.. Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 1 of 43 Page ID #:1
v·

1 Michael G. Allen* D. Scott Chang #146403
2 Jamie L. Crook #245757 Reiman, pane & Colfax Pllc
3 1225 191 St. NW, Suite 600 Washington D.C. 20036
4 Telephone: (202) 728-1888 Facsimile: (202) 728-0848
5 schang@relmanlaw.com

-'<"
I
I

"("',•--
r·r;
2: ;l_:• ...., .."':

r:··::..:

f'-J c.__
:r:::...

c,,-=' -'.T --.V' ...,-;.:..

6 * ApP.lication for admission pro hac vice to be submitted
7 Shawna L. Parks #208301
8 Paula D. Pearlman #109038 Rebecca A. Craemer #274276
9 Disability Rights Legal Center 800 S. Figueroa Street, Ste 1120
10 Los Angeles CA 90017 Telephone: l213) 736-1496
11 Facsimile: (ll3) 736-1428 shawna. parks@lls.edu
12 David Geffen #129342
13 David Geffen Law Firm 530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205
14 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (31 0) 434-1111
15 Facsmilie: (31 0) 434-1115 Geffenlaw@aol.com
16

(./l() -~

-

~L~ .t:-
.:....:.:.:.: .c-

~

Dara Schur #9863

Disability Rights California

1330 Bro Oakland,

adw CA

a9y41

Sui 612

t

e

500

Telephone: (510) 267-1200

Facsimile: (?10)267-1201

Dara. Schur@disab ili tyrightsca

.org

Autumn Elliott #230043 Disability Rights California 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 902 Los Angeles~ CA 90010-2512 Telephone: 213) 427-8747 Facsimile: ( 131427-8767 Autumn.Elhott®disability rightsca. org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

18

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(WESTERN DIVISION)

19 20 21 22 23

INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a Calif

OF ornw

a~

non-profit corporation; FAIR HOUSINO 1'6

COUNCIL OF SAN FERNANDO

VALLEY, a California non-profit

corporation; and COMMUNITIES

ACTIVELY LIVING INDEPENDENT

AND FR_EE, a California non-profit

corporatwn,

CASE
Vl2

N0O0. 621~(ML6x\

COMPLAINT FOR

J

INJUNCTIVE,

DECLARATORY

AND MONETARY

RELIEF; DEMAND

FOR TRIAL BY

24

JURY

Plaintiffs,

25

vs.

26

CITY OF LOS ANGELES:

-

27 CALIFORNIA, a Califorma municipal

corporation· COMMUNITY

28 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE

- 1-
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta/ v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 2 of 43 Page ID #:2

CITY OF LOS ANGELES; 12129 EL

1 DORADO AVENUE, L.P., a California

limited P.artnership; ADAMS 935, L.P., a

2 California limited partnershiP.;

ALEXANDRIA HOUSE APARTMENTS,

3 LP, a California limited :Qartnership;

ARDMORE 959 PARTNERS, L.P., a

4 California limited partnership;

ASTURIAS SENIOR APARTMENTS,

5 L.P ., a California limited P.artnership,

B S BROADWAY VILLAGE II, L.P., a

6 California limited partnership;

BRONSON COURT APARTMENTS,

7 L.P., a California limitedpartnership;

CANTABRIA SENIOR APARTMENTS,

8 L.P., a California limited partnership;

CARONDELET COURT PARTNERS,

9 10

L.P., a California limited partnership;,

CENTRAL L.P., a Cali

VILLAGE AP fornia li~i}ed

ARTMENT;), partnership;

CFLT-2618 WEST 7 STREET, LLC, a

11 Delaware limited liability company;

CHARLES COBB APARTMENTS, L.P.

12 a California limited partnership; DECRO

ORION APARTMENTS, L.P., a

13 California limited partnership; DECRO

OSBORNE APARTMENTS, L.P., a

14 California limited partnership;

ESPERANZA COMMUNITY HOUSING

15 CORPORATION a California

corporation; EUGENE HOTEL, L.P., a

16 Callforni~~imited partnership; FAME

WEST 25 STREET, L.P., a California

17 limited partnership; HART VILLAGE,

L.P., a California 1Imited partnership;

18 HOBART HEIGHTS PARTNERS, L.P., a

California limited :Qartnership; HOOVER

19 SENIORS, L.P., a California limited

partnership; IMANI FEr<. LP, a California

20 limited partnership; MvRGAN PLACE,

L.P ., a California 1Imited partnership;

21 NEW TIERRA DEL SOL, 1-.P., a

California limited partnership; P G

22 HOUSING PARTNERS, L.P., a

California limited _partnership_;, PALM

23 VILLAGE SENIOR HOUSING CORP., a

California corporation; PENNY LANE

24 CENTER~; a California corporation;

REDROC!<.. NOHO RESIDENTIAL,

25 LLC, a Delaware limited liability

com2any; RITTENHOUSE LIMITED

26 PARTNERSHIP, a California limited

2artnership; SF NO HO LLC, a

27 California limited liability company;

VERMONT SENIORS, a California

28 corporation; VIEWS AT 270, L.P., a ·. "·

-2 -

Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 3 of 43 Page ID #:3

California limited partnershi.r; WA 1 COURThL.P., a California limited
partners tip; WATTS/ATHENS 2 PRESERVATION XVII, L.P., a
California limited partnership; and 3 YALE TERRACE APARTMENTS, A
CALIFORNIA LIMITED 4 PARTNERSHIP, a California limited
partnership
5
Defendants.
6

7

8

9

INTRODUCTION

10

1. This civil rights action is brought by Plaintiffs

11 Independent Living Center of Southern California ("ILCSC"), a

12 non-profit independent living center for people with disabilities,

13 Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley ("FHC/SFV"), a

14 non-profit, fair housing organization, and Communities Actively

15 Living Independent and Free ("CALIF"), an independent living

16 center, against the City of Los Angeles (the "City"), the

17 Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles

18 ("CRA"), and 34 owners of CRA-funded apartment complexes

19 (collectively, "Nominal Defendants"), arising from the failure to

20 ensure that housing is accessible to people with disabilities as

21 required under federal and state civil rights law. In this

22 complaint, the City and CRA may be referred to collectively as

23 "City Defendants."

24

2. This complaint alleges that the City of Los Angeles and

25 the CRA have engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination

26 against people with disabilities in violation of Section 504 of the

27 Rehabilitation Act, Titie II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

28 (the "ADA"), and California Government Code § 11135 by failing

-3 -
!nckpendent Living Center ofSouJhern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 4 of 43 Page ID #:4

1 to ensure that apartment complexes built with federal housing and 2 community development funds are accessible to people with 3 disabilities and knowingly allocating millions of dollars in such 4 funds to finance apartments throughout Los Angeles without

5 ensuring that each complex is accessible.

6

3. City Defendants' pattern or practice of discrimination

7 violates the civil rights of people with disabilities to meaningful

8 access to City Defendants' housing programs and activities and not

9 to be excluded from housing programs and activities.

10

4. The City has directed hundreds of millions of dollars in

11 federal funding to the CRA for the purpose of developing

12 affordable housing. The CRA has allocated these and other funds

13 to build or substantially alter hundreds of apartment complexes

14 containing thousands of units, including those owned by Nominal

15 Defendants.

16

5. Neither the City nor the CRA has maintained policies,

17 practices, or procedures to ensure that multifamily projects

18 assisted with federal funds are accessible to people with

19 disabilities or otherwise provide meaningful access to people with

20 disabilities as required under civil rights law.

21

6. Under federal and state law, apartments and

22 condominium developments funded by federal housing and

23 community development funds must be accessible to people in

24 wheelchairs and those who are vision or hearing impaired.

25

7. City Defendants' violations of federal and state civil

26 rights have serious and significant consequences for people with

27 disabilities. City Defendants' failure to ensure physical

28 accessibility of apartment complexes built with federal funds

-4-
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et at v. City ofLos Angeles, et al. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 5 of 43 Page ID #:5

1 denies people with disabilities severely needed accessible housing 2 and effectively communicates that people with disabilities are not

3 welcome.

4

8. Because City Defendants failed to require that

5 apartments funded in part through federal housing and community

6 development funds are accessible, clients of ILCSC, FHC/SFV,

7 and CALIF and other people with disabilities have been forced to

8 live in inaccessible housing and have been put at risk of

9 institutionalization.

10

9. The City of Los Angeles admits that there is an acute

11 shortage of accessible housing in Los Angeles. According to the

12 City's own Consolidated Plans-documents required to be

13 submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

14 Development ("HUD")-nearly one quarter of adults with 15 disabilities and two-thirds of seniors with disabilities in Los 16 Angeles have physical limitations. The City's Consolidated Plans 17 acknowledges that people with physical limitations need accessible 18 housing and that there is a large, unmet need for affordable, 19 accessible housing in Los Angeles. The City estimates that there 20 are hundreds of thousands of individuals and families in Los 21 Angeles who require accessible, affordable housing but do not

22 have it.

23

10. Despite the admitted severe need for accessible housing

24 in Los Angeles, the City and the CRA have failed to take

25 appropriate action to ensure that apartment complexes built with

26 federal housing and community development funds actually

27 comply with the accessibility requirements of federal and state

28
-5-
!ru:kpendent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 6 of 43 Page ID #:6

1 civil rights laws or that meaningful access to such housing is

2 otherwise provided.

3

11. The current owners of 34 CRA housing developments

4 that received federal housing and community development funds

5 are included as Nominal Defendants in this action solely because

6 they are necessary for complete relief.

7

12. A person using a wheelchair or other mobility aid and

8 people with sight and hearing impairments are just as effectively

9 excluded from the opportunity to live in a particular dwelling by

10 inaccessible housing as by a posted sign saying "No Handicapped

11 People Allowed."

12

13. Enforcement of the accessibility requirements of

13 federal and state civil rights laws is an important means of

14 ensuring equal housing opportunities to wheelchair users, other

15 people with mobility impairments, and people with vision or

16 hearing disabilities.

17

14. Defendants' violations of federal and state civil rights

18 laws have thwarted Congressional efforts to eradicate

19 discrimination against people with disabilities and rendered units

20 in housing development funded through federal funds unavailable

21 to people with disabilities. Enforcement of Section 504 of the

22 Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, and California

23 Government Code § 1113 5 against Defendants is necessary

24 because of the extensive nature of the civil rights violations at

25 apartment complexes developed using federal funds.

26

27

28
-6 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 7 of 43 Page ID #:7

1

JURISDICTION

2

15. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to

3 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory

4 and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202

5 and 1343, and by Rules 37 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil

6 Procedure.

7

16. Plaintiffs' claims for violations of California state law

8 concern the same actions and omissions that form the basis of

9 Plaintiffs' claims under federal law such that they are all part of

10 the same case or controversy. This Court has supplemental

11 jurisdiction over those state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

12 1367.

13

l 7. This action for declaratory and injunctive relief arises

14 in part under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29

15 U.S.C. § 794 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act,

16 42 u.s.c. § 12132.

17

18

VENUE

19

18. Venue is proper in the Central District of California

20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants operate and

21 perform their official duties therein and thus reside there for

22 purposes of venue, and because a substantial part of the events and

23 omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in Los Angeles

24 County, which is in the Central District of California.

25

26

PARTIES

27

19. The Independent Living Center of Southern California

28 is ancindependent living center for people with disabilities and has

-7-
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta/ v. City ofLos Angeles, et a!. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 8 of 43 Page ID #:8

1 its principal place of business in Van Nuys. It is a non-profit,

2 community-based corporation that provides a wide range of

3 services to people with disabilities and seniors in San Fernando

4 Valley, Glendale, Burbank, and Northern Los Angeles County.

5 ILCSC's mission is to provide services which will offer people

6 with disabilities and seniors the opportunity to seek an individual

7 course towards independence, while educating the community.

8 ILCSC's housing-related services include assisting its clients with

9 searches for accessible housing and working towards the removal

10 of barriers to accessible housing for its clients. ILCSC is a:lso the

11 lead agency in the California Community Transitions program.

12 Through the California Community Transitions program, ILCSC

13 seeks to help people move from skilled nursing facilities and acute

14 care hospitals back into community living. ILCSC assists clients

15 with locating and obtaining affordable housing, provides security

16 deposits and first month's rent, and assists with home modification

17 and durable medical equipment, among other services.

18

20. Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley is a non-

19 profit fair housing organization incorporated under the laws of the

20 State of California with its principal place of business in

21 Panorama City, California. FHC/SFV's mission is to eliminate

22 housing discrimination and to expand housing choices for people

23 with disabilities and members of other classes protected under

24 federal and state civil rights and equal opportunity statutes and

25 regulations. FHC/SFV engages in a number of activities to further

26 its mission of promoting equal housing opportunities including,

27 but not limited to: education programs in the community; training

28

-8-
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta/ v. City ofLos Angeles, et al. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 9 of 43 Page ID #:9

1 programs for real estate professionals and the general public; and

2 fair housing counseling.

3

21. Communities Actively Living Independent and Free is

4 an independent living center with its principal place of business in

5 Los Angeles, California. It is a non-profit, community-based

6 corporation that provides services by and to persons with

7 disabilities in the City of Los Angeles. CALIF seeks to achieve

8 full inclusion, equality, and civil rights for people with

9 disabilities. CALIF's members include persons with disabilities

10 who have been harmed and continue to be harmed because the City

11 and the CRA have failed and continue to fail to ensure that

12 apartment buildings funded in part by CRA using federal housing

13 and community development funds are accessible to people with

14 disabilities.

15

22. Defendant City of Los Angeles, California is a

16 municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of

17 California. At all times relevant, the City has been a public entity

18 within the meaning of Title II of the ADA and has received federal

19 financial assistance within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act

20 as well as state financial assistance within the meaning of

21 Government Code § 1113 5.

22

23. Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency of the

23 City of Los Angeles is a public agency authorized by the

24 California Community Redevelopment Law to conduct

25 redevelopment and revitalization activities using public and

26 private funds in designated areas of the City of Los Angeles. At

27 all times relevant, the CRA has been a public entity within the

28 meaning of Title II of the ADA and has received federal financial

-9 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 10 of 43 Page ID #:10

1 assistance within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act as well as 2 state financial assistance within the meaning of Government Code

3 § 11135.

4

24. Each of the Defendants was the actual or apparent

5 agent, employee, or representative of each of the other Defendants.

6 Each Defendant, in doing the acts or omitting to act as alleged in

7 this Complaint, was acting in the course and scope of his, her, or

8 its actual or apparent authority pursuant to such agencies; or the

9 alleged acts or omissions of each Defendant as agent were

10 subsequently ratified and adopted by each agent as principal.

11

12

NOMINAL DEFENDANTS

13

25. Defendant 12129 ElDorado Avenue, L.P. ("ElDorado")

14 is a California limited partnership that does business in California,

15 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. El Dorado

16 currently owns El Dorado Apartments, a multi-family housing

17 development located at 12129 El Dorado Avenue, Los Angeles,

18 California. El Dorado Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

19

26. Defendant Adams 935, L.P. ("Adams 935") is a

20 California limited partnership that does business in California,

21 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Adams 935

22 currently owns Adams and Central, a multi-family housing

23 development located at 1011 Adams Boulevard, Los Angeles,

24 California. Adams and Central is a CRA-assisted development.

25

27. Defendant Alexandria House Apartments, LP

26 ("Alexandria") is a California limited partnership that does

27 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

28 Angeles. Alexandria currently owns Alexandria House, a multi-

- 10 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 11 of 43 Page ID #:11

1 family housing development located at 510 South Alexandria 2 Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Alexandria House is a CRA-

3 assisted development.

4

28. Defendant Ardmore 959 Partners, L.P. ("Ardmore 959")

5 is a California limited partnership that does business in California,

6 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Ardmore 959

7 currently owns The Ardmore, a multi-family housing development

8 located at 959 South Ardmore Avenue, Los Angeles, California.

9 The Ardmore is a CRA-assisted development.

10

29. Defendant Asturias Senior Apartments, L.P.

11 ("Asturias") is a California limited partnership that does business

12 in California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

13 Asturias currently owns Asturias Senior Apartments, a multi-

14 family senior housing development located at 9628 Van Nuys

15 Boulevard, Panorama City, California. Asturias Senior

16 Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

17

30. Defendant B S Broadway Village II, L.P. ("B S

18 Broadway II") is a California limited partnership that does

19 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

20 Angeles. B S Broadway II currently owns Broadway Village II, a

21 multi-family housing development located at 5101 South

22 Broadway, Los Angeles, California. Broadway Village II is a

23 CRA-assisted development.

24

3 1. Defendant Bronson Court Apartments, L.P. ("Bronson")

25 is a California limited partnership that does business in California,

26 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Bronson

27 currently owns Bronson Courts, a multi-family housing 28"~development located at 1227-39 North Bronson AveJ.I.)Jf, Los

- 11 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et a[ v. City ofLos Angeles, et al Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 12 of 43 Page ID #:12

1 Angeles, California. Bronson Courts is a CRA-assisted

2 development.

3

32. Defendant Cantabria Senior Apartments, L.P.

4 ("Cantabria") is a California limited partnership that does business

5 in California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

6 Cantabria currently owns Cantabria Senior Citizen Apartments, a

7 multi-family senior housing development located at 9640 Van

8 Nuys Boulevard, Panorama City, California. Cantabria Senior

9 Citizen Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

10

33. Defendant Carondelet Court Partners, L.P.

11 ("Carondelet") is a California limited partnership that does

12 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

13 Angeles. Carondelet currently owns a multi-family housing

14 development located at 816 South Carondelet Street, Los Angeles,

15 California by the same name, Carondelet Court Partners, L.P.

16 Carondelet Court Partners, L.P. is a CRA-assisted development.

17

34. Defendant Central Village Apartments, L.P. ("Central

18 Village") is a California limited partnership that does business in

19 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles. ·

20 Central Village currently owns Central Village Apartments, a

21 multi-family housing development located at 2000 South Central

22 Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Central Village Apartments is a

23 CRA-assisted development.

24

35. Defendant CFLT-2618 West 7th Street, LLC ("CFLT")

25 is a Delaware limited liability company that does business in

26 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

27 CFL T currently owns Seven Maples Senior Apartments, a multi-

28 family senior housing development located at 2618-30 West 7th

- 12 -

Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et at. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 13 of 43 Page ID #:13

1 Street, Los Angeles, California. Seven Maples Senior Apartments

2 is a CRA-assisted development.

3

36. Defendant Charles Cobb Apartments, L.P. ("Charles

4 Cobb") is a California limited partnership that does business in

5 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

6 Charles Cobb currently owns Charles Cobb Apartments, a multi-

7 family housing development located at 521 South San Pedro

8 Street, Los Angeles, California. Charles Cobb Apartments is a

9 CRA-assisted development.

10

37. Defendant Decro Orion Apartments, L.P. ("Decro

11 Orion") is a California limited partnership that does business in

12 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

13 Decro Orion currently owns Orion Garden Apartments, a multi-

14 family housing development located at 8947-8955 North Orion

15 Street, Los Angeles, California. Orion Garden Apartments is a

16 CRA-assisted development.

! 7

3 8. Defendant Decro Osborne Apartments, L.P. ("Decro

18 Osborne") is a California limited partnership that does business in

19 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

20 Decro Osborne currently owns Decro Osborne Apartments, a

21 multi-family housing development located at 12360 Osborne

22 Street, Los Angeles, California. Decro Osborne Apartments is a

23 CRA-assisted development.

24

39. Defendant Esperanza Community Housing Corporation

25 ("Esperanza") is a California corporation that does business in

26 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

27 Esperanza currently owns La Estrella Apartments, a multi-family

·28" housing development located at 1979 Estrella Avei:Ule, Los

- 13 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 14 of 43 Page ID #:14

1 Angeles, California. La Estrella Apartments is a CRA-assisted

2 development.

3

40. Defendant Eugene Hotel, L.P. ("Eugene") is a

4 California limited partnership that does business in California,

5 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Eugene

6 currently owns Eugene Hotel, a multi-family housing development

7 located at 560 South Stanford Street, Los Angeles, California.

8 Eugene Hotel is a CRA-assisted development.

9

41. Defendant Fame West 25th Street, L.P. ("Fame West") is

10 a California limited partnership that does business in California,

11 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Fame West

12 currently owns FAME West 25th, a multi-family housing

13

development

located

at

1940

West

25

1 h

Street,

Los

Angeles,

14

California.

FAME

West

2

5

1 h

is

a

CRA-assisted

development.

15

42. Defendant Hart Village, L.P. ("Hart") is a California

16 limited partnership that does business in California, including in

17 the City and County of Los Angeles. Hart currently owns Hart

18 Village, a multi-family housing development located at 6927-41

19 Owensmouth Avenue/21702-12 Hart Street, Los Angeles,

20 California. Hart Village is a CRA-assisted development.

21

43. Defendant Hobart Heights Partners, L.P. ("Hobart") is a

22 California limited partnership that does business in California, 23 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Hobart currently

24 owns Hobart Heights Apartments, a multi-family housing

25 development located at 924 South Hobart Boulevard, Los Angeles,

26 California. Hobart Heights Apartments is a CRA-assisted

27 development.

28
- 14 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta/ v. City ofLos Angeles, et al. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 15 of 43 Page ID #:15

1

44. Defendant Hoover Seniors, L.P. ("Hoover") is a

2 California limited partnership that does business in California,

3 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Hoover

4 currently owns Hoover Senior, a multi-family senior housing

5 development located at 6200-6214 South Hoover Street, Los

6 Angeles, California. Hoover Senior is a CRA-assisted

7 development.

8

45. Defendant Imani Fe, LP ("Imani Fe") is a California

9 limited partnership that does business in California, including in

10 the City and County of Los Angeles: lmani Fe currently owns

11 lmani Fe (East and West), a multi-family housing development

12 located at 103 45 and 10408-10424 South Central Avenue, Los

13 Angeles, California. Imani Fe (East and West) is a CRA-assisted

14 development.

