleged diversion of resources is also sufficient to establish standing. See, e.g., Smith, 358 F.3d at 1105 (diversion of resources satisfied when organization’s resources were used “to promote awareness of—and compliance with—federal and state accessibility laws”); El Rescate Legal Servs., Inc. v. Exec. Office of Immigration Review, 959 F.2d 742, 748 (9th Cir. 1991) (“The allegation that the [Defendant]’s policy frustrates these goals and requires the organizations to expend resources in representing clients they otherwise would spend in other ways is enough to establish standing.”).
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated in this Order, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART. The 6th and Hope damages subclass is certified as to the demand for statutory damages, but not as to the claim for either general of specific damages. The Beverly and Alvarado damages subclass is not certified, without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint that proposes another person to serve in the role of class representative. The injunctive relief subclass is not certified, without prejudice to a later request for certification of a more narrowly defined class.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer ak

:
Page 19 of 19

 
 Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 158 Filed 03/31/20 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:1921
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date March 31, 2020

Present: The Honorable

JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cheryl Wynn Deputy Clerk

Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS (DKT. 147);
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT (DKT. 151)

I.

Introduction

Charmaine Chua (“Chua”), Torie Rivera (“Rivera”), Lydia Hicks (“Hicks”), Kyle Todd (“Todd”) and the National Lawyers Guild (“NLG”), brought this class action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated (collectively “Plaintiffs”) against the City of Los Angeles (“City”), Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) Chief Charlie Beck (“Beck”), LAPD Commander Andrew Smith (“Smith”) and Does 1-10 (collectively “Defendants”). Dkt. 1 at 1. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated their rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the California Constitution and Cal. Civ. Code §§ 52.1 and 1798.14. Id. The basis for these claims is that, while Plaintiffs participated in two public protests in November 2014, they were detained and then arrested without cause by officers of the LAPD. Id. ¶ 1.

On May 25, 2017, Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted-in-part. Dkt. 50. The “6th and Hope” damages subclass was certified as to the demand for statutory damages only. Id. at 19. Certification of the “Beverly and Alvarado” damages subclass was denied, without prejudice. Id. The request for the certification of the injunctive relief subclass was also denied, without prejudice. Id.

On January 10, 2019, the Parties filed a notice of a provisional settlement. Dkt. 120. The Parties also filed the Settlement Agreement. Dkt. 131-2. On November 15, 2019, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Dkt. 131) was granted (the “Preliminary Approval Order”). Dkt. 145.

On December 20, 2019, Plaintiffs’ Counsel filed the Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (the “Fee Motion”). Dkt. 147. On February 13, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (the “Final Approval Motion”). Dkt. 151. On March 2, 2020, Defendants filed a Notice
Page 1 of 10

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 158 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:1922
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date March 31, 2020

of Non-Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. Dkt. 154.

A hearing on the Fee Motion and the Final Approval Motion was held on March 16, 2020. Dkt. 157. The Fee Motion and Final Approval Motion were granted at that hearing, with this separate and more detailed order to follow. Id.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Factual and Procedural Background

The relevant factual background to Plaintiffs’ Motion is described in detail in the Order Re Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. Dkt. 50. As in the Preliminary Approval Order, that discussion is incorporated here by this reference.

As noted, on May 25, 2017, Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted in part. Dkt. 50. The 6th and Hope damages subclass was certified as to the demand for statutory damages, but not as to the claim for general or specific damages. Id. at 19. The Beverly and Alvarado damages subclass was denied certification without prejudice. Id. The injunctive relief subclass was denied certification without prejudice. Id.