15

46. Defendant Morgan Place, L.P. ("Morgan") is a

16 California limited partnership that does business in California,

17 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Morgan

18 currently owns Morgan Place Senior Apartments, a multi-family

19 senior housing development located at 73 01-15 South Crenshaw

20 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Morgan Place Senior

21 Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

22

4 7. Defendant New Tierra del Sol, L.P. ("New Tierra") is a

23 California limited partnership that does business in California,

24 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. New Tierra

25 currently owns Tierra del Sol, a multi-family housing development

26 located at 7500 Alabama Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Tierra

27 dei Sol is a CRA-assisted development.

28
- 15 -
Independent Living Cenler ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 16 of 43 Page ID #:16

1

48. Defendant P G Housing Partners, L.P. ("P G Housing")

2 is a California limited partnership that does business in California,

3 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. P G Housing

4 currently owns Pico Gramercy Housing, a multi-family housing

5 development located at 1244 S. Gramercy Place, Los Angeles,

6 California. Pico Gramercy Housing is a CRA-assisted

7 development.

8

49. Defendant Palm Village Senior Housing Corp. ("Palm

9 Village") is a California corporation that does business in

10 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Palm

11 Village currently owns Palm Village Senior Citizens, a multi-

12 family senior housing development located at 9040 Laurel Canyon

13 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Palm Village Senior Citizens

14 is a CRA-assisted development.

15

50. Defendant Penny Lane Centers ("Penny Lane") is a

16 California corporation that does business in California, including

17 in the City and County of Los Angeles. Penny Lane currently

18 owns Columbus Permanent Housing, a multi-family housing

19 development located at 8900-06 Columbus Avenue, Los Angeles,

20 California. Columbus Permanent Housing is a CRA-assisted

21 development.

22

51. Defendant Redrock NoHo Residential, LLC ("Redrock

23 NoHo") is a Delaware limited liability company that does business

24 in California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

25 Redrock NoHo currently owns Lofts @ NoHo Commons ("Lofts"),

26 a multi-family housing development located at 11136 Chandler

27 Boulevard, North Holiywood, California. Lofts is a CRA-assisted

28 development.

- 16 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 17 of 43 Page ID #:17

1

52. Defendant Rittenhouse Limited Partnership

2 ("Rittenhouse LP") is a California limited partnership that does

3 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

4 Angeles. Rittenhouse LP currently owns Rittenhouse, a multi-

5 family housing development located at 3300-3320 South Central

6 Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Rittenhouse is a CRA-assisted

7 development.

8

53. Defendant SF No Ho LLC ("SF No Ho") is a California

9 limited liability company that does business in California,

10 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. SF No Ho

11 currently owns Gallery @ NoHo Commons ("Gallery"), a multi-

12 family housing development located at 5416 Fair Avenue, Los

13 Angeles, California. Gallery is a CRA-assisted development.

14

54. Defendant Vermont Seniors is a California corporation

15 that does business in California, including in the City and County

16 of Los Angeles. Vermont Seniors currently owns Vermont Seniors

17 (I and II), a multi-family senior housing development located at

18 3901-3925 South Vermont Avenue/1015 West 39th Place, Los

19 Angeles, California. Vermont Seniors (I and II) is a CRA-assisted

20 development.

21

55. Defendant Views at 270, L.P. ("Views") is a California

22 limited partnership that does business in California, including in

23 the City and County of Los Angeles. Views currently owns Views

24 at 270, a multi-family housing development located at 5445 West

25 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Views at 2 70 is a

26 CRA-assisted development.

27

56. Defendant WA Court, L.P. ("WA Court") is a California

28 limited partnership that does business in California, including in

- 17 -

Iru:kpendent Living Center ofSouthern California, et a/ v. City ofLos Angeles, et al. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 18 of 43 Page ID #:18

1 the City and County of Los Angeles. WA Court currently owns 2 Washington Village, a multi-family housing development located 3 at 1717 East 103'd Street, Los Angeles, California. Washington

4 Village is a CRA-assisted development.

5

57. Defendant Watts/Athens Preservation XVII, L.P.

6 ("Watts/Athens") is a California limited partnership that does

7 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

8 Angeles. Watts/Athens currently owns Terre One Apartments, a

9 multi-family housing development located at 5270 South Avalon

10 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Terre One Apartments is a

11 CRA-assisted development.

12

58. Defendant Yale Terrace Apartments, A California

13 Limited Partnership ("Yale Terrace") is a California limited

14 partnership that does business in California, including in the City

15 and County of Los Angeles. Yale Terrace currently owns Yale

16 Terrace Apartments, a multi-family housing development located

17 at 716-734 South Yale Street, Los Angeles, California. Yale

18 Terrace Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

19

20

FACTS

21

59. Since at least 1974, the City has been the recipient of

22 various federal housing and community development funds from 23 HUD including those under the Community Development Block

24 Grant ("CDBG"), HOME Investment Partnership ("HOME"),

25 Emergency Shelter Grant ("ESG") and Housing Opportunities for

26 People with AIDS ("HOPWA") programs. The City has also 27 benefitted from federal loan guarantees pursuant to Section 108 of

28 the Community Development Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5308.

- 18 -

Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta/ v. City ofLos Angeles, eta[. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 19 of 43 Page ID #:19

1

60. The City has directed millions of dollars in CDBG and

2 HOME funds to an Affordable Housing Trust Fund ("AHTF") for

3 the purposes of developing affordable housing.

4

61. As a result of City's commingling of CDBG and HOME

5 funds with state, local and private resources, any housing 6 development that has received AFTF funding is, by definition, a 7 recipient of federal financial assistance and must comply with the

8 accessibility requirements under federal law.

9

62. Under the federal and state civil rights laws referenced

10 above, the City and CRA had an obligation to ensure that

11 multifamily housing projects assisted with federal funds are

12 accessible to people with disabilities so that meaningful access to

13 the City Defendants' housing programs is provided.

14

63. The CRA itself acknowledges the obligation to comply

15 with specific requirements that accompany the receipt of federal

16 financial assistance. The CRA's official Housing Policy provides

17 that "[w]hen Federal 0 0 0 housing funds are used, further

18 requirements generally apply to the specific projects being funded

19 ... When such funds are used, the conditions associated with

20 those funds must be followed, in addition to the conditions set

21 forth herein for the use of redevelopment funds for the

22 development of housing under agreements with CRA[] 0" (CRA

23 Housing Policy, August 4, 2005 at 21.)

24

64. The City directed hundreds of millions of dollars in

25 CDBG, HOME. AHTF and other funds to the CRA for the purpose

26 of developing affordable housing.

27

28
- 19 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 20 of 43 Page ID #:20

1

65. The CRA allocated these and other funds to private and

2 non-profit developers to build or substantially alter hundreds of

3 apartment complexes containing thousands of units.

4

66. Plaintiffs are aware of at least 34 multifamily projects,

5 comprising 2,658 units, for which the CRA provided CDBG,

6 HOME and/or AHTF funds to support new construction or

7 substantial alteration. The multifamily projects include but are

8 not limited to: El Dorado Apartments (60 units); Adams and

9 Central (57 units); Alexandria House (16 units); The Ardmore (48

10 units); Asturias Senior Apartments (69 units); Broadway Village II

11 (50 units); Bronson Courts (32 units); Cantabria Senior Citizen

12 Apartments (81 units); Carondelet Court Partners, L.P. (33 units);

13 Central Village Apartments (85 units); Seven Maples Senior

14 Apartments (57 units); Charles Cobb Apartments (76 units); Orion

15 Garden Apartments (32 units); Decro Osborne Apartments (51

16 units); La Estrella Apartments (11 units); Eugene Hotel (44 units);

17 FAME West 25th (12 units); Hart Village (47 units); Hobart

18 Heights Apartments (49 units); Hoover Senior (38 units); Imani Fe

19 (East and West) (92 units); Morgan Place Senior Apartments (55

20 units); Tierra Del Sol (119 units); Pico Gramercy Housing (71

21 units); Palm Village Senior Citizens (60 units); Columbus

22 Permanent Housing (6 units); Lofts @ NoHo Commons (292

23 units); Rittenhouse (40 units); Gallery@ NoHo Commons (438

24 units); Vermont Seniors (I and II) (140 units); Views at 270 (226

25 units); Washington Village (101 units); Terre One Apartments (15

26 units); and Yale Terrace Apartments (55 units).

27

67. None of the 34 multifamily projects contains units

28 accessible to people with mobility and/or auditory or visual

- 20 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, el a! v. City ofLos Angeles, el a/. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 21 of 43 Page ID #:21

1 impairments in sufficient numbers, sizes and locations to provide 2 meaningful access to people with disabilities and comply with 3 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA and

4 Government Code § 1113 5.

5

68. Neither the City nor the CRA maintained policies or

6 practices to ensure that multifamily housing projects assisted with

7 federal funds contained sufficient units accessible to people with

8 mobility, auditory or visual impairments as required under federal

9 and state civil rights laws.

10

69. The City and the CRA also have not maintained

11 policies, practices or procedures to ensure that people with 12 mobility and/or auditory or visual impairments otherwise have

13 meaningful access to housing built with federal funds.

14

70. ILCSC, FHC/SFV, and CALIF have repeatedly engaged

15 in efforts to inform the City and the CRA of their duties to provide

16 meaningful access to housing developed through federal housing

17 and community development funds.

18

71. In meetings and correspondence with Plaintiffs, City

19 and CRA officials have conceded that they failed to apply federal

20 accessibility requirements to housing projects assisted with federal

21 funding.

22

72. City and CRA officials also admitted that they: (1)

23 Could not identify which CRA-financed projects received federal

24 financial funding that triggers Rehabilitation Act and regulatory

25 obligations; (2) Did not monitor CRA's sub-recipients' compliance

26 with the Rehabilitation Act accessibility requirements; (3) Did not

27 maintain a list of accessible units in CRA-assisted projects and

28 could not identify any wheelchair accessible or sensory accessible

- 21 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthem California, eta[ v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 22 of 43 Page ID #:22

1 units in any of those projects; and (4) Could not describe any

2 accessible features in so-called "wheelchair units," "handicapped ·-·:..
3 units," or "sensory accessible units."

4

73. As a condition of receiving CDBG, HOME, ESG, and

5 HOPWA funding, the City was obligated to submit for HUD's

6 approval a Consolidated Plan describing the housing market and

7 housing needs within Los Angeles.

8

74. According to the 2008-2013 Consolidated Plan, Los

9 Ang~les is home to large numbers of people with disabilities. In

10 2000, 20.4% of the population of Los Angeles five years old and

11 older had a disability. (2008-20 13 Consolidated Plan at 17 6.)

12 44.8% of the population of Los Angeles 65 years old and older had

13 a disability in 2000. (!d.) Nearly one-quarter of disabled adults

14 and two-thirds of adults over the age of 65 have physical

15 limitations. (Id. at 93.) Persons with physical limitations require

16 accessible housing. (Id. at 94.) In addition, 24% of the people

17 with disabilities living in Los Angeles have vision or hearing

18 limitations. (!d. at 93.)

19

75. The City admits in the Consolidated Plan that there is

20 an acute need for accessible housing in Los Angeles. As the City

21 itself found, "[f]inding affordable, accessible housing is a

22 challenge" in the City of Los Angeles. (Id. at 94.) The City

23 explained that "there are hundreds of thousands of individuals, and

24 families, in Los Angeles, who require accessible, affordable

25 housing and do not have it." (Id. at 180.)

26

76. Despite the detailed findings regarding the need for

27 accessible housing in the City's Consoiidated Plan, the City has

28. not taken appropriate steps to ensure that apartment complexes·,,,

- 22-
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta/ v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 23 of 43 Page ID #:23

I built with federal housing and community development funds

2 actually comply with the accessibility requirements of civil rights

3 law or otherwise provide meaningful access to people with

4 mobility, visual, or hearing impairments.

5

77. Plaintiffs do not at this time make claims for money or

6 damages under state law against the City and the CRA. Plaintiffs,

7 however, have provided notice and sufficient information

8 regarding such claims to the City and the CRA pursuant to

9 California Government Code Sections 900, et seq., in

10 correspondence dated January 13, 2012. If those claims are not

11 adequately resolved through the administrative process, Plaintiffs

12 will amend or seek leave to amend this complaint to seek such

13 money or damages under state law against the City and the CRA.

14

15

INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS

16

78. As a result of Defendants' actions described above,

17 ILCSC, FHC/SFV, and CALIF have been directly and substantially

18 injured. Defendants' actions have frustrated Plaintiffs' missions

19 and undermined the effectiveness of the programs and services

20 they provide, including encouraging community integration of

21 people with disabilities, providing assistance to individuals and

22 families searching for housing or affected by discriminatory

23 housing practices, and eliminating discriminatory housing

24 practices.

25

79. In addition, ILCSC, FHC/SFV, and CALIF have

26 invested considerable time and effort in educating the City, the

27 CRA, the housing industry, and the general public about the

~

--

- 23 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 24 of 43 Page ID #:24

1 importance of accessible housing for people with disabilities, in an

2 attempt to secure compliance.

3

80. Each time any of the Defendants failed to ensure that

4 housing funded in part by federal housing and community

5 development funds was accessible, it frustrated the missions of

6 ILCSC, FHC/SFV, and CALIF inasmuch as it served to discourage

7 people with disabilities from living at that dwelling.

8

81. Defendants' conduct reduced the effectiveness of

9 outreach and advocacy efforts by ILCSC, FHC/SFV, and CALIF

10 and required them to provide additional educational programs to

11 counteract the impression left by Defendants' conduct that

12 constructing inaccessible residential housing is permissible.

13

82. Defendants' continuing discriminatory practices have

14 forced ILCSC, FHC/SFV, and CALIF to divert scarce resources to

15 identify, investigate, and counteract the Defendants'

16 discriminatory practices, and such practices have frustrated

17 Plaintiffs' other efforts against discrimination, causing Plaintiffs

18 to suffer concrete and demonstrable injuries.

19

83. ILCSC, FHC/SFV, and CALIF have expended resources

20 attempting to counteract Defendants' discriminatory practices

21 including, but not limited to, counseling people with disabilities

22 affected by Defendants' discriminatory practices and conducting

23 outreach to the City and the CRA about the accessibility

24 requirements under federal law, resulting in the diversion of

25 resources that they would not have had to expend were it not for

· 26 Defendants' violations.

27

84. Until remedied, Defendants' unlawful, discriminatory

28 actions Will continue to injure ILCSC, FHC/SFV, and CALIF by:

- 24 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta/ v. City ofLos Angeles, eta!. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 25 of 43 Page ID #:25

1

a. Interfering with efforts and programs intended to

2

bring about equality of opportunity in housing;

3

b. Requiring the commitment of scarce resources,

4

including substantial staff time and funding, to

5

investigate and counteract Defendants'

6

discriminatory conduct, thus diverting those

7

resources from the Plaintiffs' other activities and

8

services, such as education, outreach and counseling;

9

and

10

c. Frustrating the missions and purposes of ILCSC,

11

FHC/SFV, and CALIF.

12

85. By the actions described above, Defendants have

13 engaged in, and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of

14 discrimination against people with disabilities in violation of the

15 Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and

16 Government Code § 1113 5. The Defendants continue to engage in

17 such a pattern, practice, or policy of discrimination so as to

18 constitute a continuing violation.

19

86. Defendants have acted or failed to act with deliberate

20 indifference. Defendants have known that their acts and omissions

21 create a substantial likelihood of harm to Plaintiff's federally

22 protected rights, and Defendants have failed to act upon that

23 likelihood.

24

87. There now exists an actual controversy between the

25 parties regarding Defendants' duties under the federal and state

26 civil rights laws. Plaintiffs accordingly are entitled to declaratory

27 relief.

28
- 25 -
lnt:kpendent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta! v. City ofLos Angeles, et a/. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 26 of 43 Page ID #:26

1

88. Defendants, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in

2 the unlawful acts and the pattern or practice of discrimination and

3 unlawful conduct described above.

4

89. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Plaintiffs

5 now are suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury

6 from Defendants' acts and unlawful conduct unless relief is

7 provided by this Court. Plaintiffs thus are entitled to permanent

8 injunctive relief.

9

10

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

11

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

12

SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT

13

[29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.]

14

90. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each

15 and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

16

91. Defendants are recipients of federal financial assistance

17 within meaning of Section 504.

18

92. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides that

19 "[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... shall,

20 solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from

21 participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to

22 discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal

23 financial assistance ..." 28 U.S.C. § 794.

24

93. Section 504 prohibits the unnecessary segregation of

25 people with disabilities. Regulations implementing Section 504

26 require a public entity to administer its services, programs, and

27 activities in the most integrated setting appropriate for the needs

28 of qualified individuals with disabilities. 45 C.F.R. § 84.4(b)(2).

- 26 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 27 of 43 Page ID #:27

1

94. Under Section 504, recipients of federal financial

2 assistance are required to provide meaningful access to their

3 programs, services, and activities.

4

95. Regulations implementing Section 504 provide that "[a]

5 recipient, in providing any housing, aid, benefit, or service in a

6 program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance from

7 the Department [of Housing & Urban Development] may not,

8 directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements,

9 solely on the basis of handicap:" ... "Aid or perpetuate 10 discrimination against a qualified individual with handicaps by 11 providing significant assistance to an agency, organization, or 12 person that discriminates on the basis of handicap in providing any 13 housing, aid, benefit, or service to beneficiaries in the recipient's 14 federally assisted program or activity"; [or] "Otherwise limit a 15 qualified individual with handicaps in the enjoyment of any right, 16 privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by other qualified 17 individuals receiving the housing, aid, benefit, or service." 24

18 C.F.R. § 8.4(b)(l).

19

96. The regulations implementing Section 504 also require

20 that "[i]n any program or activity receiving Federal financial

21 assistance from the Department, a recipient may not, directly or

22 through contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or

23 methods of administration the purpose or effect of which would:

24 (i) Subject qualified individuals with handicaps to discrimination

25 solely on the basis of handicap; (ii) Defeat or substantially impair

26 the accomplishment of the objectives of the recipient's federally

27 assisted program or activity for qualified individuals with a

28 particular handicap involved irt'the program or activity, unless the

- 27 -
lrukpendent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta! v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 28 of 43 Page ID #:28

1 recipient can demonstrate that the criteria or methods of 2 administration are manifestly related to the accomplishment of an

3 objective of a program or activity; or (iii) Perpetuate the 4 discrimination of another recipient if both recipients are subject to 5 common administrative control or are agencies of the same State."

6 24 C.F.R. § 8.4(b)(4).

7

97. Defendants' actions and failures to act discriminate on

8 the basis of disability in violation of Section 504 of the 9 Rehabilitation Act and its implementing regulations by engaging

10 in the following actions or omissions:

11

a. Denying ineaningful access to housing built with

12

federal housing and community development funds to

13

people with mobility impairments and visual and

14

hearing disabilities so as to effectively deny

15

qualified individuals with disabilities the opportunity

16

to benefit or participate in Defendants' housing

17

programs.

18

b. Aiding or perpetuating discrimination against people

19

with disabilities by providing significant assistance

20

to the CRA and developers of housing projects that

21

discriminate on the basis of disability by failing to

22

provide accessible housing or to otherwise providing

23

meaningful access to the housing built with federal

24

funds for people with mobility, visual, or hearing

25

impairments.

26

c. Using methods of administration that have the effect

27

of discriminating against people with disabilities,

28

defeating the purpose of the City and CRA's housing

- 28 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta/ v. City ofLos Angeles, et al. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 29 of 43 Page ID #:29

1

programs, and/or perpetuating the discrimination of

2

other agencies by failing to ensure that developers of

3

CRA housing projects funded through federal

4

housing and community development money provide

5

accessible housing or otherwise provide meaningful

6

access to people with mobility, visual, or hearing

7

impairments.

8

d. Otherwise limiting people with disabilities from

9

enjoying housing built with federal funds or the

10

opportunity to obtain such, housing by engaging in

11

the policies, practices, acts, and omissions described

12

above.

13

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

14

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

15

[42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.)

16

98. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each and every

17 allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

18

99. Defendants City and CRA are public entities within the

19 meaning of Title II of the ADA.

20

100. Title II of the ADA provides that "no qualified

21 individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be

22 excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of

23 services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected

24 to discrimination by such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

25

101. Pursuant to the ADA, public entities are required to

26 provide meaningful access to their programs, services, and

27 activities.

28
- 29 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et at v. City ofLos Angeles, et al. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 30 of 43 Page ID #:30

1

102. Regulations implementing Title II of the ADA provide

2 that "[a] public entity, in providing any aid, benefit or service,

3 may not, directly or through contractual, licensing or other

4 arrangements, on the basis of disability.... [a]id or perpetuate

5 discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability by

6 providing significant assistance to an agency, organization, or

7 person that discriminates on the basis of disability in providing

8 any aid, benefit, or service to beneficiaries of the public entity's

9 program;" [or] "Otherwise limit a qualified individual with a

10 disability in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or

11 opportunity enjoyed by others receiving the aid, benefit, or

12 service." 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(l).

13

103. Regulations implementing Title II also require that "[a]

14 public entity may not, directly or through contractual or other

15 arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration:

16 (i) That have the effect of subjecting qualified individuals with

17 disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability; (ii) That

18 have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing

19 accomplishment of the objectives of the public entity's program

20 with respect to individuals with disabilities; or (iii) That

21 perpetuate the discrimination of another public entity if both

22 public entities are subject to common administrative control ..."

23 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3).

24

104. Defendants' actions and failures to act discriminate on

25 the basis of disability in violation of Title II of the ADA and its

26 implementing regulations by engaging in the following actions or

27 omlSSJOns:

28
- 30 -
Independent Ltving Center ofSouthern California, eta/ v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 31 of 43 Page ID #:31

1

a. Denying meaningful access to housing built with

2

federal housing and community development funds to

3

people with mobility impairments and visual and

4

hearing disabilities so as to effectively deny

5

qualified individuals with disabilities the opportunity

6

to benefit or participate in Defendants' housing

7

programs.

8

b. Aiding or perpetuating discrimination against people

9

with disabilities by providing significant assistance

10

to the CRA and developers of housing projects that

11

discriminate on the basis of disability by failing to

12

provide accessible housing or to otherwise providing

13

meaningful access to the housing built with federal

14

funds for people with mobility, visual, or hearing

15

impairments.

16

c. Using methods of administration that have the effect

17

of discriminating against people with disabilities,

18

defeating the purpose of the City and CRA' s housing

19

programs, and/or perpetuating the discrimination of

20

other agencies by failing to ensure that developers of

21

CRA housing projects funded through federal

22

housing and community development money provide

23

accessible housing or otherwise provide meaningful

24

access to people with mobility, visual, or hearing

25

impairments.

26

d. Otherwise limiting people with disabilities from

27

enjoying housing built with federal funds or the

28

opportunity to obtain such housing by engaging in

- 31 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthem California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 32 of 43 Page ID #:32

1

the policies, practices, acts, and omissions described

2

above.

3

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE§ 11135

5

105. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every

6 allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

7

106. Section 11135 of the California Government Code

8 provides that "No person in the State of California shall on the

9 basis of ... disability, be unlawfully denied the benefits of, or be

10 unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or

11 activity that is funded directly or receives financial assistance

12 from the state." Cal. Gov't Code§ 11135.

13

107. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants received

14 financial assistance from the State of California.

15

108. Through their acts and omissions described herein,

16 Defendants have violated and will continue to violate California

17 Government Code§ 11135 by unlawfully denying people with

18 disabilities the benefits of, and unlawfully subjecting people with

19 disabilities to discrimination under, Defendants' programs and

20 activities.

21

22

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

23

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter an order

24 against Defendants, together and individually, as follows:

25

A. Declare that Defendant' policies, practices, acts, and omissions as

26 set forth above violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans

27 with Disabilities Act, and California Government Code§ 11135;

28
- 32 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta/ v. City ofLos Angeles, et aL Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 33 of 43 Page ID #:33

1

B. Enjoin the Defendants, their officers, directors, employees,

2 agents, successors, assigns, and all other persons in active concert or

3 participation with any of them, both temporarily during the pendency ofthis

4 action, and permanently, from:

5

1. Providing federal housing and community development

6

funds for the construction of any multifamily housing and/or common

7

areas that, in any way, fail to comply with the accessibility requirements

8

of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, and

9

Government Code§ 11135;

10

2. Failing or refusing to bring apartment complexes funded

11

through federal housing and community development funds and the

12

public use and common use areas at the apartment complexes into

13

compliance with the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

14

Act, Title II of the ADA, and Government Code§ 11135; and

15

3. Failing or refusing to otherwise provide meaningful access

16

to apartment complexes built with federal housing and community

17

development funds.

18

C. Enjoin Defendants, their officers, directors, employees, agents,

19 successors, assigns, and all other persons in active concert or participation

20 with any of them from failing or refusing to:

21

1. Survey each and every apartment complex built using

22

federal housing and community development funds and appurtenant

23

common and public use areas, and assess the compliance of each with

24

the accessibility requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabiiitation Act,

25

Title II of the ADA, and Government Code§ 11135;

26

2. Report to the Court the extent of the noncompliance with

27

the accessibility requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

28

Title II of the ADA, and Government Code§ 11135; and

- 33 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta[ v. City ofLos Angeles, et al. Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 34 of 43 Page ID #:34

1

3. Bring each and every such apartment complex into

2

compliance with the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

3

Act, Title II of the ADA, and Government Code§ 11135.

4

4. Otherwise provide meaningful access to apartments

5

complexes built with federal housing and community development

6

funds to people with mobility, visual or hearing impairments.

7

D. Award damages against the City Defendants for their

8 injuries incurred as a result of the City Defendants' discriminatory

9 practices and conduct.

10

E. Award the Plaintiffs costs of this action and reasonable

11 attorneys' fees pursuant to: 29 U.S.C. § 794a; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988,

12 12133, and 12205, Cal. Civ. Pro. Code§ 1021.5 and as otherwise

13 may be allowed by law.

14

F. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems

15 to be just and equitable.

16

17

JURY DEMAND

18

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

19 20 uated: January~~, 2012
21

Respectfully submitted,

22 23 24 25 26 27

-~-:?~~--------- tDRJ'vA.E1MJLS.CCMIHEOAATLENT.L, CCDGRH.AOAANOLNELK!GE&l#'#2C~14*4O567L45F07A3 X

PLLC 1225

l9

1 h

St.

NW,

Suite

600

Washington D.C. Telephone: (202) Facsimile: (?0;2)

20036 728-1888 728-0848

28

schang@relmanlaw.com

- 34 -

lrukpendent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al. rnrnnl~int

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 35 of 43 Page ID #:35

1
2
3
4
5 6 7
8 .'L
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28

* Application
hac vice to be

for admission submitted

pro

___ ."f_,i// fkw. t_,-T_~ _~~83/o/'1-

PAULA D. REBECCA

PAE. ACRRLAMEMANER#109038

#274276 DISABILITY

RIGHTS

LEGAL

CLL8TFs0hoEoae0ayclsNewsoASpTilnm.haEnaoFig.RPlnpieeugeal:bue:rl(skefi2rs2c1o@C13Ia3An)l)lSts7e9t7.r3re03ee6d06se-u1tt-1,17L44S2a9uw86iteCe1n1t2e0r

_____ I>./~)tv:t1M5-/1GEF~ -FEN~ -#12C9Y)3<.4.. 2
D5TSFG3aeaAe0nlcfVestfpWameIhDnMiiolllaisnGoewhen:Ei:@ir(Fce(3a3Fa1,B1oE0Cll0N).v)cAd4oL4.3m,93A404S-W4-u110i111tF1e1I51R20M5

-DDCOT1FD3-AaAeIaaS3clkrR1Le0sAalpiIAa1.mBFBhSn~OoIcdriSLlonh,-CReaeIu:C-HNTd:r(A@wYU:I(5A5a1R)d91Ry0i4~0,Is#)6)Ga29~S1b682Hu2~i7661iT-t~i37e1tS-y8~215r02-i01g00-h0t-sc-a-
.org
A-~ -zvitA)o-rc
AuffJM"1n~ruoff-#2:foo4T-­
DisABILITY RIGHTS C3LTFA5oaAeu8clstLe0suApIimmFnWhgOnoieil.nRlelEse:eNhl:sl(i1I~rAo2e1Ct1t3B3A@1l)v4d94d2i02s.7,0a7-b1-8S8i07u17-6ii24tt7ye57r19i2g0h2tsca .org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
- 35 -
independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al.

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 36 of 43 Page ID #:36
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY
This case has been assigned to District Judge Josephine Tucker and the assigned discovery Magistrate Judge is Marc Goldman. The case number on all documents filed with the Court should read as follows:
SACV12- 62 JST (MLGx)
Pursuant to General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Magistrate Judge has been designated to hear discovery related motions.
All discovery related motions should be noticed on the calendar of the Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

A copy of this notice must be served with the summons and complaint on all defendants (if a removal action is filed, a copy of this notice must be served on all plaintiffs).

Subsequent documents must be filed at the following location:

U Western Division
312 N. Spring St., Rm. G-8
Los Angeles, CA 90012

[X] Southern Division

U Eastern Division

411 West Fourth St., Rm. 1-053

3470 Twelfth St., Rm. 134

Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516

Riverside, CA 92501

Failure to file at the proper location will result in your documents being returned to you.

CV·18 (03/06)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Name & Address:
Michael G. Allen* D. Scott Chang #146403 Jamie L. Crook #245757 RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC
~1225 191h St. NW, Suite 600 'o/ashington, DC 20036
202-728-1888**
(r1} *Application for admission pro hac vice to be submitted
~~*See attachment for additional attorneys

Document 1

Filed 01/13/12

Page 37 of 43

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(( INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF SOUTHERN

• '

! '

<::::t;ALIFORNIA,

a

California

non-profit

corporation,

et

aL (See attachment)

PLAINTIFF(S)

CASE NUMBER
SA CV12

V,

Page ID #:37

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, a California municipal corporation, et aL (see
attachment)
DEFENDANT(S),

SUMMONS

TO: DEFENDANT(S): ..:S_ee---'-at'--ta--"c""hm--'en"-t----------------------

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
jmoDRurudemcsigomtmousatneeinoWrtn,evntrDeibcmthaloyauinnnidsemteth&fbDeae2uCp1lscltoerawlorifvnsaidsetlxli-dafcybPfloseaLaninLaemtfnCahtteneo,ersrrp1wesa2ledae2mrriav5nogtiotc1taiie9fiotnfhtonhsseftuaSatynthtttortdioaseuercenrshfteuoReNymrdu,Wtmlh1eS!e,1oc'1cSnro2oesutlmitooiteCefnpfthl6hyada0eoienn0umFgt, e(aWDndnoeadtrseahcdloinRiungnutttlohiennesg,coDtofhmCCe pi2dvl0aaialy0imnP3yt6re.oonucYd.eerodeIduucf, cerwyaeoiolvh.smueoodpsTfmealhiaitulaie)n,sdtattodynfrodiseluowsesesoris,
your answer or motion with the court.

JAN 1 3 2012
Dated:------------

Clerk, U.S. District Court
JULIE PRADO
Deputy Clerk (Seal ofthe Court)

[Use 60 days ifthe defendant is the United States or a United States agency, or is an officer or employee ofthe United States. Allowed
60 days by Rule 12(a}(3)].

CV-OIA (12/07)

SUMMONS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 38 of 43 Page ID #:38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SUMMONS ATTACHMENT

ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS
SHAWNAL. PARKS #208301 PAULA D. PEARLMAN #109038 REBECCA A. CRAEMER #274276 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER Loyola Public Interest Law Center 800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 736-1496 Facsimile: (213) 736-1428 shawna. parks@lls.edu
DAVID GEFFEN #129342 DAVID GEFFEN LAW FIRM 530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (31 0) 434-1111 Facsmilie: (310) 434-1115 Geffenlaw@aol.com

DARA SCHUR #98638 DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 1330 Broadway, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 267-1200 Facsimile: (510)267-1201 Dara. Schur@disabilityrightsca
.org
AUTUMN ELLIOTT #230043 DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 902 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2512 Telephone: (213) 427-8747 Facsimile: (213) 427-8767 Auturrm.Elliott@disability rightsca.org

ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF

SAN

FERNANDO

VALLEY,

a

California

non-

profit corporation; and COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING INDEPENDENT

AND FREE, a California non-profit corporation

ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES; 12129 ELDORADO AVENUE, L.P., a California limited partnership; ADAMS 935, L.P., a California limited partnership; ALEXANDRIA HOUSE APARTMENTS, LP, a California limited partnership; ARDMORE 959 PARTNERS, L.P., a California limited partnership; ASTURIAS SENIOR APARTMENTS, L.P., a California limited partnership,

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 39 of 43 Page ID #:39
BBCCCCRAAEFSLONNRBTTNOTR-RASN2OA6OBDA1LNRE8DILVCWAWEIOLETSAULESYCRTANOVTGI7UOTIEAHLRRPLASTAAAPTPRPAGRAATREERMRETITTTMIE,NM,NLEELET.NPRLNST.CS,,TS,,aLS,La.C,PL.DPLa..,Pl.e.i,Pa.lf,aao.C,awrCanaCaaliCrialaefialoflililorfiminormfnoiriatiniretanieldaiildmaiplmlilaiimitairmettbiedntiideeltpiedrtpadsyparhtpracintparonetr;mnertsnrephserhasirpnhisp;hyip;i;p; ; DCOCHa HEOSOCBCAMaTlORERiMfOLRLoU,rNEOnLNSEiR.aIPCATIl.Oi,OYPmaNBAiHCtBReAOadTAPlUipMAfPaSoARErrItnNTNnRieMaTGTrsMSlEiCh,mNiEOLpiNT;t.RPeSHTPd.,,SOApLa,aRR.LCrPATt..naP,TleV.ia,rIfIsOoCaLhrNaiCLnpli,Aai;aflaFoGilfirCAoEmnarMi,inaltLiieEfla.doiPmlWrp.in,miaitEaraeitStdCnceTeodparrla2sppir5hfaotoTnirrpHrteann;rteSisiEaorhTsSnilhRpi;Pmi;EEEpDi;EURteETGAdC,ENLRNZ.OPEA., ppFaaErr,ttnnLeePrr,sshhaiippC;;aHHliOOfoBOrnAViaRElTRimHSitEEeNIdGIpOHaRrTtnSSe, PrLsAh.PRip.,T; aNMCEOaRRliSfG,oALrn.NPia.,PliaLmACitaCeldEif,opLarnr.tPina.e,lriasmhCiitapel;difIoMrnAiaNI PlpLLPlVCiiamAAALmaIrECltLiNRinittWf,eMTeeEoddarNrSsCnVpDhlEiiaAEiaIaeRprLbNTlt;lanSiLiTlPwme2HiAtEr7ayGiIsGt0RrPheec,iE,HSdopLl,mpO;iaS.maPaNEUpCr.iC,atENtaSnenaalWIIediylNOfCri;ofslTGiRoahVralnrIibiEnHpPEifiai;oRAlROairlWtMRRniUcymioTAASOacriNopItTlNDeNimoETmdTErGpRSapiLattS/SaieCAnoEr,dSyOtnTLNnO;p;RHe.IaRLPRrOPrEs,.ItE,.hRTnNL,aiDeTS.paSrPCR,;EsC.Pha,aSNOaRilaFCpilHCfiE;CafNoKOSolWraiOrUEnflNnioAiRfSiaHOroaEVnlCrOHciinAmaLOoOiLraITciUptMLoRelIoRirOCdmIrEpTTa,NopSit,EtaraiIeoaLXrDDCdttn.niVEP;aoe.lINnP,riIs;fE,TaohLNIripAn.NP;iLa.Y,, a CCaAlLifIoFrnOiRa NlimIAiteLdIMpaIrTtnEeDrshPiAp;RaTnNdEYRASLHEIPT,EaRCRaAlifCoErnAiaPlAimRiTteMd EpaNrtTnSe,rsAhip

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 40 of 43 Page ID #:40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET

I~ I (a) PLAINTIFFS (Check box if you are representing yourself D) Independent Living Center of Southern Cttlifornia, Fair Housing Council of San

DEFENDANTS See attachment

!15!::1

Fernando Valley, and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free

{:~------------------~---------------- ~ (b) Attorneys {Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number. Ifyou are representing ·Attorneys (If Known)

~-.~

yourself, provide same.) See attaohment

II. BASIS Of' JURISDICTION (Place an X in one box only.)

0 I U.S. Government Plaintiff

fi 3 Federal Question (U.S.
Government Not a Party)

Ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PR~NCIPAL PARTIES· For Diversity Cases Only (Place an X in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant.)

Citizen of This State

PTF DEF OJ OJ Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business in this State

PTF DEF
04 04

0 2 U.S. Government Defendant D 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship Citizt:n of Another State of Parties in Item III}

02 02 Incorporated and Principal Place 05 05 ofB1.1siness in Another State

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country 0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation

06 06

IV. ORIGIN (Place an X m one box only.)

iii'I Original

D 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from

Proceeding

State Court

Appellate Court

0 4 Reinstated or Reopened

0 5 Transferred from another district (specify):

0 6 Multi· 07 Appeal to District

District

Judge from

Litigation

Magistrate Judge

V. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

ND: itves 0 No (Check 'Yes' only if demanded in complaint.)

CLASS ACTION under F.R.C.P. 23: DYes

D MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: S

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause. 'oo not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.)

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act

VU. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one box only.)

0400 State Reap'portionment 0410 Antitrust 0430 Banks and Banking 0 450 Commerce/ICC
Rates/etc.
0460 Deportation 0470 Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations 0480 Consumer Credit 049() Cable/Sat TV 0810 Selective Service
0 850 Exchange
0 875 Customer Challenge 12
usc 3410
0 890 Other Stat1.1tory Actions 0 891 Agricultural Act 0 892 Economic Stabili7..ation
Act D 893 Environmental Maners 0 894 Energy Allocation Act 0 895 Freedom of Info. Act 0900 Appeal of fee Detenni·
nation Under Equal Access to Justice 0 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

Insurance Marine Miller Act Negotiable Instrument Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment Medicare Ac~ Recovery of Defaulted Student Loan (Excl. Veterans) Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran's Benefits Stockholders' Suits
Foreclosure Rent Lease & Ejectment Torts to Land Tort Product Liability All Other Real Property

Airplane Airplane Product Liability Assault, Libel & Slander Fed. Employers' Liability Marine Marine Product Liability Motor Vehicle Motor Vehicle Product Liability Otb.er Personal Injury Personal Injury· Mcd Malpractice Personal Injury. Product Liability Asbestos Personal
Application Habeas Corpus· Alien Detainee Other Immigration Actions

Disabilities Other Other Civil Rights

Fair Labor Standards Act Labor/Mgmt. Relations Labor/Mgmt. Reporting& Disclosure Act Railway Labor Act Other Labor
Drug Drug Related Seizure of Properly 21 USC 881 Liquor Laws R.R. & Truck Airline Regs Occupational Safety /Health Other

~A "L'"\112 0062
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Case N u m b e r : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AFTER COMPLETING THE FRONT SIDE OF FORM CV·71, COMPLETE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW.

CV·71 (OS/08)

CIVIL CDVER SHEET

Page I of2

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 41 of 43 Page ID #:41

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET

Vlll(a). JDENTlCAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed'? f!INo DYes
If yes, Jist case number(s): - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
VIll(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that are related to the present case? 0 No rives
If yes, list case number(s): 2:07-cv-08262-MMM-JWJ

Civil cases are deemed related if a previously fiJed case and the present case:
rsf (Check all boxes that apply) A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or
Iii(a. Call for detennination ofthe same or substantinlly related or similar questions of law and fact; or
MC. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges; or
0 D. Involve the same patent, trademark or copyright, !!llii one of the factors identified above in a, b or c also is present.

IX. VENUE: (When completing the following infommtion, use an additional sheet if necessary.)

(a) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named plaintiff resides. 0 Check here if the government, its agencies or employees is a named plaintiff. If this box is checked, J!;O to item (b).

County in this District:"'

California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country

All plaintiffs reside in Los Angeles County

(b) List the County in this District; CalifOrnia County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named defendant resides. 0 Check here if the government, its agencies or employees is a named defendant. If this box is checked, go to item (c).

County in this District:"'

California County outside of this Dislrict: State, if other than California; or foreign Country

Sec attachment

See attachment

{c)

... List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other tha.n California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim arose.
Note: ln land condemnation cases, use the Ioeation of the tr t fland Involved

County in this District:"'

California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country

All claims arose in Los Angeles County

* Los Angeles-, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo Counties

Note: In land condemnation cases use the location of the tract of land i valved

.Ll::::5 X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PRO PER):

~

Date ~J::an;:u;:a;.:ryc:l::2;:.,;:20::1::2___________

Notice to Counsel/Parties: The CY·71 (JS-44) Civil Cover Sheet and the infonnation contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required by law. This form, approved by the Judlcial Conference ofthe United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3·1 is not filed but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose ofstatistics, venue and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions, see separate instructions sheet.)

Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases: Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation Substantive Statement of Cause of Action

861

HIA

All claims for bealth insurance beoefits (Medicare) under Title I8, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended.

Also, include claims by hospitals, .skilled nursing facillties, etc., for certification as providers of services under the

program. (42 U.S.C. l935FF(b))

862

BL

All claims for "Black Lung" benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

(30 u.s.c. 923)

863

DIWC

All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as

amended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405(g))

863

D!WW

All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security

Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405(g))

864

SSID

All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security

Act, as amended.

865

RSI

All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42

u.s.c. (g))

CV-71 (05/08)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page 2 of2

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 42 of 43 Page ID #:42

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL COVER SHEET ATTACHMENT

l(a).

DEFENDANTS

1. City of Los Angeles, California 2. Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles 3. 12129 ElDorado Avenue, L.P.
4. Adams 935, L.P. 5. Alexandria House Apartments, LP 6. Ardmore 959 Partners, L.P. 7. Asturias Senior Apartments, L.P. 8. B S Broadway Village II, L.P. 9. Bronson Court Apartments, L.P. I 0. Cantabria Senior Apartments, L.P. II. Carondelet Court Partners, L.P. 12. Central Village Apartments, L.P. !3. CFLT-2618 West 7th Street, LLC 14. Charles Cobb Apartments, L.P. 15. Decro Orion Apartments, L.P. 16. Decro Osborne Apartments, L.P. 17. Esperanza Community Housing Corporation
!8. Eugene Hotel, L.P. 19. Fame West 25th Street, L.P.
20. Hart Village, L.P. 21. Hobart Heights Partners, L.P. 22. Hoover Seniors, L.P. 23. Imani Fe, LP
24. Morgan Place, L.P. 25. New Tierra del Sol, L.P. 26. P G Housing Partners, L.P. 27. Palm Village Senior Housing Corp. 28. Penny Lane Centers 29. Redrock NoHo Residential, LLC 30. Rittenhouse Limited Partnership 3!. SF No Ho LLC 32. Vermont Seniors
33. Views at 270, L.P. 34. WA Court, L.P. 35. Watts/Athens Preservation XVII, L.P. 36. Yale Terrace Apartments, A California Limited Partnership

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 43 of 43 Page ID #:43

l(b).

PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS

D. Scott Chang RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC 1225 19th St. NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 202-728-1888

Shawna L. Parks DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER Loyola Law School Public Interest Law Center 800 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1120
Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-736-1496

IX(b).