B. Summary of the Settlement Agreement and Preliminary Approval Amount

The Preliminary Approval Order includes a detailed summary of the Settlement Agreement. Dkt. 145 at 2-4. A summary of the monetary terms from the Settlement Agreement, which are included in the Preliminary Approval order, are summarized in the following table:

Preliminary Approval Order Summary Table

Item

Amount

Percentage of Total Settlement

Expert Costs

$20,210.00

2.69%

Mediation Costs

$5,500.00

0.73%

Settlement Administration Costs

$20,000.00

2.67%

Class Representative Awards

$15,000.00

2.00%

Award to Kyle Todd (putative

$5,000.00

0.67%

class representative for uncertified

sub-class)

Attorney’s Fees

$476,801.93

63.57%

Costs

$7488.07

0.99%

Settlement Fund for Distribution to

$200,000.00

26.67%

Class Members

Total

$750,000.00

Dkt. 145 at 3-4.

Page 2 of 10

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 158 Filed 03/31/20 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:1923
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date March 31, 2020

C. Settlement Administration and Final Requested Amounts

The Final Approval Motion provides the financial terms of the final settlement distribution based on actual costs. Those terms are summarized in the following table:

Final Approval Motion Summary Table

Item

Amount

Percentage of Total Settlement

Expert Costs

$20,210.00

2.69%

Mediation Costs

$5,500.00

0.73%

Settlement Administration Costs

$4121.49

2.67%

Class Representative Awards

$15,000.00

2.00%

Award to Kyle Todd (putative

$5,000.00

0.67%

class representative for uncertified

sub-class)

Attorney’s Fees

$476,801.93

63.57%

Litigation Costs

$7488.071

0.99%

Settlement Fund for Distribution to

$215,878.51

26.67%

Class Members

Total

$750,000.00

The settlement was administered by the office of Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Carol Sobel. Dkt. 152 ¶ 2. Of 125 putative class members, contact information was identified for 112 members. Id. ¶ 4. With the exception of two individuals who filed separate lawsuits and then settled their claims with the City, no objections or opt-outs were filed. Id. ¶¶ 3, 5. 85 valid claim forms were filed. Id. ¶ 6. The total cost of settlement administration was $4121.49. This consists of $3982 in hourly fees and the balance in out-of-pocket costs. Id. ¶¶ 9-13. Because the total amount reserved for settlement administration costs was $20,000, the difference between that amount and the actual costs of $4121.49 ($20,000- $4121.49 = $15,878.51) was transferred to the settlement fund. Id. ¶ 13. With a resulting Settlement Fund for Distribution to Class Members of $215,878.51, and 85 claimants, the Final Approval Motion seeks approval of a pro rata distribution of $2539.74 per class member. Dkt. 151 at 9.

III. Analysis

A. Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement

1. Legal Standards

1 Although the Final Approval Motion identifies $7163.27 in costs, this appears to be a calculating error. The award for fees and costs if $484,290, of which $476,801.93 is set aside for fees. Subtracting $476,801.93 from $484,290 leads to a difference of $7488.07, not $7163.27. Dkt. 151 at 8-9.
Page 3 of 10

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 158 Filed 03/31/20 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:1924
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date March 31, 2020

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) establishes a two-step process for determining whether a class action settlement should be approved. First, a court must make a preliminary determination whether the proposed settlement “is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Acosta v. Trans Union, LLC, 243 F.R.D. 377, 386 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quoting Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir. 2003)). If that finding is made, following notice to the class members and a consideration of their responses, if any, the court determines whether final approval of the settlement should be granted.
Preliminary approval was granted on November 15, 2019. At the final approval stage, a court must consider “the fairness of a settlement as a whole, rather than assessing its individual components.” Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 818-19 (9th Cir. 2012). The following non-exclusive factors are among those that may be considered during both the preliminary and final approval processes:
(1) the strength of the plaintiff’s case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the amount offered in settlement; (4) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; (5) the experience and views of counsel; (6) any evidence of collusion between the parties; and (7) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.
See In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 458-60 (9th Cir. 2000)
Courts also consider whether the settlement is the product of arms-length negotiations. See Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 965 (9th Cir. 2009) (“We put a good deal of stock in the product of an arms-length, non-collusive, negotiated resolution.”). As noted, the ultimate question is whether the settlement is “fair, adequate, and free from collusion.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1027 (9th Cir. 1998), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Walker v. Life Ins. Co. of the S.W., Nos. 19-55241, 19-55242, 2020 WL 1329665, at *5 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2020).
2. Application
The Preliminary Approval Order presented a detailed analysis of the relevant factors for assessing the appropriateness of the settlement. It concluded that the risks and expense of further litigation, the substantial prior negotiations, the recommendations of counsel, and scope of the relief all weighed in favor of granting approval. Dkt. 145 at 6-12. Nothing has changed as to any of these factors.
At the preliminary approval stage the reaction of Class Members was unknown because they had not been notified of the terms and asked to respond if they wished to do so. Following the preliminary approval and notice to the Class Members, they had the ability to opt out of or object to the settlement. No Class Member has opted out or objected. A low proportion of opts outs and objections “indicates that the class generally approves of the settlement.” In re Toys R Us-Delaware, Inc. -- Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) Litig., 295 F.R.D. 438, 456 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (citing cases); see also In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“It is established that the absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action settlement raises a strong
Page 4 of 10