VENUE

County in this District

California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign County

Los Angeles Countv. CA: City of Los Angeles, California; Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles; Adams 935, L.P.; Alexandria House Apartments, LP; Asturias Senior Apartments, L.P.; B S Broadway Village II, L.P.; Bronson Court Apartments, L.P .; Cantabria Senior Apartments, L.P.;
Carondelet Court Partners, L.P.; Central Village Apartments, L.P.; Charles Cobb Apartments, L.P.; Penny Lane Centers; 12129 ElDorado Avenue, L.P.; Esperanza Community Housing Corporation; Eugene Hotel, L.P.; Fame West 25~ Street, L.P.; Hart Village, L.P.; Hobart Heights Partners, L.P.; Hoover Seniors, L.P.; lmani Fe, LP; Morgan Place, L.P.; Palm Village Senior Housing Corp.; P G housing Partners, L.P.; Rittenhouse Limited Partnership; CFLT-2618 West 7~ Street, LLC; Ardmore 959 Partners, L.P.; New Tierra del Sol, L.P.; Views at 270, L.P.; WA Court, L.P.; Yale
Terrace Apartments

Contra Costa Countv. CA: Redrock NoHo Residential, LLC
San Diego Countv. CA: SF No Ho LLC

Orange Countv. CA: Decro Orion Apartments, L.P.; Deere Osborne Apartments, L.P.; Watts/Athens Preservation XVII, L.P.; Vennont Seniors

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 1 of 72 Page ID #:337

1

MICHAEL G. ALLEN* D. SCOTT CHANG #146403

2 JAMIE L. CROOK #245757

RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX

3 PLLC

1225 19th St. NW, Suite 600

4 Washington D.C. 20036

Telephone: (202) 728-1888

5 Facs1mile: (202) 728-0848

schang@relmanlaw .com

6 * Application for admission 7 pro liac vice approved by
Court order Doc. No. 15

8

PAULA D. PEARLMAN

9 #109038

MARIA MICHELLE UZETA

10 #164402

UMBREEN BHATTI

11 Registered Legal Services

Attorney #80PI58

12 DISABILITY RIGHTS

LEGAL CENTER

13 Loyola Public Interest Law

Center

14 800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite

1120

15 16

Los Angeles CA 90017

Telephone: Facs1mile:

(f22113)3~)

736-1496 736-1428

Michelle. U zeta@lls.edu

17

DAVID GEFFEN #129342

DAVID GEFFEN LAW FIRM

530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205

Santa Monica, CA 90401

r'-----n;-;;;----- Telephone: (31 0) 434-1111

FGaecfsf1emn lial ew: @(3a1o0l .)c4o3m4 - 1 1

FilED ClERK US DISTRICT COURT

DARA SCHUR #98638

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

JUN- I 2012

4 1330 Broadway Suite 5 0

0 akIand, CA 9 612

cTNENiiiiTRAiiLm<ols"'TR""'IcT;-;:or"""c"""'Au""rodRNlA

Telephone: (510) 267-1· BY

DEPUTY

Facsimile: (~10)267-1201

Dara.Schur@disabilityrightsca

.org

AUTUMN ELLIOTT #230043 KEVIN BAYLEY #218070 DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 350 S. Bixel Ave., Suite 290 Los Angeles CA 90017 Telephone: f213) 213-8000 Facs1mile: (213}213-8001 Autumn. Ellwtt@disability nghtsca.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18 19

UNICTEENDTSRTAA(LWTEEDSSISTDTEIRRSINTCRTDICIOVTFISCCIOAOULNRI)FTOFRONRIATHE

20 21

InSNoOnD-UJEJT~PHoEfEiNtRDNcEorNCpoATraLLtiIoIFVnO.I..RNi NGFIAACIERaNHTCOEaUlRiSfoOIrNFnGia

22

COUNCIL OF SAN F1:0RNANDO VALLEY, a California non-profit

23 24

corporation; ACTIVELY AND FR.EE,

and COMMUNITIES LIVING INDEPENDENT a California non-profit

corporatwn,

25

Plaintiffs,

26 vs.

CASE NO. CV 120551 SJO (PJW) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE, DECLARATORY, AND MONETARY RELIEF; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

27

28

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, a Californw

municipal

-,Independent

Living Center

ofSouthern

-I -
California, eta/ v. City ofLos Angeles, First Amended Complaint

et al.,

Case

No.

CV

12-0551-S)O - "'''

(PJW)

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 2 of 72 Page ID #:338

1 corporation· COMMUNITY

REDEVELdPMENT AGENCY OF THE

2 eCnItTitYy~OCFRLAO/LSAADNEGSEILGENSATaEpDubLliOc CAL

3 AUTHORITY, a public entity and

successor agency to the COMMUNITY

4 RCEITDYEVOFELLOOPSMAENNGTEALGESE;NOCVYEORFSITGHHET

5 DBOESAIRGDNAFOTERDTHLOECCARLAA/LUATHORITY, a

6 public entity; 105 EAST "I" STREET, L.P., a California limited partnership;

7

12129 ELDORADO AVENUE, L.P., a California limited partnership; 4651

8

HlimUiNteTdINpGarTtnOeNrs,hLipP; .5oas

California BONNIE BRAE

9 PpaArRtnTeNrsEhRipS; ,9L0.1P.S, OaUCTaHlifBorRnOiaAlDimWitAedY

10 SCTaRlifEoErnTiaLIlMimIiTteEdDpaPrAtnReTrsNhEipR; SAHDIPA,MaS

11 935, L.P., a California limited

partnership; AMCAL MONTECITO

12 FUND, L.P., a California limited

partnership· AMISTAD PLAZA

13 PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

14 15

a A

California NDALUCI

li A

mited partnershi]J~, SENIOR APARTM

ENT

S,

L.P., a California limited partnership; ARDMORE 959 PARTNERS, L.P., a

California limited partnership;

16 AL.SPT.,UaRCIAalSifoSrEnNiaIOliRmiAtePdApRaTrtMneErNshTiSp,,

17 B S BROADWAY VILLAGE II, L.P ., a

California limited oartnershio:

18 BUCKINGHAM SENIOR ".

APARTMENTS L.P. a California

19 limited partnershiRi., CANTABRIA

SENIOR APARTMtNTS, L.P., a

20 21

CLC.AaPlRi.,fOoarNnCDiaaElilLfimoEriTnteiCadOlpiUmarRittnTeedrPspAhaiRrptT;neNrEshRiSp,;

CENTRAL VILLAGE APARTMENTS,

22 L.P:< a California limited partnership;

DEcRO ORION APARTMENTS, L.P. a

23 California limited partnership; DECR6

OSBORNE APARTMENTS, L.P., a

24

California limited partnership; EAST LA COMMUNITY CORPORATfON, a

25

California corporation; EASTSIDE VILLAGE, L.P ..>. a California limited

26 partnership; ESrERANZA

COMMUNITY HOUSING

27

CORPORATION a California corporation; EUGENE HOTEL,

L.P.

a

28 California limited partnership; FAME

- 2 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern Cillifornia, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12~0551 SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 3 of 72 Page ID #:339

1

WEST 25w STREET, L.P.;.< a California limitedpartnership; FAR tAST

2 3

BUILDING, partnership; a Califorma

L.P., a California limited GRANDVIEW NINE, L.P., limited partnership; HART

VILLAGE, L.P., a California hmited

4 5 6 7

SpP]CFliJaEAEmaarNl,rRtiitntfLnITeeoOePdNrrr,sRnspEhhiaaaRiHiprpCStOl;;nia,mUHHelLiriSEfOs.toPIeAhONrd.inVVpGip;aEaE,aHNCrRlLtiOLanm.SPlYeBiiE.rft,AsoeNVhadrRIIniOCpSTpia;IaRaOHrlIlStiMiNEnf,moIeALGrirtns.NeHPhidIaiT.,pS;a KOREAN FAMILY HOUSING

8 9 10
11

aCcAICliNomOUNCrCpRAiaG.tol,PeTEirdfOaRaLoptRECOrianoSAarinVltaT;inHIfIleELoOOirmrANsUNnhiSTiStiaeOpIMadNc;SoCAGp,MraaRpLlErPoGi.tNPfrAnaoA.eLRt,rriRnOoTsaiIhlNaT}cPi;paEAA;lLRSiROLfS,oKOSHLr,Sn.IPAPia.,, CALIFORNIA LIMITED

12 PpaArRtnTeNrsEhRipS; HMIPO,RaGCAaNlifPoLrnAiCa ElimLit.Ped., a

13
14 15

California GENESIS California

limited partnership; NEW APARTMENTS, L.P., a limited partnership; NEW

TIERRA DEL SOL, limited partnership; VILLAS, L.P ., a Ca

L.P~,_ a NOttO lifornia

California SENIOR limited

16

partnership; OL HOPE, L.P., a California limited p_artnersh1p;

P

G

17 18 19 20

HOUSING California VILLAGE

PARTNERS, L.P., a limited partnership; PALM SENIOR HOUSING CORP.,

a

CAClimaEPlANiitfRTeodErTnRpMiaaSEr,tcNnoaeTrCrpSsoa,hrliLiaplt.o;iPorP.nn,Ei;aaNPCcNAoaYLrlpiOfoLoMrAranAtNiiaoREn;

RAMPART APARTMENTS, A

21

CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.;...a California limited

22

partnership; REuROCK RESIDENTIAL, LLC, a

NOHO Delaware

23

limited liability APARTMENTS,

company; RENATO L.P., a California

24 25

LlliiImmMiittIeeTddE_pDpaarPrttnAneeRrrssThhNiippE;;RRSSEIHTLITMPEAN-aHHCOUaUDliSSfEoOrNnia

COMMUNITY LIMITED 26 pPaArRtnTeNrsEhRipS; HSIEPV, Ea NCaMliAfoPrLnEiaSl,imL.iPte. da

27

Californi HO LLC,

a limited partnership; SF NO a California limited liability

28 company; SHERMAN VILLAGE

- '-'"~~ '",.;.--_-..,.

Independent

Living

Center

ofSouthern

California,

et

al

-
v.

3 -
City ofLos

Angeles,

et

al.,

Case

No:

CV12.-.0551

SJO

(P JW)

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 4 of 72 Page ID #:340

1 AlimPAitRedTMpaErtNnTerSs,hiLp.;P.S, HaECRaMlifAoNrniWa AY

2
3 4

CCSaSETOaCNlOMaiIfVlOoiMfArRonUSLri,nNaL.,iIalaHTimcYOCoiUatrHeplSidoOfIorNpUaratnGSirioItanNCne;cGOroVs,RrhpELPiopR.OPr;MaR.,tAiOaoTNnI;TOWNA,

COURThL.P ., a California 1imited

5 partners 1ip; WATTS/ATHENS

6 PACRaNlEGifSEoErLRnEiVaSAlViTmIILiOtLeNdAXSp,aVrLItnI.P,e.rL,s.haPi.pC, ;aalWifEorSnTia

7 8

limited partnership; WCaEliSfTorEnRiaNl/iCmAitReLd TpOarNtnIeIr,shLi.pP;.,aand YALE TERRACE APARTMENTS, A

9

CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California

limited

10 partnership,

11

Defendants.

12

13

14

15

INTRODUCTION

16

1. This civil rights action is brought because public money

17 that was to be used to build and provide affordable, accessible

18 housing was misapplied, denying hundreds of people with

19 disabilities housing over many years. The Plaintiffs are the

20 Independent Living Center of Southern California ("ILCSC"), a

21 non-profit independent living center for people with disabilities,

22 the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley ("FHC"), a non-

23 profit fair housing organization, and Communities Actively Living

24 Independent and Free ("CALIF"), a non-profit independent living

25 center for people with disabilities. Their claims are brought

26 against the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los

27 Angeles ("CRA"), the CRAILA Designated Local Authority, a

28 public entity ("Local Authority") and successor agency to the

- 4 - Independent Living Center ofSoUiHefii.-Californiti,' eta/ v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 5 of 72 Page ID #:341

I Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles;

2 the Oversight Board for the CRA/LA Designated Local Authority

3 ("Oversight Board"), a public entity; and the City of Los Angeles

4 ("City") in its own capacity and in its capacity as a successor

5 housing agency to Defendant CRA. The claims arise from their

6 collective failure to ensure that housing is accessible and available

7 to people with disabilities as required under federal and state civil

8 rights law. In this First Amended Complaint ("Complaint"), the

9 City, the CRA, the Local Authority, and the Oversight Board may

10 be referred to collectively as "Government Defendants." The

11 CRA, the Local Authority, the Oversight Board, and the City in its

12 capacity as successor housing agency may be referred to

13 collectively as the "Redevelopment Defendants."

14

2. This Complaint alleges that the Government Defendants

15 have engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against

16 people with disabilities in violation of Section 504 of the

17 Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

18 (the "ADA"), the Fair Housing Act, and California Government

19 Code § 1113 5. These Defendants have failed to ensure that

20 housing funded, developed, or significantly assisted by the

21 Redevelopment Defendants as part of their housing programs is

22 accessible to people with disabilities. These Defendants have also

23 knowingly allocated millions of dollars in federal, state and other

24 funds to finance housing throughout Los Angeles without ensuring

25 that their programs as a whole and the housing they developed,

26 funded, and significantly assisted is accessible and made

27 meaningfully available to people with disabilities.

28

~, .-.:,, '

- 5 - Independent Living Center ofSouLhem California, et a! v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No.,fV I2-0551 SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 6 of 72 Page ID #:342

1

3. Plaintiffs join the Owner Defendants-current owners

2 of 61 housing developments that received federal funds through

3 the Redevelopment Defendants-solely because they may be

4 necessary to effectuate any injunctive relief with respect to access,

5 retrofitting and policy implementation that the Court may order.

6

4. The Government Defendants' violations of federal and

7 state civil rights laws have thwarted efforts by Congress and the

8 California legislature to eradicate discrimination against people

9 with disabilities, and rendered Defendants' housing programs and

10 housing units unavailable to people with disabilities in direct

11 contravention of their intended purpose. Enforcement of Section

12 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, the Fair

13 Housing Act, and California Government Code § 1113 5 against the

14 Government Defendants is necessary because of the extensive

15 nature of the civil rights violations in their housing programs.

16

JURISDICTION

17

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to

18 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory

19 and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202

20 and 1343, and by Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil

21 Procedure.

22

6. Plaintiffs' claims for violations of California state law

23 concern the same actions and omissions that form the basis of

24 Plaintiffs' claims under federal law such that they are all part of

25 the same case or controversy. This Court has supplemental

26 jurisdiction over those state Jaw claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

27 1367.

28
- 6 - Independent Living Center ofSOi.Jthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/., Case No. CV I2-0551 SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 7 of 72 Page ID #:343

1

7. This action for declaratory and injunctive relief arises

2 in part under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 3 U.S.C. § 794; Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, et seq.; and

4 the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq.

5

VENUE

6

8. Venue is proper in the Central District of California

7 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 139l(b) because Defendants operate and

8 perform their official duties therein and thus reside there for

9 purposes of venue, and because a substantial part of the events and

10 omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in Los Angeles

11 ·County, which is in the Central District of California.

12

PARTIES

13

9. The Independent Living Center of Southern California

14 ("ILCSC") is an independent living center for people with

15 disabilities and has its principal place of business in Van Nuys. It

16 is a non-profit, community-based corporation that provides a wide

17 range of services to people with disabilities and seniors in the City

18 of Los Angeles and adjoining areas. It is governed by a Board of

19 Directors that must always contain at least 51% people with

20 disabilities.

21

10. ILCSC' s mission is to provide services which offer

22 people with disabilities and seniors the opportunity to seek an 23 individual course towards independence, while educating the 24 community. The vast majority of clients served by ILCSC are 25 poor because their disabilities limit their ability to work, and they 26 therefore rely on public and private programs intended to serve

27 people with low incomes.

• .·.:·~;:..y..·

28

Ba.ie - 7 -
!ndependenl Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et at.,

No. CV12-0551 SJO (PJW)

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 8 of 72 Page ID #:344

1

11. During 2011, ILCSC served approximately 6,000 new

2 clients, with more than half requesting assistance with searching

3 for accessible and/or affordable housing or removing barriers to

4 accessible housing, requiring it to devote 2.5 full-time equivalent

5 employees to assist clients with housing needs. In addition,

6 ILCSC's Systems Advocacy Coordinator devoted one-quarter of

7 his time to addressing housing accessibility issues, including

8 meetings with elected officials, employees of the Government

9 Defendants and others to alert them to the severe need for

10 accessible affordable housing and noncompliance with federal

II accessibility requirements in housing funded, developed, or

12 significantly assisted by the Government Defendants.

13

12. ILCSC seeks to have its clients' needs met by public

14 and private programs that serve residents of the City of Los

15 Angeles, and provides services and supports directly only Ill

16 circumstances where such programs are not serving them

17 adequately.

18

13. During 2011, among ILCSC's clients seeking assistance

19 with accessible and/or affordable housing, only 10% have found

20 housing that meets their needs. Since 2009, ILCSC has assisted at

21 least two clients seeking to secure accessible housing in buildings

22 constructed with federal funds granted by or through the 23 Redevelopment Defendants, but was not successful. ILCSC also 24 provides services through the California Community Transitions 25 program. Through the California Community Transitions program, 26 ILCSC seeks to help people move from skilled nursing facilities 27 and acute care hospitals back into community living. ILCSC 28 assists clients with locating and obtaining affordable housing,

- 8 - Independent Living Ce11ter:t>fSouthern California, et aJ v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 9 of 72 Page ID #:345

1 provides security deposits and first month's rent, and assists with 2 home modification and durable medical equipment, among other

3 serv1ces.

4

14. A substantial majority of ILCSC's clients, employees,

5 and community advisory board ("constituents") are people with

6 disabilities, or family of people with disabilities, who have been

7 harmed and continue to be harmed because the Government

8 Defendants have failed and continue to fail to ensure that housing

9 funded, developed, or significantly assisted by the Defendants as

10 part of their housing programs is accessible to people with

11 disabilities.

12

15. Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley ("FHC")

13 is a non-profit fair housing membership organization, incorporated

14 under the laws of the State of California, and serving clients in

15 portions of the City of Los Angeles and adjoining areas.

16

16. FHC's mission is to eliminate housing discrimination

17 and to expand housing choices for people with disabilities and

18 members of other classes protected under federal and state civil

19 rights and equal opportunity statutes and regulations. FHC assists

20 people with disabilities to file housing discrimination complaints.

21 Between 2008 and 2011, 21% of ali such complaints were filed by

22 people with physical disabilities, and a majority of these sought

23 more accessible housing.

24

17. FHC also responds to inquiries about the availability of

25 housing for people with disabilities. Between 2008 and 2011, 23%

26 of all of FHC' s inquiries were from people with physical

27 disabilities, and a majority of these sought more accessible

28 housing.

''',;;, .,

- 9 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, eta(,, Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW)

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 10 of 72 Page ID #:346

I

18. In response to a Jack of information about accessible

2 affordable housing, from 2008 to the present, FHC expended

3 substantial staff and monetary resources researching which

4 housing projects contained accessible, affordable housing units,

5 and providing that information to people with disabilities,

6 disability advocacy organizations, and the general public, as well

7 as notifying the City about its concerns and findings.

8

19. FHC engages in a number of activities to further its

9 mission of promoting equal housing opportunities including, but

10 not limited to: education programs in the community; training

II programs for real estate professionals and the general public; fair

12 housing counseling; and coaching people with disabilities in

13 strategies to advocate for accessible affordable housing.

14

20. FHC constituents, employees, and board of directors

15 include people with disabilities, or family of people with

16 disabilities, who have been harmed and continue to be harmed

17 because the Government Defendants have failed and continue to

18 fail to ensure that housing funded, developed, or significantly

19 assisted by the Defendants as part of their housing programs are

20 accessible to people with disabilities. For instance, a former long-

21 time FHC consultant currently lives in a nursing home because of

22 her inability to find accessible affordable housing in the

23 community. Furthermore, an elderly FHC member and her adult

24 son who is a wheelchair user continue to live in an inaccessible

25 apartment building because of her inability to find accessible

26 affordable housing in the community.

27

21. Communities Actively Living Independent and Free

28 ("CALIF") is an independent living center with its principal place

- I 0 - Independent Livink·Cenler ofSouJhern California, eta! v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 11 of 72 Page ID #:347

I of business in Los Angeles, California. It is a non-profit,

2 community-based corporation that provides services by and to

3 people with disabilities in the City of Los Angeles. CALIF seeks

4 to achieve full inclusion, equality, and civil rights for people with

5 disabilities. It is governed by a Board of Directors that must

6 always contain at least 51% people with disabilities.

7

22. CALIF's mission is 1) To achieve greater input,

8 participation, and control over policies and services especially

9 those for people with disabilities, including those that exclude

10 them; 2) To address discrimination wherever it exists; 3) To

II encourage the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities

12 in mainstream activities that enhance the positive image and

13 experience of disability; 4) To empower people with disabilities

14 by encouraging ongoing education and a broad knowledge of the

15 history and heritage of the Disability Movement; and 5) To

16 provide the Disability Community with the following core

17 services: Systems Change Advocacy; Housing Advocacy;

18 Individual and Benefits Advocacy; Personal Assistance Services

19 Advocacy; Information and Referral; Peer Counseling;

20 Independent Living Skills Training; and Assistive Technology.

21

23. The majority of clients served by CALIF are poor

22 because their disabilities limit their ability to work, and therefore

23 they rely on public and private programs intended to serve people

24 with low incomes.

25

24. CALIF served a significant number of clients

26 requesting assistance with searching for accessible and/or

27 affordable housing or removing barriers to accessible housing,

28

Independent

Living

Center

ofSouthern

California,

et

-
al v.

I I
City

-
o f Los

Angelp,

et

al.,

Case

No.

CV

12-0551

SJO

(PJW)

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 12 of 72 Page ID #:348

1 requiring it to devote one full-time employee to assist clients with

2 housing needs.

3

25. CALIF's Housing Programs, administered and

4 implemented by its Housing Advocate, include a Tenant-Landlord

5 Conflict Resolution program and the California Community

6 Transition program.

7

26. Through the California Community Transitions

8 program, CALIF seeks to help people move from skilled nursing

9 facilities and acute care hospitals back into community living.

10 CALIF assists clients with locating and obtaining affordable

11 housing, provides security deposits and first month's rent, and

12 assists with home modification and durable medical equipment,

13 among other services.

14

27. In addition, CALIF's Housing Advocate provides

15 clients with assistance with applications for Section 8 and other

16 public housing programs; assistance with reasonable

17 accommodation requests in public housing; and information and

18 referrals to various affordable housing programs in the City and

19 County of Los Angeles.

20

28. Over the last four years, CALIF has been forced to

21 divert the time and resources of its Housing Advocate from

22 implementing the above-mentioned housing programs and services

23 to inspecting and confirming the accessibility of housing units to

24 which it refers clients who require housing with accessible

25 features - including units within the Government Defendants'

26 Redevelopment Housing Program. CALIF had previously referred

27 clients to such housing units advertised as accessible, only to have

28 those clients return, upset and complaining that the advertised

- 12 - lndependenl'L'iving Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV I2-055 I SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 13 of 72 Page ID #:349

1 units were not in fact accessible, or that accessible units did not

2 exist.

3

29. During the time period relevant to the instant

4 Complaint, CALIF's Housing Advocate personally inspected at

5 least three buildings constructed with funds granted by or through

6 the Government Defendants that boasted that they had accessible

7 units. Barriers discovered at these properties, both in common

8 areas and within the advertised "accessible" units, included

9 doorways that were too narrow to accommodate wheelchairs, and

10 bathrooms and kitchens that lacked accessible features and

II required clearances. When these barriers have been discovered,

12 CALIF has spent its scarce time and resources counseling

13 frustrated and aggrieved home seekers, and educating housing

14 providers regarding their noncompliance with the law and the

15 housing rights of people with disabilities.

16

30. A substantial majority of CALIF's clients, employees,

17 and community advisory board ("constituents") are people with

18 disabilities, or family of persons with disabilities, who have been

19 harmed and continue to be harmed because the Government

20 Defendants have failed and continue to fail to ensure that housing

21 funded, developed, or significantly assisted by the Defendants as

22 part of their Redevelopment Housing Program is accessible to

23 people with disabilities.

24

31. Defendant City of Los Angeles, California is a

25 municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of

26 California.

27

32. At all times relevant, the City has been a public entity

28 within the meaning of Title II of the ADA.

- 13 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City oftos.Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 14 of 72 Page ID #:350

1

33. At all times relevant, the City has received federal

2 financial assistance within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.

3

34. At all times relevant, the City has received state

4 financial assistance within the meaning of California Government·

5 Code§11135.

6

35. Defendant City of Los Angeles is sued in its own

7 capacity and in its capacity as a successor housing agency. to

8 Defendant CRA, as set forth further below.

9

36. Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency of the

10 City of Los Angeles ("CRA") is a public agency authorized, until

11 February 1, 2012, by the California Community Redevelopment

12 Law to conduct redevelopment and revitalization activities using

13 public and private funds in designated areas of the City of Los

14 Angeles.

15

37. At all times relevant, the Defendant CRA has been a

16 public entity within the meaning of Title II of the ADA.

17

38. At all times relevant, the Defendant CRA has received

18 federal financial assistance within the meaning of the

19 Rehabilitation Act.

20

39. At all times relevant, the Defendant CRA has received

21 state financial assistance within the meaning of California

22 Government Code § 1113 5.

23

40. At all times relevant up until February 1, 2012, a Board

24 of Commissioners appointed by the Mayor of the City of Los

25 Angeles and confirmed by the Los Angeles City Council has

26 overseen the CRA.

27

41. Under an "Oversight Ordinance," adopted in 1991,

28 every action of the CRA up until February 1, 2012 has been

- 14 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, er al., Case No. CV 12·0551 SJO (PJW) - -,, . First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 15 of 72 Page ID #:351

1 subject to Los Angeles City Council approval. L.A. Ad. Code

2 § 8.99.01, et seq.

3

42. Pursuant to the same ordinance, the Los Angeles City

4 Attorney has served as General Counsel for the CRA. L.A. Ad.

5 Code§ 8.99.03.

6

43. On June 28, 2011, the Governor of the State of

7 California approved California Assembly Bill ABx 1 26 (20 11)

8 ("AB 26"), which was filed with the Secretary of State on June 29,

9 2011, amending California Redevelopment Law, California Health

10 and Safety Code Sections 33500, 33501, 33607.5, and 33607.7,

11 and adding Part 1.8 (commencing with Section 34161) and Part

12 1.85 (commencing with Section 34170), and adding Section 97.401

13 and 98.2 to the California Revenue and Taxation Code.

14

44. AB 26 fundamentally restructured California

15 Redevelopment Law, dissolving the existing structure of

16 redevelopment agencies and transferring to successor entities all

17 authority, rights, powers, duties and obligations previously vested

18 with the former redevelopment agencies, other than as specified.

19

45. AB 26 set up a timetable and structure for dissolving

20 redevelopment agencies and transferring their remaining

21 obligations to the successor entities. See Cal. Redevelopment

22 Assoc. v. Matosantos, 53 Cal. 4th 231, 13 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 (Dec.

23 29, 2011) (holding that ABx1 26 ('The Dissolution Act') is

24 constitutional and establishing a dissolution date of February 1,

25 2012 for all agencies.)

26

46. Pursuant to AB 26, and specifically California Health &

27 Safety Code Section 34173, and as of February 1, 2012, Defendant

28 CRA was dissolved as part of this fundamental restructuring of

- 15 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta/ v. City.:f!JLos Angeles, eta!., Case No. CV 12-055I SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 16 of 72 Page ID #:352

1 redevelopment agencies in California and certain of the CRA' s 2 functions, obligations, liabilities, and assets were transferred to 3 two successor entities, specifically a Designated Local Authority 4 called the "CRAILA Designated Local Authority," and the City of

5 Los Angeles.

6

47. Defendant CRA/LA Designated Local Authority was

7 established on or about February 1, 2012 .

. 8

48. Defendant CRA/LA Designated Local Authority is a

9 public entity formed pursuant to California Health & Safety Code

10 34173(d).

11

49. At all times relevant, the Defendant CRAILA

12 Designated Local Authority has been a public entity within the

13 meaning of Title II of the ADA.

14

50. At all times relevant, the Defendant CRAILA

15 Designated Local Authority has received federal financial

16 assistance within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.

17

51. At all times relevant, the Defendant CRA/LA

18 Designated Local Authority has received state financial assistance

19 within the meaning of California Government Code § 1113 5.

20

52. Defendant CRA/LA Designated Local Authority is a

21 successor entity to Defendant CRA, assuming statutorily specified

22 functions, assets, and liabilities of Defendant CRA as of February

23 1, 2012, as set out in AB 26.

24

53. On or about January 25,2012, Defendant City of Los

25 Angeles passed a resolution whereby it elected, pursuant to

26 California Health & Safety Code§ 34176(a), to become the

27 successor housing agency to the CRA, to receive and retain the

28 housing assets of Defendant CRA, to perform the housing

. . . - 16 - ' '·'1lidependent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta/ v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12~0551 SJO (PJWL.::,· First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 17 of 72 Page ID #:353

functions under the California Community Redevelopment Law

2 previously performed by Defendant CRA, and to accept transfer of

3 all rights, powers, duties and obligations, except as otherwise

4 provided in California Health & Safety Code Part 1.85, of

5 Defendant CRA related to its housing assets and functions. See

6 Los Angeles City Council File No. 12-0049.

7

54. AB 26, and specifically California Health & Safety

8 Code Sections 34179, et seq., requires that an oversight board

9 consisting of seven members be established to approve and/or

10 direct specified activities of the successor agency.

II

55. On or about May 2, 2012, Defendant Oversight Board

12 for CRA/LA, a Designated Local Authority, was officially

13 constituted to assume the statutorily specified functions; members

14 of Defendant Oversight Board were sworn into office; and the first

15 meeting of Defendant Oversight Board took place.

16

56. Each of the Government Defendants was the actual or

17 apparent agent, employee, manager, or representative of each of

18 the other Government Defendants. Each Government Defendant,

19 in doing the acts or omitting to act as alleged in this Complaint,

20 was acting in the course and scope of his, her, or its actual or

21 apparent authority pursuant to such agencies; or the alleged acts or

22 omissions of each Government Defendant as agent were

23 subsequently ratified and adopted by each agent as principal.

24

OWNER DEFENDANTS

25

57. Defendant 105 East "I" Street, L.P. ("105 East I") is a

26 California limited partnership that does business in California,

27 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. 105 East I

28 currently owns Don Hotel Apartments, a multi-family housing

- 17 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern CaliforniO, eHi(;·V.;JCity ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12~0551 SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 18 of 72 Page ID #:354

1 development located at 105 East I Street, Los Angeles, California.

2 Don Hotel Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

3

58. Defendant 12129 El Dorado Avenue, L.P. ("El Dorado")

4 is a California limited partnership that does business in California,

5 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. ElDorado

6 currently owns El Dorado Apartments, a multi-family housing

7 development located at 12129 E1 Dorado Avenue, Los Angeles,

8 California. El Dorado Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

9

59. Defendant 4651 Huntington, L.P. ("4651 Huntington")

10 is a California limited partnership that does business in California,

11 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. 4651

12 Huntington currently owns Vista Monterey Senior Housing, a

13 multi-family senior housing development located at 464 7

14 Huntington Drive North, Los Angeles, California. Vista Monterey

15 Senior Housing is a CRA-assisted development.

16

60. Defendant 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P. ("Bonnie

17 Brae") is a California limited partnership that does business in

18 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

19 Bonnie Brae currently owns Bonnie Brae Apartment Homes, a

20 multi-family housing development located at 501-511 South

21 Bonnie Brae Street, Los Angeles, California. Bonnie Brae

22 Apartment Homes is a CRA-assisted development.

23

61. Defendant 901 South Broadway Street Limited

24 Partnership ("90 1 South Broadway") is a California limited

25 partnership that does business in California, including in the City

26 and County of Los Angeles. 90 1 South Broadway currently owns

27 Broadway Plaza Apartments, a multi-family housing development

28

- 18 - Independent

Living

Center

ofSouJhern

California, et al v. City First Amended

ofLos Angeles, Complaint

et

al.,

Case

No.

CV

12-0551

SJq_(fJW) · ·

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 19 of 72 Page ID #:355

1 located at 901 South Broadway Street, Los Angeles, California.

2 Broadway Plaza Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

3

62. Defendant Adams 935, L.P. ("Adams 935") is a

4 California limited partnership that does business in California,

5 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Adams 93 5

6 currently owns Adams and Central, a multi-family housing

7 development located at 1011 Adams Boulevard, Los Angeles,

8 California. Adams and Central is a CRA-assisted development.

9

63. Defendant Am cal Montecito Fund, L.P. ("Amcal") is a

10 California limited partnership that does business in California,

11 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Am cal currently

12 owns Montecito Terraces, a multi-family housing development

13 located at 14653-61 and 14726-28 Blythe Street, Los Angeles,

14 California. Montecito Terraces is a CRA-assisted development.

15

64. Defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership

16 ("Amistad") is a California limited partnership that does business

17 in California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

18 Amistad currently owns Amistad Plaza, a multi-family housing

19 development located at 6050-6130 South Western Avenue, Los

20 Angeles, California. Amistad Plaza is a CRA-assisted

21 development.

22

65. Defendant Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P.

23 ("Andalucia") is a California limited partnership that does

24 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

25 Angeles. Andalucia currently owns Andalucia Senior Apartments,

26 a multi-family senior housing development located at 15305

27 Lanark Street, Los Angeles, California. Andalucia Senior

28 Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

- 19 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern CalifOint"d,:_i!t iii v. City OfLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-055I SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 20 of 72 Page ID #:356

I

66. Defendant Ardmore 959 Partners, L.P. ("Ardmore 959")

2 is a California limited partnership that does business in California,

3 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Ardmore 959 4 currently owns The Ardmore, a multi-family housing development

5 located at 959 South Ardmore Avenue, Los Angeles, California.

6 The Ardmore is a CRA-assisted development.

7

67. Defendant Asturias Senior Apartments, L.P.

8 ("Asturias") is a California limited partnership that does business

9 in California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

10 Asturias currently owns Asturias Senior Apartments, a multi-

! I family senior housing development located at 9628 Van Nuys

12 Boulevard,Los Angeles, California. Asturias Senior Apartments

13 is a CRA-assisted development.

14

68. Defendant B S Broadway Village II, L.P. ("B S

15 Broadway II") is a California limited partnership that does

16 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

17 Angeles. B S Broadway II currently owns Broadway Village II, a

18 multi-family housing development located at 5101 South

19 Broadway, Los Angeles, California. Broadway Village II is a

20 CRA-assisted development.

21

69. Defendant Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P.

22 ("Buckingham") is a California limited partnership that does

23 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

24 Angeles. Buckingham currently owns Buckingham Place Senior

25 Housing, a multi-family senior housing development located at

26 4020 Buckingham Road, Los Angeles, California. Buckingham

27 Place Senior Housing is a CRA-assisted development.

28
- 20 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV !2-066J~SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 21 of 72 Page ID #:357

I

70. Defendant Cantabria Senior Apartments, L.P.

2 ("Cantabria") is a California limited partnership that does business

3 in California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

4 Cantabria currently owns Cantabria Senior Citizen Apartments, a

5 multi-family senior housing development located at 9640 Van

6 Nuys Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Cantabria Senior

7 Citizen Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

8

71. Defendant Carondelet Court Partners, L.P.

9 ("Carondelet") is a California limited partnership that does

10 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

II Angeles. Carondelet currently owns Carondelet Court Apartments,

12 a multi-family housing development located at 816 South

13 Carondelet Street, Los Angeles, California. Carondelet Court

14 Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

15

72. Defendant Central Village Apartments, L.P. ("Central

16 Village") is a California limited partnership that does business in

17 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

18 Central Village currently owns Central Village Apartments, a

19 multi-family housing development located at 2000 South Central

20 Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Central Village Apartments is a

21 CRA-assisted development.

22

73. Defendant Decro Orion Apartments, L.P. ("Decro

23 Orion") is a California limited partnership that does business in

24 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

25 Decro Orion currently owns Orion Garden Apartments (aka Decro

26 Orion), a multi-family housing development located at 8947-8955

27 North Orion Street, Los Angeles, California. Orion Garden

28 Apartments (aka Decro Orion) is a CRA-assisted development.

- 21 -
Independent Living Center ofSoutherit"-C:afijOi'iiia, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV /2-0551 SJO (PJW)

,-,:,.,

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 22 of 72 Page ID #:358

1

74. Defendant Decro Osborne Apartments, L.P. ("Decro

2 Osborne") is a California limited partnership that does business in

3 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

4 Decro Osborne currently owns Decro Osborne Apartments (aka 5 Osborne Family), a multi-family housing development located at

6 12360 Osborne Street, Los Angeles, California. Decro Osborne

7 Apartments (aka Osborne Family) is a CRA-assisted development.

8

75. Defendant East LA Community Corporation ("ELACC")

9 is a California corporation that does business in California,

10 including in the City and Coun-..t~ y of Los Angeles. ELACC 11 currently owns Boyle Hotel Apartments, a multi-family housing
12 development located at 101 North Boyle Avenue, Los Angeles,

13 California, and Paseo Del Sol, another multi-family housing

14 development located at 417 North Soto Street, Los Angeles,

15 California. Boyle Hotel Apartments and Paseo Del Sol are both

16 CRA-assisted developments.

17

76. Defendant Eastside Village, L.P. ("Eastside Village") is

18 a California limited partnership that does business in California,

19 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Eastside Village

20 currently owns Eastside Village (Lillian Mobley), a multi-family

21 housing development located at 2250 East 111 th Street, Los

22 Angeles, California. Eastside Village (Lillian Mobley) is a eRA-

23 assisted development.

24

77. Defendant Esperanza Community Housing Corporation

25 ("Esperanza") is a California corporation that does business in

26 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles. 27 Esperanza currently owns La Estrella Apartments, a multi-family

28 housing development located at 1979 Estrella Avenue, Los

- 22-

..

.· _:-~;c.

Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta! v. City ofLos Angeles, eta!., Case No. Cf-'1:2~0551 SJO (PJW)

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 23 of 72 Page ID #:359

Angeles, California. La Estrella Apartments is a CRA-assisted

2 development.

3

78. Defendant Eugene Hotel, L.P. ("Eugene") is a

4 California limited partnership that does business in California,

5 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Eugene

6 currently owns Eugene Hotel, a multi-family housing development

7 located at 560 South Stanford Street, Los Angeles, California.

8 Eugene Hotel is a CRA-assisted development.

9

79. Defendant Fame West 25th Street, L.P. ("Fame West") is

10 a California limited partnership that does business in California,

11 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Fame West

12 currently owns FAME West 25th (aka FAME-Western), a multi-

13 family housing development located at 1940 West 25th Street, Los 14 Angeles, California. FAME West 25th (aka FAME-Western) is a

15 CRA-assisted development.

16

80. Defendant Far East Building, L.P. ("Far East") is a

17 California limited partnership that does business in California,

18 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Far East

19 currently owns Far East Building, a multi-family housing

20 development located at 347-353 East First Street, Los Angeles,

21 California. Far East Building is a CRA-assisted development.

22

81. Defendant Grandview Nine, L.P. ("Grandview") is a

23 California limited partnership that does business in California,

24 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Grandview

25 currently owns Grandview 9, a multi-family housing development

26 located at 916-920 South Park View Street, Los Angeles,

27 California. Grandview 9 is a CRA-assisted development.

28
- 23 - Independent Living Center ofSoUthiin·California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/., Case No. CV 12·0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 24 of 72 Page ID #:360

1

82. Defendant Hart Village, L.P. ("Hart") is a California

2 limited partnership that does business in California, including in

3 the City and County of Los Angeles. Hart currently owns Hart

4 Village, a multi-family housing development located at 6927-41

5 Owensmouth Avenue/21702-12 Hart Street, Los Angeles,

6 California. Hart Village is a CRA-assisted development.

7

83. Defendant Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P.

8 ("Heavenly Vision") is a California limited partnership that does

9 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

10 Angeles. Heavenly Vision currently owns Heavenly Vision

11 Seniors, a multi-family senior housing development located at

12 9400 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California. Heavenly Vision

13 Seniors is a CRA-assisted development.

14

84. Defendant Hobart Heights Partners, L.P. ("Hobart") is a

15 California limited partnership that does business in California,

16 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Hobart currently

17 owns The Hobart, a multi-family housing development located at

18 924 South Hobart Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. The Hobart

19 is a CRA-assisted development.

20

85. Defendant Hoover Seniors, L.P. ("Hoover") is a

21 California limited partnership that does business in California,

22 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Hoover

23 currently owns Hoover Senior, a multi-family senior housing

24 development located at 6200-6214 South Hoover Street, Los

25 Angeles, California. Hoover Senior is a CRA-assisted

26 development.

27

86. Defendant Imani Fe, LP ("Imani Fe") is a California

28 limited partnership that does business in California, including in

.' ~

- 24 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta! v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/., Case No, CV 12~055 I SJO (PJW)

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 25 of 72 Page ID #:361

the City and County of Los Angeles. Imani Fe currently owns 2 Imani Fe (East and West), a multi-family housing development 3 located at 10345 and 10408-10424 South Central Avenue, Los 4 Angeles, California. Imani Fe (East and West) is a CRA-assisted

5 development.

6

87. Defendant Korean Family Housing Corporation

7 ("Korean Family Housing") is a California corporation that does

8 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

9 Angeles. Korean Family Housing currently owns Pleasant Hill

10 Homes, a multi-family housing development located at 1315

11 Pleasant Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Pleasant Hill Homes is

12 a CRA-assisted development.

13

88. Defendant Las Margaritas, L.P. is a California limited

14 partnership that does business in California, including in the City

15 and County of Los Angeles. Las Margaritas, L.P. currently owns

16 Las Margaritas, a multi-family housing development located at 115

17 and 137 North Soto Street and 319 North Cummings Street, Los

18 Angeles, California. Las Margaritas is a CRA-assisted

19 development.

20

89. Defendant Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc.

21 ("L.A. Housing Partnership") is a California corporation that does

22 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

23 Angeles. L.A. Housing Partnership currently owns Bronson Court,

24 a multi-family housing development located at 1227-39 North

25 Bronson Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Bronson Court is a

26 CRA-assisted development.

27

90. Defendant Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P. ("LCV") is a

28 California limited partnership that does business in California,

- 25 - Independent Living Center ofSoUthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 26 of 72 Page ID #:362

I including in the City and County of Los Angeles. LCV currently 2 owns Cuatro Vientos, a multi-family housing development located 3 at 5331 East Huntington Drive, Los Angeles, California. Cuatro

4 Vientos is a CRA-assisted development.

5

91. Defendant Menlo Park, A California Limited

6 Partnership ("Menlo Park") is a California limited partnership that

7 does business in California, including in the City and County of

8 Los Angeles. Menlo Park currently owns Menlo Park Apartments,

9 a multi-family housing development located at 831 West 70th 10 Street, Los Angeles, California. Menlo Park Apartments is a

11 CRA-assisted development.

12

92. Defendant Morgan Place, L.P. ("Morgan") is a

13 California limited partnership that does business in California,

14 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Morgan

15 currently owns Morgan Place Senior Apartments, a multi-family

16 senior housing development located at 7301-15 South Crenshaw

17 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Morgan Place Senior

18 Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

19

93. Defendant New Genesis Apartments, L.P. ("New

20 Genesis") is a California limited partnership that does business in

21 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles. New

22 Genesis currently owns NewGenesis Apartments, a multi-family

23 housing development located at 452-458 South Main Street, Los

24 Angeles, California. New Genesis Apartments is a CRA-assisted

25 development.

26

94. Defendant New Tierra del Sol, L.P. ("New Tierra") is a

27 California limited partnership that does business in California,

28 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. New Tierra

-:>.lc!'

- 26 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., -c_q§..e No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 27 of 72 Page ID #:363

1 currently owns Tierra del Sol, a multi-family housing development 2 located at 7500 Alabama Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Tierra

3 del Sol is a CRA-assisted development.