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 158 Filed 03/31/20 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:1925
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date March 31, 2020

presumption that the terms of a proposed class settlement action are favorable to the class members.” (quoting Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Corp. v. DirecTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 528-29 (C.D. Cal. 2004))). Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of final approval.
Because there have been no material changes in any or the relevant circumstanced since the Preliminary Approval ORder, the same determinations are warranted at this time with respect to the fairness analysis. Therefore, the approval of the distribution of the settlement funds in the manner set forth in the Final Approval Motion is granted, subject to certain minor modifications, which are discussed below. The distribution of the settlement funds to the 85 Class Members will be made on a pro rata basis. In light of the modest adjustments to the figures described below, this will result in the payment of approximately $2539.75 to each Class Member.
B. Class Notice
1. Legal Standards
Rule 23(e) requires that a court “direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by” a proposed class settlement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Notice is satisfactory if it “generally describes the terms of the settlement in sufficient detail to alert those with adverse viewpoints to investigate and to come forward and be heard.” Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Mendoza v. Tucson Sch. Dist. No. 1, 623 F.2d 1338, 1352 (9th Cir. 1980)).
2. Application
An Amended Class Notice was filed. Dkt. 43. The Preliminary Approval Order found the Amended Class Notice to be sufficient and the associated procedures to be reasonable. Dkt. 145 at 4. The proposed notice plan was then fully implemented. See Dkts. 152, 153. There are no material changes that would affect the prior analysis as to sufficiency of the proposed notice and notice plan.
C. Expert and Mediation Costs
As stated in the Preliminary Approval Order, there were certain modest discrepancies and unsupported assertions as to expert and mediation costs. No explanation was given for a disparity between the $20,210 in expert costs identified in the Settlement Agreement and the $12,210 identified in the Litt Declaration. See Dkt. 145 at 10. No support was provided for the $5500 in mediation costs. Id. Consequently, Plaintiffs’ Counsel were directed to address these issues by filing “supplemental declarations with their contemplated motion for an award of attorney’s fees and costs.” Id. The reasonableness of costs would then “be reviewed de novo in connection with final approval.” Id. at 11.
The Litt Declaration filed in support of the Fee Motion states that expert costs totaled $12,360 and mediation costs totaled $5500. Dkt. 148 ¶ 42; Dkt. 148-4 at 2. Attached to this declaration are tables labeled “LOCAS COSTS” and “Hoffman Costs.” They include items related to additional expert fees incurred by other counsel for Plaintiffs, among other expenses: (i) “Expert Fee - Jeff Boxer $750.00,” (ii) “Expert fee - Roger Clark $3,500.00,” (iii) “The Forensic Specialist: Retainer for Expert $2,000.00,”
Page 5 of 10

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 158 Filed 03/31/20 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:1926
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date March 31, 2020