4

95. Defendant NoHo Senior Villas, L.P. ("NoHo Senior") is

5 a California limited partnership that does business in California,

6 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. NoHo Senior

7 currently owns N oRo Senior Villas, a multi-family housing

8 development located at 5526-5532 Klump Avenue, Los Angeles,

9 California. NoHo Senior Villas is a CRA-assisted development.

10

96. Defendant 01 Hope, L.P. ("01 Hope") is a California

11 limited partnership that does business in California, including in

12 the City and County of Los Angeles. 01 Hope currently owns

13 Hope Manor, a multi-family housing development located at 1031

14 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, California. Hope Manor is a

15 CRA-assisted development.

16

97. Defendant P G Housing Partners, L.P. ("P G Housing")

17 is a California limited partnership that does business in California,

18 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. P G Housing

19 currently owns Pico/Gramercy, a multi-family housing

20 development located at 3201 West Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles,

21 California. Pico/Gramercy is a CRA-assisted development.

22

98. Defendant Palm Village Senior Housing Corp. ("Palm

23 Village") is a California corporation that does business in

24 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Palm

25 Village currently owns Palm Village Senior Citizens, a multi-

26 family senior housing development located at 9040 Laurel Canyon

27 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Palm Village Senior Citizens

28 is a CRA-assisted development.

- 27 - Independent Living

Ceilte'r

ofSouthern

California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, First Amended Complaint

er

al.,

Case

No.

CV

12-0551

SJO

(P JW)

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 28 of 72 Page ID #:364

I

99. Defendant Palomar Apartments, L.P. ("Palomar") is a

2 California limited partnership that does business in California,

3 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Palomar

4 currently owns Palomar Apartments, a multi-family housing

5 development located at 54 73 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los

6 Angeles, California. Palomar Apartments is a CRA-assisted

7 development.

8

100. Defendant Penny Lane Centers ("Penny Lane") is a

9 California corporation that does business in California, including

10 in the City and County of Los Angeles. Penny Lane currently

11 owns Columbus Permanent Housing, a multi-family housing

12 development located at 8900-06 Columbus Avenue, Los Angeles,

13 California. Columbus Permanent Housing is a CRA-assisted

14 development.

15

101. Defendant Rampart Apartments, A California Limited

16 Partnership ("Rampart") is a California limited partnership that

17 does business in California, including in the City and County of

18 Los Angeles. Rampart currently owns Casa Rampart, a multi-

19 family housing development located at 401 and 512 South Rampart

20 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Casa Rampart is a CRA-

21 assisted development.

22

102. Defendant Redrock NoHo Residential, LLC ("Redrock

23 NoHo") is a Delaware limited liability company that does business

24 in California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

25 Redrock NoHo currently owns Lofts@ NoHo Commons ("Lofts"),

26 a multi-family housing development located at 11136 Chandler

27 Boulevard, North Hollywood, California. Lofts is a CRA-assisted

28 development.

···r;.:.<.:

- 28 - Independent Living

Center

ofSouJhern

California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, First Amended Complaint

etp./.,

Case

No.

CV

12-0551

SJO

(P JW)

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 29 of 72 Page ID #:365

I

103. Defendant Renato Apartments, L.P. ("Renato") is a

2 California limited partnership that does business in California,

3 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Renato

4 currently owns Renato Apartments, a multi-family housing

5 development located at 527-531 South San Julian, Los Angeles,

6 California. Renato Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

7

104. Defendant Rittenhouse Limited Partnership

8 ("Rittenhouse LP") is a California limited partnership that does

9 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

10 Angeles. Rittenhouse LP currently owns Rittenhouse, a multi-

! I family housing development located at 1100 East 3 3'd Street, Los

12 Angeles, California. Rittenhouse is a CRA-assisted development.

13

105. Defendant Selma-Hudson Community Limited

14 Partnership ("Selma-Hudson") is a California limited partnership

15 that does business in California, including in the City and County

16 of Los Angeles. Selma-Hudson currently owns Casa Verde, a

17 multi-family housing development located at 1552 Schrader

18 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Selma-Hudson is a CRA-

19 assisted development.

20

106. Defendant Seven Maples, L.P. ("Seven Maples") is a

21 California limited partnership that does business in California,

22 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Seven Maples

23 currently owns Seven Maples Senior Apartments, a multi-family

24 senior housing development located at 2618-30 West 7th Street,

25 Los Angeles, California. Seven Maples Senior Apartments is a

26 CRA-assisted development.

27

107. Defendant SF No Ho LLC ("SF No Ho") is a California

28 limited liability company that does business in California,

- 29 - Independent LiVing Center ofSouthern California, eta! v. City ofLos Angeles, et a!., Case No. CV I2-0551 SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 30 of 72 Page ID #:366

1 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. SF No Ho

2 currently owns Gallery @ NoHo Commons ("Gallery"), a multi-

3 family housing development located at 5416 Fair Avenue, Los

4 Angeles, California. Gallery is a CRA-assisted development.

5

108. Defendant Sherman Village Apartments, L.P.

6 ("Sherman Village") is a California limited partnership that does

7 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

8 Angeles. Sherman Village currently owns Sherman Village

9 Apartments, a multi-family housing development located at 18900

10 Sherman Way, Los Angeles, California. Sherman Village

11 Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

12

109. Defendant Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P.

13 ("Sherman Way") is a California limited partnership that does

14 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

15 Angeles. Sherman Way currently owns Three Courtyards

16 Apartments (aka Ivy Terrace), a multi-family housing development

17 located at 13751 Sherman Way, Los Angeles, California. Three

18 Courtyards (aka Ivy Terrace) is a CRA-assisted development.

19

110. Defendant Stovall Housing Corporation ("Stovall

20 Housing") is a California corporation that does business in

21 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

22 Stovall Housing currently owns Stovall Villa, a multi-family

23 housing development located at 53 5 West 41 51 Street, Los Angeles,

24 California. Stovall Villa is a CRA-assisted development.

25

Ill. Defendant Vermont Seniors is a California corporation

26 that does business in California, including in the City and County

27 of Los Angeles. Vermont Seniors currently owns Vermont Seniors

28 (I and II), a multi-family senior housing development located at

- 30 -
Independent Living Center ofSoUlhern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., ·case No. CV 12~0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 31 of 72 Page ID #:367

1 3901-3925 South Vermont Avenue/1015 West 391h Place, Los 2 Angeles, California. Vermont Seniors (I and II) is a CRA-assisted

3 development.

4

112. Defendant WA Court, L.P. ("WA Court") is a California

5 limited partnership that does business in California, including in

6 the City and County of Los Angeles. WA Court currently owns

7 Washington Court Family Housing, a multi-family housing

8 development located at 1717 East 103rd Street, Los Angeles,

9 California. Washington Court Family Housing is a CRA-assisted

10 development.

11

113. Defendant Watts/Athens Preservation XVII, L.P.

12 ("Watts/Athens") is a California limited partnership that does

13 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

14 Angeles. Watts/Athens currently owns Terre One Apartments, a

15 multi-family housing development located at 5270 South Avalon

16 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Terre One Apartments is a

17 CRA-assisted development.

18

114. Defendant West Angeles Villas, L.P. ("WAV") is a

19 California limited partnership that does business in California,

20 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. WAV currently

21 owns West Angeles Villas, a multi-family housing development

22 located at 6030 Crenshaw Boulevard, Los Angeles, California.

23 West Angeles Villas is a CRA-assisted development.

24

115. Defendant Western/Carlton II, L.P. ("Western/Carlton")

25 is a California limited partnership that does. business in California,

26 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Western/Carlton

27 currently owns Metro Hollywood Apartments (aka Hollywood

28 Western Apartments/Western-Carlton Phase II) ("Metro

- 31 - Independent-Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV I2-055 I SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 32 of 72 Page ID #:368

1 Hollywood"), a multi-family housing development located at 1672 2 N. Western Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Metro Hollywood is

3 a CRA-assisted development.

4

116. Defendant Yale Terrace Apartments, A California

5 Limited Partnership ("Yale Terrace") is a California limited

6 partnership that does business in California, including in the City

7 and County of Los Angeles. Yale Terrace currently owns Yale

8 Terrace Apartments, a multi-family housing development located

9 at 716-734 South Yale Street, Los Angeles, California. Yale

10 Terrace Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

11

STATUTORYAND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

12 I. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

13

117. The purpose of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is to

14 "maximize employment, economic self-sufficiency, independence,

15 and inclusion and integration into society" of people with

16 disabilities. 29 U.S.C. §701(b)(1). The Rehabilitation Act is based

17 on findings that "individuals with disabilities continually

18 encounter various forms of discrimination in such critical areas as

19 ... housing" and that "the goals of the Nation properly include the

20 goal of providing individuals with disabilities with the tools

21 necessary to ... achieve equality of opportunity, full inclusion

22. and integration in society, employment, independent living, and

23 economic and social self-sufficiency." 29 U.S.C. §701(a)(5) and

24 (6)(B).

25

118. All entities receiving federal financial assistance must

26 comply with the anti-discrimination provisions of Section 504 of

27 the Rehabilitation Act. 29 U.S.C. §794(a). "No otherwise qualified

28 individual with a disability ... shall, solely by reason of his or

- 32 - lndependenl Living Center ofSouthern California, eta! v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 33 of 72 Page ID #:369

her disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the 2 benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or 3 activity receiving Federal financial assistance ..." 29 U.S.C. §

4 794.

5

119. Section 504 requires covered entities to provide people

6 with disabilities meaningful access to programs, services, and

7 activities. Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985). The

8 meaningful access requirement applies across the board to all of a

9 covered entity's programs, services, and activities, regardless of

10 whether a particular program, service, or activity itself has direct

11 federal funding.

12

120. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

13 ("HUD") Regulations implementing Section 504 provide that "[a]

14 recipient, in providing any housing, aid, benefit, or service in a

15 program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance from

16 the Department [of Housing & Urban Development] may not,

17 directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements,

18 solely on the basis of handicap: ... Aid or perpetuate

19 discrimination against a qualified individual with handicaps by

20 providing significant assistance to an agency, organization, or

21 person that discriminates on the basis of handicap in providing any

22 housing, aid, benefit, or service to beneficiaries in the recipient's

23 federally assisted program or activity"; [or] "Otherwise limit a

24 qualified individual with handicaps in the enjoyment of any right,

25 privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by other qualified

26 individuals receiving the housing, aid, benefit, or service." 24

27 C.F.R. § 8.4(b)(l).

28
- 33 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) ·· "/ _ First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 34 of 72 Page ID #:370

1

121. The HUD regulations implementing Section 504 also

2 require that "[i]n any program or activity receiving Federal

3 financial assistance from the Department, a recipient may not,

4 directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize

5 criteria or methods of administration the purpose or effect of

6 which would: (i) Subject qualified individuals with handicaps to

7 discrimination solely on the basis of handicap; (ii) Defeat or

8 substantially impair the accomplishment of the objectives of the

9 recipient's federally assisted program or activity for qualified

10 individuals with a particular handicap involved in the program or 11 activity, unless the recipient can demonstrate that the criteria or

12 methods of administration are manifestly related to the

13 accomplishment of an objective of a program or activity; or (iii)

14 Perpetuate the discrimination of another recipient if both

15 recipients are subject to common administrative control or are

16 agencies ofthe same State." 24 C.F.R. § 8.4(b)(4).

17

122. In addition to general program requirements, HUD

18 Section 504 regulations also describe specific architectural and

19 other requirements that apply to particular housing projects or

20 units receiving federal financial assistance.

21

123. For example, five percent of the total dweliing units in

22 new multifamily housing projects receiving federal f1nancial

23 assistance must meet the requirements set forth in the Uniform

24 Federal Accessibility Standards ("UFAS") for accessibility for

25 people with mobility impairments, and an additional two percent 26 must be accessible per UFAS requirements for people with hearing

27 or vision impairments. 24 C.P.R. §8.22(a) and (b).

28 - 34 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. qty,pfLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SID (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 35 of 72 Page ID #:371

1

124. Multifamily housing projects receiving federal financial

2 assistance must take steps to ensure that accessible dwelling units

3 in those projects are occupied by people who need the accessibility

4 features of those units, including offering available units first to

5 people who need the accessibility features and taking steps to

6 assure that advertising and other information regarding the

7 availability of accessible units reaches people with disabilities. 24

8 C.F.R. §8.27.

9

125. Accessible units must also be distributed throughout

10 housing projects and sites to the maximum extent feasible and be

11 available in a range of sizes and amenities so that a person with a

12 disability's choice of living arrangements is comparable to that of

13 others.

14

126. The regulations regarding these specific requirements

15 provide important guidance regarding what steps may be necessary

16 to ensure that people with physical disabilities have meaningful

17 access to a housing program, and the Court may accept them as

18 authoritative interpretations of the statute by the agency charged

19 with enforcement.

20 II. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

21

127. The Americans with Disabilities Act, which is modeled

22 on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, was enacted "to provide

23 a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of

24 discrimination against individuals with disabilities" with "clear,

25 strong, consistent, enforceable standards ... in order to address

26 the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with

27 disabilities." 42 U.S.C. §12101(b).

28

•

.
-

'·''4'.ndependent Living Center

ofSouthern

California,

-
eta! v.

3 5
City

-
ofLos

Angeles,

First Amended Complaint

et al.,

Case

No.

CV

12-0551

SJO

(P:J}f} -·

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 36 of 72 Page ID #:372

I

128. All public entities, including state and local

2 governments and their departments, agencies, and

3 instrumentalities, must comply with Title II of the Americans with

4 Disabilities Act.

5

129. Title II of the ADA provides that "no qualified

6 individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be

7 excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the

8 services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected

9 to discrimination by such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

10

130. Like Section 504, Title II of the ADA requires covered

11 entities to provide people with disabilities meaningful access to

12 programs, services, and activities. Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F .3d

13 1480 (9th Cir. 1996). The meaningful access requirement applies

·14 across the board to all of a covered entity's programs, services,

15 and activities, regardless of whether a particular program, service,

16 or activity itself has direct federal funding.

17

131. U.S. Department of Justice Regulations implementing

18 Title II of the ADA clarify that "[a] public entity, in providing any

19 aid, benefit or service, may not, directly or through contractual,

20 licensing or other arrangements, on the basis of disability ....

21 [a]id or perpetuate discrimination against a qualified individual

22 with a disability by providing significant assistance to an agency,

23 organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of disability

24 in providing any aid, benefit, or service to beneficiaries of the

25 public entity's program;" [or] "Otherwise limit a qualified

26 individual with a disability in the enjoyment of any right,

27 privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving

28 the aid, benefit, or service." 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1).

Independent

Living

Center

ofSouthern

California,

·er

-
al_.y.

36
City

-
ofLos

Angeles,

et

al.,

Case

No.

CV

12-0551

SJO

(P JW)

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 37 of 72 Page ID #:373

1

132. Department of Justice Regulations implementing Title

2 II also clarify that "[a] public entity may not, directly or through

3 contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of

4 administration: (i) That have the effect of subjecting qualified

5 individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of

6 disability; (ii) That have the purpose or effect of defeating or

7 substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the

8 public entity's program with respect to individuals with

9 disabilities; or (iii) That perpetuate the discrimination of another

10 public entity if both public entities are subject to common

11 administrative control ... " 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3).

12 III. The Fair Housing Act

13

133. In 1988, Congress amended the Fair Housing Act to

14 include a number of provisions prohibiting discrimination on the 15 basis of disability, as part of a comprehensive revision of the law .1

16 In considering those amendments, Congress stressed that

17 enforcement of civil rights laws is necessary to protect people with

18 disabilities from the "devastating" impact of housing 19 discrimination, including both architectural and attitudinal barriers

20 to full participation by people with disabilities

21

134. The debates and legislative history of the Fair Housing

22 Amendments Act of 1988 reflect Congressional findings that a

23 person using a wheelchair or other mobility aid is just as

24 25 26 27

S'"viAlnadeemTnseirtsbgheeaBaeunabtraddiFiagmmlagoei tidefyr"onotf"HfthnrsoetiohnvmAu.teetscAhtirFthnmebHogebAfA"odAmd1tAetmi9f,e,si8eran5ti8nbhic2"tdiia4i)slmoni. tUnsCeyEn.o.wSo"txm.sfictBph'6eAholp2aacDt4thint,niwds(tt6"ahei3ucFbre1msaHinelpsiA(sr't1eihAtce9fhaose9"evrn)8Aertt)iuaecntis(rhtgnnmeeiesotsdots"tidahdnitrmenighaseewatttehhbnslreeaitmlagtaFitaltdu"amylehti,oromf"airsnHneywtdaiothiniucioicsannihpgn".ogisf

28 more generally accepted.

- 37 - Independent living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SlO;(PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 38 of 72 Page ID #:374

I effectively excluded from the opportunity to live in a particular 2 dwelling by steps or thresholds at building or unit entrances and 3 by too narrow doorways as by a posted sign saying "No

4 Handicapped People Allowed."

5

135. As relevant in this litigation, the Fair Housing Act

6 prohibits both intentional discrimination on the basis of disability

7 and many neutral policies and practices that have a

8 disproportionate adverse impact on people with disabilities. 42

9 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(l) and 3604(f)(2).

10 IV. Section 11135 of the California Government Code

11

136. All entities receiving financial assistance from the State

12 of California must comply with Section 1113 5 of the California

13 Government Code, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of

14 disability. Section 1113 5 incorporates the definitions of

15 discrimination contained in the ADA and its implementing

16 regulations such that a violation of the ADA is also a violation of

17 §11135. California Government Code§ 11135(b).

18

FACTS

19 I. Lack of Affordable, Accessible Housing in Los Angeles

20

13 7. In order to obtain federal housing and community

21 development funds, the City submits a Consolidated Plan to HUD

22 every five years describing the housing market and housing needs

23 within Los Angeles.

24

138. According to the 2008~2013 Consolidated Plan, Los

25 Angeles is home to large numbers of people with disabilities. In

26 2000, 20.4% of the population of Los Angeles five years old and

27 older had a disability. 2008-2013 Consolidated Plan at 176.

28 Almost 45% of the population of Los Angeles 65 years old and

- 3 8 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern Calijoi-iiiti,- et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 39 of 72 Page ID #:375

1 older had a disability in 2000. !d. Nearly one-quarter of disabled 2 adults and two-thirds of adults over the age of 65 have physical 3 limitations. !d. at 93. In addition, 24% of the people with 4 disabilities living in Los Angeles have vision or hearing

5 limitations. !d.

6

139. The City states in the Consolidated Plan that people

7 with physical limitations require accessible housing and that there

8 is an acute need for accessible housing in Los Angeles. The City

9 found that "[f]inding affordable, accessible units is a challenge" in

10 the City of Los Angeles. !d. at 94.

11

140. The City states that "there are hundreds of thousands of

12 individuals, and families, in Los Angeles, who require accessible,

13 affordable housing and do not have it." !d. at 180.

14

141. The City's Housing Element of its General Plan is the

15 City's "blueprint" for meeting the housing requirements of its

16 residents and "identifies the City's housing conditions and needs."

17 City of Los Angeles Housing Element 2006-2014 at 1. This

18 Housing Element was adopted pursuant to California laws

19 requiring that the City adopt a General Plan Housing Element with

20 certain specified information. California Government Code

21 §§ 65300, et seq.)

22

142. In its Housing Element, the City recognizes that people

23 "with physical disabilities need affordable, conveniently-located

24 housing which has been specially adapted for wheelchair

25 accessibility, along with other physical needs." City of Los

26 Angeles Housing Element 2006-2014 at 1-16.

27

28 - 39 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Crue No. CVJ2~056ISJ0 (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 40 of 72 Page ID #:376

I

143. The City acknowledges that older, more affordable

2 housing units in the City "are not accessible to those with

3 disabilities." !d.

4

144. The City reports that "[o]ver one-half of all disabled

5 adults in the City have 'going-outside-home' or other employment

6 limitations which affect the ability to work and earn an income."

7 !d. at 1-14.

8

145. As a result, people with disabilities "face unique

9 problems in obtaining affordable and adequate housing" in Los

10 Angeles. !d.

11 II. Federal and State Financial Assistance to the City and the
CRA
12

13

146. Since at least 1974, the City has received federal

14 housing and community development funds from HUD, as well as

IS federal funds from other federal agencies.

16

147. The City has received federal funds under the

17 Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") program.

18

148. The City has received federal funds under the HOME

19 Investment Partnership ("HOME") program.

20

149. The City has received federal funds under the

21 Emergency Shelter Grant ("ESG") program.

22

150. The City has received federal funds under the Housing

23 Opportunities for People with AIDS ("HOPW A") program.

24

15 1. The City has also benefitted from the proceeds of

25 federal loan guarantees pursuant to Section 108 of the Community

26 Development Act. 42 U.S.C. § 5308.

27

152. The City has directed millions of dollars in CDBG and

28 HOME funds as well as state, local, and private resources to an

Independent

Living

Center

oJSouJh.em

Clzlijc/rnia,

-
ei'al v.

40
City

-
ofLos

Angeles,

et

al.,

Case

No.

CV

12-0551

SJO

(P JW)

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 41 of 72 Page ID #:377
Affordable Housing Trust Fund for the purposes of developing affordable housing.
15 3. By virtue of this commingling with federal funds, the anti-discrimination requirements of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA attach to all funds in the Trust Fund.
154. As part of its affordable housing program, the City has directed hundreds of millions of dollars in CDBG, HOME, Affordable Housing Trust Funds, state, and other funds to the Redevelopment Defendants.
155. The City has also received funds from the State of California.
156. The Redevelopment Defendants have received millions of dollars in federal housing and community development funds, as well as federal funds from other federal agencies.
157. The Redevelopment Defendants have also received funds from the State of California. III. Government Defendants' Redevelopment Housing
Program
15 8. The Redevelopment Defendants used these funds and others directly to acquire property eventually developed into housing and/or allocated these and other funds to developers to acquire property, finance, operate, build or substantially alter tens of thousands of houstng units.
15 9. The Redevelopment Defendants also used other financing, regulatory, contractual, and governmental methods to support their housing programs and to provide significant assistance to developers, owners, and operators of housing.
- 41 - !ndepende/11 Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/., Case No. ·ef( 12-0551 'SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 42 of 72 Page ID #:378

I

160. Pursuant to a staff report presented to the Local

2 Authority at an April 19, 2012 Special Meeting, entitled "Report

3 to the Governing Board on Status of Housing Functions and

4 Transfer of Housing Assets, Functions, and Obligations to the Los

5 Angeles Housing Department (LAHD)" ("April 19, 2012 Housing

6 Report"), there were over 29,000 units of housing, including

7 23,000 affordable units, in the Redevelopment Defendants'

8 portfolio as of April 19, 2012.

9

161. Pursuant to the April 19, 2012 Housing Report, as of

10 April 19, 2012, there were nearly 4,500 additional units in the

11 Redevelopment Defendants' development "pipeline," i.e.

12 somewhere in the process of development.

13

162. There were thousands of additional units funded,

14 developed or significantly assisted by the Redevelopment

15 Defendants that are no longer in its existing portfolio.

16

163. All of these units were constructed as part of the

17 Government Defendants' program, service, or activity of

18 increasing the availability of housing, including affordable

19 housing, in the City of Los Angeles.

20

164. The inventory of housing built or rehabilitated with

21 funds, land, or other assistance provided by or through the

22 Redevelopment Defendants, including projects not yet completed,

23 is hereinafter referred to as the "Redevelopment Housing

24 Program."

25

26

27

28
- 42 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 43 of 72 Page ID #:379

I

IV.

Defendants' Uisabihties

HFaavieluMreetaonmEngsfuurl eAtchcaetssPteoopthlee

with Physical CRA Housmg

2

Program

3

165. By virtue of accepting federal funds to support the

4 Redevelopment Housing Program, the Government Defendants are

5 bound to comply with the obligations of Section 504 of the

6 Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits recipients from operating

7 programs which exclude people with disabilities from participation

8 in, deny them the benefits of, or subject them to discrimination

9 under any program or activity.

10

166. As public entities, the Government Defendants are

II bound to comply with the obligations of the Americans with

12 Disabilities Act, which prohibits public entities from operating

13 programs which exclude people with disabilities from participation

14 in, deny them the benefits of, or subject them to discrimination

15 under any program or activity.

16

167. By virtue of accepting financial assistance from the

17 State of California, the Government Defendants are bound to

18 comply with the obligations of Section 1113 5 of the California

19 Government Code, which prohibits recipients from operating

20 programs which exclude people with disabilities from participation

21 in, deny them the benefits of, or subject them to discrimination

22 under any program or activity.

23

16 8. However, the Government Defendants failed, and

24 continue to fail, to take steps to ensure that the Redevelopment

25 Housing Program is accessible to people with disabilities or that

26 any accessible units that exist are made available to people with

27 disabilities.

28

·,.:,,

- 43 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case lJt?· CV 12·0551 SJO (PJW)

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 44 of 72 Page ID #:380

1

169. As a result, people with physical disabilities have been

2 and continue to be denied meaningful access to the Redevelopment

3 Housing Program.

4

170. For example, the Government Defendants failed, and

5 continue to fail, to maintain policies or practices to ensure that the

6 Redevelopment Housing Program contains sufficient units

7 accessible to people with mobility, auditory, or visual

8 impairments.

9

171. The Government Defendants failed, and continue to

10 fail, to maintain policies, practices, or procedures to ensure that

11 accessible units within the Redevelopment Housing Program are

12 made available to and utilized by people with mobility or auditory

13 or visual impairments who need the accessibility features of those

14 units.

15

172. The Government Defendants have failed, and continue

16 to fail, to maintain policies, practices, or procedures to ensure that

17 people with mobility or auditory or visual impairments otherwise

18 have meaningful access to the Redevelopment Housing Program.

19

173. At all relevant times, the Government Defendants could

20 not or would not identify for the public which projects receiving

21 financial or other benefit from the Redevelopment Defendants

22 received federal financial assistance triggering Rehabilitation Act

23 and regulatory obligations.

24

174. At all relevant times, the Government Defendants failed

25 to monitor compliance with the Rehabilitation Act accessibility

26 requirements in the Redevelopment Housing Program.

27

28
.. - 44- Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 45 of 72 Page ID #:381

·-- -~- ,: ,,-,'.

1

175. At all relevant times, the Government Defendants failed

2 to maintain a list of accessible units within the Redevelopment

3 Housing Program.

4

176. At all relevant times, the Government Defendants failed

5 to produce any list of accessible units within the Redevelopment

6 Housing Program.

7

177. At all relevant times, the Government Defendants

8 could not or would not identify for the public any wheelchair-

9 accessible or sensory-accessible units.

10

178. At all relevant times, the Government Defendants could

11 not or would not describe for the public any accessible features in

12 so-called "wheelchair units," "handicapped units," or "sensory

13 accessible units" within the Redevelopment Housing Program.

14

179. The Government Defendants have failed, and continue

15 to fail, to require that projects within the Redevelopment Housing

16 Program comply with federal accessibility requirements, which has

17 the effect of excluding people with disabilities from such

18 developments.

19

180. In addition, the Government Defendants failed to ensure

20 that contracts and regulatory agreements with developers, owners,

21 and operators of housing in the Redevelopment Housing Program

22 and other documents pertaining to the Redevelopment Housing

23 Program included accessibility requirements sufficient to comply

24 with the Government Defendants' obligations as recipients of

25 federal funds.

26

181. The Government Defendants also failed to exercise

27 oversight over developers and owners of housing in the

28 Redevelopment Housing Program in regards to their obligations to

- 45 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al.;·:_<;:ase No. CV 12-0551 S!O (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 46 of 72 Page ID #:382

1 comply and their ongoing compliance with disability access

2 provisions of federal law.

3

182. The Government Defendants' failures with regard to

4 ensuring the accessibility of the Redevelopment Housing Program

5 stand in stark contrast to their efforts to enforce other

6 requirements, such as regulatory provisions concerning

7 affordability requirements.

8

183. In addition to their failure to comply with accessibility

9 requirements for the redevelopment project as a whole, the

10 Government Defendants failed to ensure compliance with these

11 requirements in housing where the Government Defendants were

12 providing federal funding to the developer and/or owner for the

13 project.

14

184. For example, Plaintiffs are aware of at least 61

15 multifamily projects, comprising approximately 4,140 units, for

16 which the Redevelopment Defendants provided CDBG, HOME

17 and/or AHTF funds to support new construction or substantial

18 alteration. The multifamily projects include but are not limited to:

19 Don Hotel Apartments (58 units); ElDorado Apartments (60

20 units); Vista Monterey Senior Housing (48 units); Bonnie Brae

21 Apartment Homes (53 units); Broadway Plaza Apartments (82

22 units); Adams and Central (80 units); Montecito Terraces (98

23 units); Amistad Plaza (56 units); Andalucia Senior Apartments (94

24 units); The Ardmore (48 units); Asturias Senior Apartments (69

25 units); Broadway Village II (50 units); Buckingham Place Senior

26 Housing (71 units); Cantabria Senior Citizen Apartments (81

27 units); Carondelet Court Apartments (32 units); Central Village

28 Apartments (85 units); Orion Garden Apartments (aka Decro

Independent

Living

Center

ofSouthern

California,

et

-
al v.

46
City

-
ofLos

Angeles,

et

al.,

Case

No.

CV

12-0551

SJO

(PJW)

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 47 of 72 Page ID #:383

1 Orion) (32 units); Decro Osborne Apartments (aka Osborne 2 Family) (50 units); Boyle Hotel Apartments (51 units); Paseo Del 3 Sol (7 units); Eastside Village (Lillian Mobley) (78 units); La 4 Estrella Apartments (11 units); Eugene Hotel (44 units); FAME 5 West 25'h (aka FAME-Western) (12 units); Far East Building (16 6 units); Grandview 9 (62 units); Hart Village (47 units); Heavenly 7 Vision Seniors (46 units); The Hobart (49 units); Hoover Senior 8 (38 units); Imani Fe (East and West) (92 units); Pleasant Hill 9 Homes (24 units); Las Margaritas (42 units); Bronson Court (32 10 units); Cuatro Vientos (25 units); Menlo Park Apartments (48 11 units); Morgan Place Senior Apartments (55 units); New Genesis 12 Apartments (1 06 units); Tierra del Sol (119 units); NoHo Senior 13 Villas (25 units); Hope Manor (75 units); Pico/Gramercy (71 14 units); Palm Village Senior Citizens (60 units); Palomar 15 Apartments (28 units); Columbus Permanent Housing (6 units); 16 Casa Rampart (69 units); Lofts (292 units); Renato Apartments (97 17 units); Rittenhouse (100 units); Casa Verde (30 units); Seven 18 Maples Senior Apartments (57 units); Gallery (438 units); 19 Sherman Village Apartments (33 units); Three Courtyards 20 Apartments (aka Ivy Terrace) (52 units); Stovall Villa (31 units); 21 Vermont Seniors (I and II) (140 units); Washington Court Family 22 Housing (101 units); Terre One Apartments (15 units); West 23 Angeles Villas (150 units); Metro Hollywood (60 units); and Yale 24 Terrace Apartments (55 units). The number of units at each

25 project are based upon information and belief.

26

185. None of the 61 federally-funded multifamily projects

27 contains units accessible to people with mobility and/or auditory

28 or visual impairments in sufficient numbers, sizes and locations to

- 47 -

f..{

Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta! v. City ofLos AngeleS,.·f!.t.al., Case No. CV 12-055I SJO (PJW)

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 48 of 72 Page ID #:384

1 provide people with disabilities meaningful access to this program,

2 service, or activity in violation of Section 504 of the

3 Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, the Fair Housing Act, and

4 Government Code § 1113 5.

5

186. Moreover, the steps outlined in the Section 504

6 regulations to maximize the utilization of accessible dwelling units

7 by people who need the accessibility features of those units were

8 not taken.

9

187. By letter of January 11, 2012, the HUD Office of Fair

10 Housing and Equal Opportunity notified the City and the CRA of

11 the results of a compliance review, which found that "the City and

12 the CRA are not monitoring the policies and procedures of

13 federally-funded recipients in several key areas, and that the

14 policies in place are not implemented in a manner that ensures that

15 these policies and practices do not discriminate against qualified

16 individuals with disabilities because of their disability .... there

17 is no monitoring of Section 504 compliance, and ... an overall

18 lack of knowledge as to the duties and responsibilities with respect

19 to Section 504." HUD Letter of Findings of Noncompliance,

20 January 11, 2012, at 7.

21

188. HUD also "found that a large percentage of residents

22 without disabilities currently occupy the designated accessible

23 units in several HUD-funded developments," and that, with no

24 oversight from the CRA, many developments had offered

25 accessible dwelling units to the general population on a lottery or

26 wait-list basis without regard to disability or need for accessibility

27 features. Id. at 8.

28
- 48 -
Independent LYving Center ofSouthern California, et at v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 49 of 72 Page ID #:385

1

189. The City has annually certified its compliance, and the

2 compliance of its subrecipients, including CRA, with federal

3 housing and civil rights laws to HUD and other federal agencies in

4 order to ensure its continuing receipt of federal funds.

5

190. Nonetheless, and in violation of the federal and state

6 civil rights laws referenced above, the Government Defendants

7 failed, and continue to fail, to ensure that housing within the

8 Redevelopment Housing Program complies wi.th applicable law

9 and is accessible to people with disabilities. As a result, people

10 with physical disabilities who require accessible units are denied

11 meaningful access to the Redevelopment Housing Program.

12

191. The Government Defendants' policy of failing to ensure

13 that all of the housing projects within the Redevelopment Housing

14 Program-regardless of affordability status or receipt of federal

15 funds-comply with applicable regulations and are accessible to

16 people with disabilities has a different and disparate impact on

17 people with physical disabilities, who have a particular need for

18 housing with accessibility features, and has the effect of excluding

19 people with physical disabilities.

20

192. A disproportionate percentage of people with

21 disabilities in Los Angeles have low incomes because of the work

22 limitations imposed by their disabilities.

23

193. People with disabilities have a particular need for

24 accessible units because people with low income cannot afford to

25 pay for significant modifications to their housing units.

26

194. People with disabilities have a particular need for

27 affordable, accessible units because people with low income

28 cannot afford more expensive housing units.

- 49 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/., -case No. CV 12~055 I SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 50 of 72 Page ID #:386

1

195. As a result, the Government Defendants' failure to

2 ensure that affordable housing within the Redevelopment Housing

3 Program complies with applicable laws and is accessible to people

4 with disabilities has a different and disparate impact on people

5 with physical and sensory disabilities and has the effect of

6 disproportionately excluding people with physical and sensory

7 disabilities from Redevelopment Housing Program.

8 V. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

9

196. On or about January 12, 2012, Plaintiffs presented their

10 claims for money or damages under state law to the City pursuant

11 to California Government Code § 900, et seq.

12

197. By correspondence dated February 22, 2012, the City

13 denied Plaintiffs' state law tort claims for money or damages.

14

198. Plaintiffs have met any applicable requirement that they

15 exhaust administrative remedies in order to bring state law damage

16 claims against the City.

17

199. On or about January 12, 2012, Plaintiffs presented their

18 claims for money or damages under state law to the CRA pursuant

19 to California Government Code § 900, et seq.

20

200. As of the filing of this First Amended Complaint, none

21 of the Redevelopment Defendants have responded to Plaintiffs

22 regarding Plaintiffs' state law tort claims for money or damages.

23

201. Plaintiffs have met any applicable requirement that they

24 exhaust administrative remedies in order to bring state law damage

25 claims against the Redevelopment Defendants.

26

27

28

!ndependint'Living Center

ofSouthern

California,

-
eta! v.

50
City

-
o f Los

Angeles,

et

al.,

Case

No.

CV

12-0551

SJO

(P JW)

First Amended Complaint

·'~'!y-

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 51 of 72 Page ID #:387

I

INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS

2 I.
3

Injury to Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern Califorma

4

202. As a result of the actions described above, ILCSC and

5 its constituents have been directly and substantially injured.

6 These actions have frustrated Plaintiff ILCSC's mission and

7 undermined the effectiveness of the programs and services it

8 provides, including encouraging community integration of people

9 with disabilities, providing assistance to individuals and families

10 searching for housing or affected by discriminatory housing

II practices, and eliminating discriminatory housing practices.

12

203. Because the Government Defendants have not complied

13 with their obligations to ensure that their Redevelopment Housing

14 Program met accessibility requirements, and because they have

15 failed to inform the public of the existence of any accessible units,

16 ILCSC has been required to devote substantial staff time and

17 money assisting people with disabilities to locate and secure such

18 accessible housing.

19

204. As a consequence of the violations by the Government

20 Defendants described herein, ILCSC has had to divert its scarce

21 resources away from its educational and other programs focused

22 on expanding housing choice for its constituents and toward

23 efforts focused on securing compliance with federal accessibility

24 requirements in the Government Defendants' Redevelopment

25 Housing Program.

26

205. In addition, ILCSC has invested considerable time and

27 effort in educating the City, the Redevelopment Defendants, the

28 housing industry, and the general public about the importance of

Independent

Living

Center

ofSouthern

California,

-
et al v.

51
City

-
6/l:.O$ Angeles,

et al.,

Case

No.

CV

12-0551

SJO

(P JW)

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 52 of 72 Page ID #:388

1 accessible housing for people with disabilities, in an attempt to

2 secure compliance.

3

206. Each time any of the Government Defendants failed to

4 ensure that housing in the Redevelopment Housing Program was

5 accessible, it frustrated the mission of ILCSC inasmuch as it made 6 it difficult or impossible for people with disabilities to live in that

7 housing.

8

207. The Government Defendants' conduct reduced the

9 effectiveness of outreach and advocacy efforts by ILCSC and

10 required it to provide additional educational programs to

11 counteract the impression left by the Government Defendants'

12 conduct that constructing inaccessible residential housing is

13 permissible.

14

208. The Government Defendants' continuing discriminatory

15 practices have forced ILCSC to divert scarce resources to identify,

16 investigate, and counteract the Government Defendants'

17 discriminatory practices, and such practices have frustrated

18 Plaintiff's other efforts against discrimination, causing Plaintiff to

19 suffer concrete and demonstrable injuries.

20

209. ILCSC has expended resources attempting to counteract

21 the Government Defendants' discriminatory practices including,

22 but not limited to, counseling people with disabilities affected by

23 the Government Defendants' discriminatory practices and

24 conducting outreach to the City and the Redevelopment

25 Defendants about the accessibility requirements under federal law,

26 resulting in the diversion of resources that it would not have had

27 to expend were it not for the Government Defendants' violations.

28
. . - 52 - bidepilndent Living Center ofSouJhern California, et af v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO {P.!W}
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 53 of 72 Page ID #:389

1

210. Until remedied, the Government Defendants' unlawful,

2 discriminatory actions will continue to injure ILCSC by:

3

a. Interfering with efforts and programs intended to

4

bring about equality of opportunity in housing;

5

b. Requiring the commitment of scarce resources,

6

including substantial staff time and funding, to

7

investigate and counteract the Government

8

Defendants' discriminatory conduct, thus diverting

9

those resources from ILCSC's other activities and

10

services, such as education, outreach and counseling;

11

and

12

c. Frustrating the mission and purposes of ILCSC.

13 II. Injury to Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley
14

15

211. As a result of the actions described above, FHC and its

16 constituents have been directly and substantially injured. These

17 actions have frustrated Plaintiff FHC's mission and undermined

18 the effectiveness of the programs and services it provides,

19 including encouraging community integration of people with

20 disabilities, providing assistance to individuals and families

21 searching for housing or affected by discriminatory housing

22 practices, and eliminating discriminatory housing practices.

23

212. Because the Government Defendants have not complied

24 with their obligations to ensure that their Redevelopment Housing

25 Program met accessibility requirements, and because they have

26 failed to inform the public of the existence of any accessible units,

27 FHC has been required to devote substantial staff time and money

28 - 53 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v: G4Y ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV /2-0551 SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 54 of 72 Page ID #:390

I assisting people with disabilities to locate and secure such

2 accessible housing.

3

213. Between 2008 and 2011, FHC's Deputy Director

4 devoted at least one-third of her time to addressing housing

5 accessibility issues, including meetings with elected officials,

6 employees of the Government Defendants, and others to alert them

7 to the severe need for accessible affordable housing and

8 noncompliance with federal accessibility requirements in buildings

9 funded by or through the Government Defendants.

10

214. Because the Redevelopment Defendants could not or

II would not publicly identify the location of any unit in the entire

12 CRA inventory that met the accessibility requirements of the

13 Rehabilitation Act, FHC was required to expend substantial staff

14 time and scarce resources on researching the location of accessible

15 affordable housing and making that information available to its

16 constituents.

17

215. As a consequence of the violations described herein,

18 FHC has had to divert its scarce resources away from its

19 educational and other programs focused on expanding housing

20 choice for its constituents and toward efforts focused on securing

21 compliance with federal accessibility requirements in the

22 Redevelopment Housing Program.

23

216. In addition, FHC has invested considerable time and

24 effort in reporting to Government Defendants the extent of

25 noncompliance in federally-funded, CRA-assisted buildings in Los

26 Angeles, and educating the housing industry, and the general

27 public about the importance of accessible housing for people with

28 disabilities, in an attempt to secure compliance.

-54- ··.·· ··~· ''·'',-:-Independent Living Center

ofSouthern

California,

et al v.

City

ofLo.s

Angeles,

et al.,

Case

No.

CV

12-0551

SJO

(P~

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 55 of 72 Page ID #:391

1

217. Each time any of the Defendants failed to ensure that

2 housing funded in part by federal housing and community

3 development funds was accessible, it frustrated the mission of

4 FHC inasmuch as it made it difficult or impossible for people with

5 disabilities to live in that housing.

6

218. Defendants' conduct reduced the effectiveness of

7 outreach and advocacy efforts by FHC and required it to provide

8 additional educational programs to counteract the impression left

9 by Defendants' conduct that constructing inaccessible residential

10 housing is permissible.

11

219. Defendants' continuing discriminatory practices have

12 forced FHC to divert scarce resources to identify, investigate, and

13 counteract the Defendants' discriminatory practices, and such

14 practices have frustrated FHC'·s other efforts against

15 discrimination, causing FHC to suffer concrete and demonstrable 16 m. J. un.es.

17

220. FHC has expended resources attempting to counteract

18 Defendants' discriminatory practices including, but not limited to,

19 counseling people with disabilities affected by Defendants'

20 discriminatory practices and conducting outreach to the City and

21 the Redevelopment Defendants about the accessibility

22 requirements under federal law, resulting in the diversion of

23 resources that it would not have had to expend were it not for

24 Defendants' violations.

25

221. Until remedied, Defendants' unlawful, discriminatory

26 actions will continue to injure FHC by:

27

a. Interfering with efforts and programs intended to

28

bring about equality of opportunity in housing;

- 55 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, -;Jt,al'v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 56 of 72 Page ID #:392

1

b. Requiring the commitment of scarce resources,

2

including substantial staff time and funding, to

3

investigate and counteract Defendants'

4

discriminatory conduct, thus diverting those

5

resources from the Plaintiff's other activities and

6

services, such as education, outreach and counseling;

7

and

8

c. Frustrating the missions and purposes of FHC.

9

III.

In~ury to Plaintiff Communities Actively Living In ependent and F'ree

10

11

222. As a result of Defendants' actions described above,

12 CALIF and its constituents have been directly and substantially

13 injured.

14

223. Each time any of the Government Defendants failed to

15 ensure that housing funded in part by federal housing and

16 community development funds was accessible, it frustrated the

17 mission of CALIF inasmuch as it made it difficult or impossible

18 for people with disabilities to live at that dwelling, and

19 undermined the effectiveness of the programs and services it

20 provides, including promoting the community integration of

21 people with disabilities, providing assistance to individuals and

22 families searching for housing or affected by discriminatory

23 housing practices, and eliminating discriminatory housing

24 practices.

25

224. Because the Government Defendants have not complied

26 with their obligations to ensure that their Redevelopment Housing

27 Program meets accessibility requirements, and because they have

28 failed to inform the public about the existence of any accessible

- 56 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, eta!., Case No. CV 12-055 I S!P (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 57 of 72 Page ID #:393

units, CALIF has been required to devote substantial staff time

2 and money assisting people with disabilities to locate and secure

3 such accessible housing. CALIF has had to divert its scarce

4 resources away from its housing programs focused on expanding

5 housing choice for its clients as outlined herein, and toward efforts

6 focused on confirming and securing compliance with federal

7 accessibility requirements in the Redevelopment Housing Program.