(iv) “The Forensic Specialist: Expert Fee $1,650.00.” Dkt 148-4 at 4-5. Adding these fees to the $12,360 amount results in a sum of $20,260. Although the Litt Declaration concludes with a table identifying only $12,360 in expert costs and $5500 in mediation costs (Dkt. 148 at 43), Plaintiffs’ Counsel explained at the hearing that these were only those costs incurred by Litt’s firm.
In light of the explanations made at the hearing, and in the Litt Declaration, there is sufficient support for the request for approval of the $5500 in mediation costs and $20,210 in expert costs made in the Final Approval Motion.
D. Settlement Administration Fee
The Settlement Agreement, as approved in the Preliminary Approval Order, provided for up to $20,000 for settlement administration costs. Dkt. 145 at 3, 7. Total settlement administration costs amounted to $4121.49. Dkt. 152 ¶ 9-13. $15,878.51 was unspent and shall be allocated to the class fund for distribution to Class Members. The fee amount was reasonable in light of the amount of work performed. Therefore, a settlement administration fee of $4121.49 is approved.
E. Attorney’s Fees and Costs
1. Legal Standards
Attorney’s fees and costs “may be awarded in a certified class action where so authorized by law or the parties’ agreement”; however, “courts have an independent obligation to ensure that the award, like the settlement itself, is reasonable, even if the parties have already agreed to an amount.” Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 941; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). “If fees are unreasonably high, the likelihood is that the defendant obtained an economically beneficial concession with regard to the merits provisions, in the form of lower monetary payments to class members or less injunctive relief for the class than could otherwise have [been] obtained. Staton, 327 F.3d at 964.
A district court must “assure itself that the fees awarded in the agreement [are] not unreasonably high, so as to ensure that the class members’ interests [are] not compromised in favor of those of class counsel” or class representatives. Staton, 237 F.3d at 965. The following factors are among those that may be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a requested fee award: (i) whether the results achieved were exceptional; (ii) risks of continued litigation; (iii) non-monetary benefits conferred by the litigation; (iv) customary fees for similar cases; (v) the contingent nature of the fee and financial burden imposed on counsel; and (vi) the reasonable expectations of counsel, based on the circumstances of the case and the range of fee awards based on common funds of comparable size. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1048-50 (9th Cir. 2002).
Statutory fees requested under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Cal. Civil Code § 52.1(i) need not “necessarily be proportionate to the amount of damages a civil rights plaintiff actually recovers.” City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 574 (1986) (plurality). “[C]ounsel for prevailing parties should be paid, as is traditional with attorneys compensated by a fee-paying client, for all time reasonably expended on a matter.” Id. at 575 (quoting Senate Report, at 6, U.S. Code Cong. & Admin News 1976, p. 5913)
Page 6 of 10

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 158 Filed 03/31/20 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:1927
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date March 31, 2020

(internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). Courts arrive at this “lodestar figure” by “multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation (as supported by adequate documentation) by a reasonable hourly rate for the region and for the experience of the lawyer.” Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 941.
A § 1988 fee inquiry involves a two-step process. “First, courts generally ‘apply the ‘lodestar’ method to determine what constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee.’” Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Costa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 690 F.3d 1132, 1335 (9th Cir. 2012)) (cleaned up). “Second, ‘the district court may then adjust the lodestar upward or downward based on a variety of factors.’” Id. (quoting Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir. 2008)) (cleaned up). When making an across-the-board percentage cut in excess of a 10% “haircut,” a district court must “set forth a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for choosing a given percentage reduction.” Id. at 1203 (quoting Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1400 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Although the district court's calculation of an award need not be done with precision, some indication of how it arrived at its figures and the amount of the award is necessary.” Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1211 (9th Cir. 1986), as amended, 808 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1987).
Proportionality of fees to damages is a “legitimate consideration in evaluating the reasonableness of the work performed,” but it “is not per se unreasonable for attorneys to receive a fee award that exceeds the amount recovered by their clients.” Vargas v. Howell, 949 F.3d 1188, 1196 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gonzales, 729 F.3d at 1209). Vargas also noted that “the percentage-of-recovery method is not typically used in civil rights cases.” Id. (quoting Johnson v. MGM Holdings, Inc., 943 F.3d 1239, 1242 n.3 (9th Cir. 2019)).
2. Application
The Settlement Agreement states that Plaintiffs’ counsel has “incurred significantly more attorney fees than the amount of fees agreed to be awarded.” Dkt. 131-2 ¶ 35. The attorney’s fees and costs requested total $484,290. Id. In support of the Fee Motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel argue that the requested amount is “substantially discounted below the amounts that Plaintiffs would have sought in an attorneys’ fee motion as the prevailing parties in a contested motion.” Dkt. 147 at 10. The Fee Motion requests $476,801.93 in attorney’s fees, which is substantially less than the proposed lodestar figure of $1,782,736 identified by the Fee Motion. Id. at 10, 23.
a) Preliminary Approval
At the time of preliminary approval, the proposed lodestar figure was $896,711. This amount was based on a total of 1122.1 hours of work by several attorneys. Dkt. 145 at 10. That figure did not include an anticipated 50-125 additional hours that would be necessary between preliminary and final approval. Id. That figure also was “not fully up to date” and was current only to “late 2018” for some attorneys. Id. (quoting Dkt. 131 at 18-19, Dkt. 132 ¶ 40). The following summary table was included in the Preliminary Approval Order:

Page 7 of 10

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 158 Filed 03/31/20 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:1928
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date March 31, 2020

Attorney Barry Litt (Attorney) Carol Sobel (Attorney) Catherine Sweetser (Attorney) Colleen Flynn (Attorney) Colleen Mullen (Attorney) Julia White (Senior Paralegal) Matthew Strugar (Attorney) Monique Alarcon (Attorney) Monique Alarcon (Law Student) Paul Hoffman (Attorney) Rachel Steinback (Attorney) Weston Rowland (Law Clerk)
Total

Hours 175.1 307.1 61.6 68.7
7.9 63.3 61.5 66.4 104.7 121.3 52.5 32 1122.1

Hourly Rate $1200 $1000 $650 $725 $500 $360 $725 $420 $200 $1050 $650 $250 -

Fees $210,120.00 $307,100.00 $40,040.00 $49,807.50
$3,950.00 $22,788.00 $44,587.50 $27,888.00 $20,940.00 $127,365.00 $34,125.00 $8000.00 $896,711.00

Dkt. 145 at 10.

The Preliminary Approval Order found that “[s]ubstantial issues are presented by the lodestar calculation,” which included “the number of counsel who billed time, the hourly rates for counsel, the time and hourly rate proposed for a law student, and whether it was appropriate to have spent more than 1000 hours on this proceeding given the limited financial benefits that will be provided to members of the Subclass if there is a final approval.” Dkt. 145 at 10. Nevertheless, the Preliminary Approval Order granted the requested relief based, in part, on the finding that even a reduction of approximately 50% of the lodestar amount would support the proposed fee award. Id.

b) Final Approval

(1) Attorney’s Fees

The Fee Motion presents a lodestar figure that is almost twice the amount that was set forth in the motion for preliminary approval. Dkt. 147 at 22-23. The hours billed increased approximately 75% from 1122.1 to 1970.30. The total amount in costs increased from $896,711.00 to $1,782,736.00. This is an increase of approximately 99%. Plaintiffs’ Counsel acknowledged at the hearing that they had erred in presenting this figure. Dkt. 157. Accordingly, the reasonableness of the lodestar figure will be evaluated based on the summary tables presented in support of preliminary approval as supplemented by those submitted in response to the Order of March 6, 2020. Dkt. 155. This results in a calculation of proposed lodestar figure of $958,559.00, which is a relatively modest increase of $61,848 from the time of preliminary approval.

As stated in the Preliminary Approval Order, substantial issues remain as to the reasonableness of the
Page 8 of 10

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 158 Filed 03/31/20 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:1929
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date March 31, 2020

hourly rates used in the proposed lodestar calculation, the number of hours recorded individually by counsel and the number of hours they recorded collectively. However, once again, even if the lodestar figure of $958,559.00 were reduced by approximately 50%, that revised amount would support the approval of the requested attorney’s fee award of $476,801.93. Therefore, without engaging in a lineby-line assessment of the reasonableness of the work performed and the hourly rates, there is a reasonable basis to find that the lodestar analysis is sufficient to support the award of the amount of attorney’s fees provided by the Settlement Agreement. The reasonableness of that amount is also supported by the contingent nature of the representation, the results achieved on behalf of the Class Members, and the statutory standards that apply to the claims and corresponding fee requests made in this action. See Rivera, 477 U.S. at 574; Vargas, 949 F.3d at 1197 Gonzales, 729 F.3d at 1203. Therefore, an attorney’s fee award of $476,801.93, as provided in the Settlement Agreement, is approved.

(2) Litigation Costs

The Fee Motion requests an award of $7163.27 as reimbursement for certain litigation costs. Dkt. 147 at 10. As discussed above, this is inconsistent with the Final Approval Motion, which identifies a total award of $484,290 in fees and costs other than expert and mediation costs. Dkt. 151 at 8-9. Of that $484,290, $476,801.93 is for attorney’s fees. The remaining amount is $7488.07 ($484,290 $476,801.93 = $7488.07), not $7163.27. See id. There is also a small disparity when the $7802.90 in costs other than expert fees and mediation identified in Exhibit D to the Litt Declaration (Dkt. 148-4) are considered. Given these modest discrepancies, it is reasonable to find that sufficient evidence supports the $7488.07 cost award provided by the settlement agreement. As noted, this amount is the difference between the amount of the attorney’s fee award and the total amount set aside for fees and costs combined. Because this amount is reasonable, it is approved.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated in this Order, the Final Approval Motion and the Fee Motion were granted. The final settlement amounts are summarized in the following table:

Item Expert Costs Mediation Costs Settlement Administration Costs Class Representative Awards Award to Kyle Todd (putative class representative for uncertified sub-class) Attorney’s Fees Litigation Costs Settlement Fund for Distribution to Class Members Total

Amount $20,210.00 $5,500.00 $4121.49 $15,000.00 $5,000.00
$476,801.93 $7488.07
$215,878.51
$750,000.00

Page 9 of 10

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 158 Filed 03/31/20 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:1930
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV16-00237 JAK (GJSx)

Title

Charmaine Chua, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date March 31, 2020

On or before April 8, 2020, Plaintiffs shall lodge a proposed judgment in accordance with the terms of this Order. Within seven days of Plaintiffs lodging a proposed judgment, Defendants shall file any objections to the form of the proposed judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
: Initials of Preparer cw

Page 10 of 10

 
 Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 161 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1934

1

2

3

5/11/2020

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 Charmaine Chua, et al.

12

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:16-cv-00237 JAK (GJSx)

13 v.

JUDGMENT (DKT. 160)

14 City of Los Angeles, et al.,

15

Defendants.

JS-6: Case Terminated/Closed

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS Document 161 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:1935

1

Final approval of the class-action settlement in this action was granted.

2 Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $750,000. The elements
3

4 of this amount are as follows and payments shall be made as set out here:

5 Item
6

Amount

7

Expert Costs

$20,210.00

8

Mediation Costs Settlement Administration

$5,500.00 $4121.49

9

Costs

10

Class Representative Awards

$15,000.00

Award to Kyle Todd

$5,000.00

11

(putative class representative

12

for uncertified sub-class)

Attorney’s Fees

$476,801.93

13

Litigation Costs

$7488.07

14

Settlement Fund for

Distribution to Class

15

Members

$215,878.51

16

Total

$750,000.00

17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED:

19 Dated: May 11, 2020 20
21

_________________________________ John A. Kronstadt United States District Judge

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2