8

225. In addition, CALIF has expended resources attempting

9 to counteract the Government Defendants' discriminatory practices

10 including, but not limited to, counseling people with disabilities

11 affected by the Government Defendants' discriminatory practices

12 and educating housing providers and the general public about

13 federal accessibility requirements and the importance of accessible

14 housing to people with disabilities, resulting in the diversion of

15 resources that they would not have had to expend were it not for

16 the Government Defendants' violations.

17

226. The Government Defendants' continuing discriminatory

18 practices have forced, and will continue to force CALIF to divert

19 scarce resources to identify, investigate, and counteract the

20 Government Defendants' discriminatory practices, and such

21 practices have frustrated Plaintiff's other efforts against

22 discrimination, causing Plaintiff to suffer concrete and

23 demonstrable injuries.

24

227. Until remedied, the Government Defendants' unlawful,

25 discriminatory actions will continue to injure CALIF by:

26

a.

Interfering with efforts and programs intended to

27

bring about equality of opportunity in housing;

28

Independent

Living

Center

ofSouthern

CalifOi-niii,

et

-
al v.

57
City

-
ofLos

Angeles,

et

al.,

Case

No.

CV

12-0551

SJO

(P JW)

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 58 of 72 Page ID #:394

I

b.

Requiring the commitment of scarce resources,

2

including substantial staff time and funding, to

3

investigate and counteract the Government

4

Defendants' discriminatory conduct, thus

5

diverting those resources from CALIF's other

6

activities and services, such as education,

7

outreach and counseling; and

8

c.

Frustrating the missions and purposes of CALIF.

9 IV. Injuries to All Plaintiffs

10

228. By the actions described above, the Government

II Defendants have engaged in, and continue to engage in a pattern or

12 practice of discrimination against people with disabilities in

13 violation of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with 14 Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and Government Code § 15 1113 5. The Government Defendants continue to engage in such a 16 pattern, practice, or policy of discrimination so as to constitute a

17 continuing violation.

18

229. The Government Defendants have acted or failed to act

19 with deliberate indifference. The Government Defendants have

20 known that their acts and omissions create a substantial likelihood

21 of harm to Plaintiffs' federally protected rights, and the

22 Government Defendants have failed to act upon that likelihood.

23

230. There now exists an actual controversy between the

24 parties regarding the Government Defendants' duties under the

25 federal and state civil rights laws. Plaintiffs accordingly are

26 entitled to declaratory relief.

27

28
---"<~_-.;.,.

- 58 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV!Z4Jk-51 SJO (PJU? First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 59 of 72 Page ID #:395

231. The Government Defendants, unless enjoined, will

2 continue to engage in the unlawful acts and the pattern or practice

3 of discrimination and unlawful conduct described above.

4

232. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Plaintiffs

5 now are suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury

6 from the Government Defendants' acts and unlawful conduct

7 unless relief is provided by this Court. Plaintiffs thus are entitled

8 to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

9

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

10

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11

SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT

12

[29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.]

13

[All Plaintiffs Against City;

14

Owner Defendants Named as Rule 19 Parties Only]

15

23 3. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each

16 and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

17

234. Defendant City of Los Angeles' discriminated and

18 continues to discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of

19 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by acting or failing to act in

20 a manner that, among other things:

21

a. Denies meaningful access to the Redevelopment

22

Housing Program to people with mobility

23

impairments and visual and hearing disabilities;

24

b. Has a disparate impact on people with mobility

25

impairments and visual and hearing disabilities;

26

c. Aids or perpetuates discrimination against people

27

with disabilities when such discriminatory conduct is

28

engaged in by the Redevelopment Defendants and

.
Independent Living Center ojSouJhern

CQ!ijornia,

-
et al v.

59
City

-
ofLos Angeles,

et al.,

Case

No.

CV 12·0551 SJO

(PJW)

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 60 of 72 Page ID #:396

1

others who have received financial or other

2

significant assistance from the City as part of the

3

Redevelopment Housing Program.

4

d. Uses methods of administration that discriminate

5

against people with disabilities, defeating the

6

purpose of the Redevelopment Housing Program,

7

and/or that perpetuate the discrimination of other

8

agencies by failing to ensure that the Redevelopment

9

Housing Program provides accessible housing or

10

otherwise provides meaningful access to people with

11

mobility, visual, or hearing impairments.

12

e. Otherwise limits people with disabilities from

13

enjoying housing or the opportunity to obtain such

14

housing by engaging in the policies, practices, acts,

15

and omissions described above.

16

23 5. As a result of the discrimination alleged in the previous

17 paragraph, Plaintiffs have sustained the injuries described herein.

18

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19

SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT

20

[29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.]

21

[All Plaintiffs Against Redevelopment Defendants;

22

Owner Defendants Named as Rule 19 Parties Only]

23

236. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each

24 and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

25

23 7. The Redevelopment Defendants discriminated and

26 continue to discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of

27 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by acting or failing to act in

28 a manner that, among other things:

Independent

Living Center

ofSouthern

California,

-
et af v.

60
City

-
ofLos Angeles,

eta!.,

Case

No.

CM 12~055/

SJO

(P JW)

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 61 of 72 Page ID #:397

I

a. Denies meaningful access to the Redevelopment

2

Housing Program to people with mobility

3

impairments and visual and hearing disabilities.

4

b. Has a disparate impact on people with mobility

5

impairments and visual and hearing disabilities.

6

c. Aids or perpetuates discrimination against people

7

with disabilities when such discriminatory conduct is

8

engaged in by the Redevelopment Defendants and

9

others who have received financial or other

10

significant assistance from the City as part of the

II

Redevelopment Housing Program.

12

d. Uses methods of administration that discriminate

13

against people with disabilities, defeating the

14

purpose of the Redevelopment Housing Program,

15

and/or that perpetuate the discrimination of other

16

agencies by failing to ensure that the redevelopment

17

housing provides meaningful access to people with

18

mobility, visual, or hearing impairments.

19

e. Otherwise limits people with disabilities from

20

enjoying housing or the opportunity to obtain such

21

housing by engaging in the policies, practices, acts,

22

and omissions described above.

23

238. As a result of the discrimination alleged in the previous

24 paragraph, Plaintiffs have sustained the injuries described herein.

25

26

27

28
- 61 - Independent Living Center ofSoiithern CalifoYnia, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12~0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 62 of 72 Page ID #:398

1

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

3

[42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq.]

4

[All Plaintiffs Against City;

5

Owner Defendants Named as Rule 19 Parties Only]

6

239. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each

7 and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

8

240. Defendant City of Los Angeles' discriminated and

9 continues to discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of

10 Title II of the ADA by acting or failing to act in a manner that,

11 among other things:

12

a. Denies meaningful access to the Redevelopment

13

Housing Program to people with mobility

14

. impairments and visual and hearing disabilities.

15

b. Has a disparate impact on people with mobility

16

impairments and visual and hearing disabilities.

17

c. Aids or perpetuates discrimination against people

18

with disabilities when such discriminatory conduct is

19

engaged in by the Redevelopment Defendants and

20

others who have received financial or other

21

significant assistance from the City as part of the

22

Redevelopment Housing Program.

23

d. Uses methods of administration that discriminate

24

against people with disabilities, defeating the

25

purpose of the Redevelopment Housing Program,

26

and/or that perpetuate the discrimination of other

27

agencies by failing to ensure that the Redevelopment

28

Housing Program provides accessible housing or

"'·

- 62 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, el a!., Case.Jjp. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 63 of 72 Page ID #:399

I

otherwise provides meaningful access to people with

2

mobility, visual, or hearing impairments.

3

e. Otherwise limits people with disabilities from

4

enjoying housing or the opportunity to obtain such

5

housing by engaging in the policies, practices, acts,

6

and omissions described above.

7

241. As a result of the discrimination alleged in the previous

8 paragraph, Plaintiffs have sustained the injuries described herein.

9

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

10

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

II

[42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq.)

12

[All Plaintiffs Against Redevelopment Defendants;

13

Owner Defendants Named as Rule 19 Parties Only)

14

242. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each

15 and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

16

243. The Redevelopment Defendants' actions and failures to

17 act discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of Title II of

18 the ADA and its implementing regulations by engaging in the

19 following actions or omissions:

20

a. Denies meaningful access to the Redevelopment

21

Housing Program to people with mobility

22

impairments and visual and hearing disabilities.

23

b. Has a disparate impact on people with mobility

24

impairments and visual and hearing disabilities.

25

c. Aids or perpetuates discrimination against people

26

with disabilities when such discriminatory conduct is

27

engaged in by the Redevelopment Defendants and

28

others who have received financial or other

- 63 - Independent Living Cetiter bfSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12·0551 SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 64 of 72 Page ID #:400

I

significant assistance from the City as part of the

2

Redevelopment Housing Program.

3

d. Uses methods of administration that discriminate

4

against people with disabilities, defeating the

5

purpose of the Redevelopment Housing Program,

6

and/or that perpetuate the discrimination of other

7

agencies by failing to ensure that the redevelopment

8

housing provides meaningful access to people with

9

mobility, visual, or hearing impairments.

10

e. Otherwise limits people with disabilities from

II

enjoying housing or the opportunity to obtain such

12

housing by engaging in the policies, practices, acts,

13

and omissions described above.

14

244. As a result of the discrimination alleged in the previous .

15 paragraph, Plaintiffs have sustained the injuries described herein.

16

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17

FAIR HOUSING ACT

18

[42 U.S.C. §3601, et seq.]

19

[All Plaintiffs Against Government Defendants;

20

Owner Defendants Named as Rule 19 Parties Only]

21

245. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each

22 and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

23

246. Plaintiffs are aggrieved persons as defined in 42 U.S.C.

24 § 3602(i).

25

24 7. Government Defendants' policy or practice of failing to

26 act to ensure that housing projects within the Redevelopment

27 Housing Program are physically accessible as required under other

28 laws has a disparate impact on people with disabilities such that

·,i(:,··

- 64 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et ai.Ice-ase No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 65 of 72 Page ID #:401

I Government Defendants injured Plaintiffs in violation of the

2 federal Fair Housing Act and its implementing regulations by

3 committing the following discriminatory housing practices:

4

a. Otherwise making unavailable dwellings because of

5

handicap.

6

b. Discriminating in the terms, conditions, and

7

privileges of the rental of a dwelling because of

8

handicap.

9

c. Discouraging persons from inspecting, purchasing or

10

renting a dwelling because of handicap.

II

d. Limiting the use of privileges, services or facilities

12

associated with a dwelling because of handicap.

13

248. As a result of the discrimination alleged in the previous

14 paragraph, Plaintiffs have sustained the injuries described herein.

15

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

16

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE§ 11135

17

[All Plaintiffs Against Government Defendants;

18

Owner Defendants Named as Rule 19 Parties Only]

19

249. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every

20 allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

21

250. Through their acts and omissions described herein,

22 Government Defendants have violated and will continue to violate

23 California Government Code § 1113 5 by unlawfully denying

24 people with disabilities the benefits of, and unlawfully subjecting

25 people with disabilities to discrimination under, Defendants'

26 programs and activities.

27

251. As a result of the discrimination alleged in the previous

28 paragraph, Plaintiffs have sustained the injuries described herein.

- 65 - independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, eta/., Case No. CV 12~0551 SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 66 of 72 Page ID #:402

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter an order

3 against Defendants, together and individually, as follows:

4

A. Declare that the Government Defendants' policies,

5 practices, acts, and omissions as set forth above violate:

6

a. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

7

b. Title II of the ADA,

8

c. Government Code § 1113 5;

9

B. Enjoin the Government Defendants, their officers,

10 directors, employees, agents, managers, successors, assigns, and

11 all other persons in active concert or participation with any of

12 them, both temporarily during the pendency of this action, and

13 permanently, from:

14

1. Providing funds or property or other significant

15

assistance for land or for the development,

16

construction, or rehabilitation of any housing and/or

17

common areas in buildings containing housing units

18

that, in any way, fail to comply with the accessibility

19

requirements of:

20

a. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

21

b. Title II of the ADA,

22

c. Government Code § 1113 5;

23

2. Failing or refusing to bring housing and the public

24

use and common use areas in buildings containing

25

housing units that are part of the Redevelopment

26

Housing Program into compliance with the

27

requirements of:

28

a. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

- 66 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, eta/ v. City ofLos Ange/es.,-.gf al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 67 of 72 Page ID #:403

1

b. Title II of the ADA,

2

c. Government Code§ 11135; and

3

3. Failing or refusing to otherwise provide

4

meaningful access for people with mobility impairments

5

and visual and hearing disabilities to the

6

Redevelopment Housing Program.

7

C. Enjoin the Government Defendants, their officers,

8 directors, employees, agents, managers, successors, assigns, and

9 all other persons in active concert or participation with any of

10 them from failing or refusing to:

11

1. Survey each and every housing unit in the

12

Redevelopment Housing Program and appurtenant

13

common and public use areas, and assess the

14

compliance of each with the accessibility requirements

15

of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the

16

ADA, and Government Code§ 11135;

17

2. Report to the Court the extent of the

18

noncompliance with the accessibility requirements of

19

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the

20

ADA, and Government Code § 1113 5; and

21

3. Bring each and every such housing unit in the

22

Redevelopment Housing Program and appurtenant

23

common and public use areas into compliance with the

24

requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

25

Title II of the ADA, and Government Code § 1113 5.

26

4. Otherwise provide meaningful access to the

27

Redevelopment Housing Program to people with

28

mobility, visual, or hearing impairments.

- 67 - Independent Living Center ofSouJhem California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et at., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW)

·.·-,_ ,;_.

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 68 of 72 Page ID #:404

1

5. Adopt policies and procedures to ensure that

2

newly built or renovated housing meets the accessibility

3

requirements of Section 504 df the Rehabilitation Act,

4

Title II of the ADA, and Government Code § 1113 5.

5

6. Adopt policies and procedures to ensure that the

6

Owner Defendants and any prospective owner or

7

manager of units in the Redevelopment Housing

8

Program comply with the requirements of Section 504

9

of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, and

10

Government Code § 1113 5 with respect to assignment

11

of accessible units to residents who need such units

12

because of their disabilities and with respect to

13

reasonable accommodation and reasonable

14

modifications in relation to those units.

15

D. Enjoin the Owner Defendants, their officers, directors,

16 employees, agents, managers, successors, assigns, and all other

17 persons in active concert or participation with any of them from

18 failing or refusing to:

19

1. Allow access to all housing built or renovated

20

using federal funds and to appurtenant common and

21

public use areas to effectuate the relief described

22

above, including access for any inspections necessary

23

to determine compliance with accessibility standards,

24

and access for any retrofitting or other physical

25

modifications necessary to bring each and every such

26

apartment complex into compliance with the

27

requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

28

Title II of the ADA, and Government Code§ 11135;

- 68 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLosWJseles, eta[.;·- case No. CV 12-055I SJO (PJW)
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 69 of 72 Page ID #:405

2. Implement any policy change necessary to provide

2

meaningful access to the Redevelopment Housing

3

Program to people with mobility, visual, or hearing

4

impairments as required by Section 504 of the

5

Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, and

6

Government Code § 1113 5;

7

3. Allowing any other steps necessary to provide

8

meaningful access to the Redevelopment Housing

9

Program to people with mobility, visual, or hearing

10

impairments.

11

E. Award the Plaintiffs damages against the Government

12 Defendants for Plaintiffs' injuries resulting from the Government

13 Defendants' discriminatory practices and conduct.

14

F. Award the Plaintiffs costs of this action and reasonable

15 attorneys' fees pursuant to: 29 U.S.C. § 794a; 42 U.S.C. §§12133

16 and 12205; Cal. Civ. Pro. Code§ 1021.5 and as otherwise may be

17 allowed by law. G. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems

19 to be just and equitable.

W

JURYDEMAND

21

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
- 69 - Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLas Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO {PJW) - -.... '~~'i,-'"'
First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 70 of 72 Page ID #:406

1 Dated: June _1_, 2012
2

Respectfully submitted,

3

4

./'5 f ________ KffcHA-E[-G~Al:CEN*

5

D. SCOTT CHANG #146403 JAMIE L. CROOK #245757

6

RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX

PLLC

7

1225 19'h St. NW, Suite 600 Washington D.C. 20036

8

Telephone: (202) 728-1888 Facstmile: (202) 728-0848

9

schang@relman1aw .com

10

* Application for admission pro
hac vice af'proved by court order

11
12

Doc. No. 5
~~~r/#~~-~

13

MARIA MICHELLE UZETA

14

#164402 UMBREEN

BHATTI

Registered

15

LDeIgSaAl BSIeLrIvTicYesRAIGttHorTnSeyL1E'1G8A01L458

16

CENTER Loyola Public

Interest

Law

Center

17

800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120 Los Ange1es CA 90017

18

Telephone: Facstmile:

1"213) 736-1496
(2 B't 736-1428

19

Michelle. Uzeta@lis. edu

20
21

I s / _____ lSAVTinil~FTEN-#ff9342
DAVID GEFFEN LAW FIRM

22

530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205 Santa Monica, CA 90401

23

Telephone: (31 0) 434-1111 Facsmilie: (310) 434-1115

24

Geffenlaw@aol.com

25

26

27

28

Independent

Living

Center

ofSouthern

California,

-
et al v.

70 -
Cit;n)jiEo'S

Angeles,

et al.,

Case

No.

CV

12-0551

SJO

(P JW)

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 71 of 72 Page ID #:407

I

_______ _1~~--------------­

DARA SCHUR #98638

2

DISABILITY RIGHTS

CALIFORNIA

3

O13a3k0laBndro, aCdAwa9y41

Suite 612

500

4

Telephone: (510) 267-1200

Facsimile: (51 0)267 -1201

5

Dara.Schur@disabilityrightsca

.org

6 7

L, / -A-U-T-U--M-N~-E-L-L-I-O-T--T-#-2-3-0-0-4-3---

8

KEVIN BAYLEY #218070

DISABILITY RIGHTS

9

CALIFORNIA

350 S. Bixel Ave., Suite 290

10

Los Angeles~ CA 90010-2512

Telephone: 213) 213-8000

II

Facstmile: ( 13}213-8001

Autumn.Elltott@disabilityrightsca

12

.org

13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

.,

'-'-Independent

Living Center ofSouthern

California,

-
eta/ v.

71 -
City ofLos Angeles,

eta!.,

Case

No.

CV

12-0551

SJO

(PJW) •-,---1;

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 51 Filed 06/01/12 Page 72 of 72 Page ID #:408

1

CENTCREARLTDIFIISCTARTICETOOFFSCEARVLIIFCOERNIA

2
3 4

FmDthieaermnsstenaAednIrmod,hcieefunonrmerdhbeeTayndrrdticCsaeclovrotB1pmifayyYp>1JltatsuahitrCnaytttMhafoeonInECrdtCIohanuFicjsrcufton1i' smlscittncPdigiva.vaeysin,fyyoDisinftneetJgcamulkdna,eorewa,octuhf2ofmi0riccy1hee,2n.sa,thnITiadnfhlilMtlehesCdeeornottvrheueaterdatafriwsotyironiRelnolgetaoeillcinienetfeg;or f

5 such filing on all counsel of record.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Independent

Living

Center

ofSouthern

- 72
California, ·e{iil V.":etty

-
ofLos

Angeles,

eta!.,

Case

No.

CV

12~0551

SJO

(PJW)

First Amended Complaint

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 535 Filed 08/31/16 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:6784

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
14 Defendants.
15
16

) Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJWx) ) ) ) ) ORDER RE: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON ) THE PLEADINGS ) ) ) ) ) )

17

INTRODUCTION

18

Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to defendant CRA/LA

19 Designated Local Authority’s (“CRA/LA”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Dkt. 494,

20 “Motion”), the court finds that oral argument is not necessary to resolve the Motions, see Fed. R.

21 Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 244 F.3d 675, 684 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001), and

22 concludes as follows.

23

BACKGROUND

24

Plaintiffs Independent Living Center of Southern California, Fair Housing Council of San

25 Fernando Valley, and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (collectively, “plaintiffs”)

26 filed this action on January 13, 2012, alleging that the City of Los Angeles (“City”) and the

27 Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (“CRA”) “engage[d] in a pattern or

28 practice of discrimination against people with disabilities” in violation of: the Rehabilitation Act, 29

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 535 Filed 08/31/16 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:6785

1 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq.; the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.;

2 and Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶ 85). On February 1, 2012, the CRA

3 was dissolved by California Assembly Bill No. 26 (2011), codified at Cal. Health & Safety Code §§

4 34161-91 (the “Dissolution Law”), which “transferr[ed] to successor entities all authority, rights,

5 powers, duties and obligations previously vested with the former redevelopment agencies[.]” (Dkt.

6 98, Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) at ¶ 44). Plaintiffs filed the operative SAC on August 20,

7 2012, asserting an additional claim under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et

8 seq., (see id. at ¶¶ 245-48), and adding CRA/LA as a defendant. (See id. at ¶¶ 46-52).

9

LEGAL STANDARD

10

“After the pleadings are closed – but early enough not to delay trial – a party may move for

11 judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). “Judgment on the pleadings is proper when

12 the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact

13 remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Hal Roach Studios,

14 Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1989). The court must accept

15 all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and construe them in the light most favorable to the

16 non-moving party. See Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). “[T]he same

17 standard of review applicable to a Rule 12(b) motion applies to its Rule 12(c) analog[,]” because

18 the motions are “functionally identical[.]” Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192

19 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 812 (1989).

20

As with a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, a Rule 12(c) motion should be granted if the plaintiff

21 fails to proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp.

22 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

23 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2011). “A

24 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

25 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.

26 at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; see also Cook, 637 F.3d at 1004; Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning

27 Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 2010). In considering a Rule 12(c) motion, the court

28 “generally is limited to the pleadings and may not consider extrinsic evidence[,]” Shame on You

2

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 535 Filed 08/31/16 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:6786

1 Prods., Inc. v. Banks, 120 F.Supp.3d 1123, 1143-44 (C.D. Cal. 2015), but may rely on exhibits

2 attached to the complaint and documents subject to judicial notice. See id. at 1144.

3

DISCUSSION

4 I.

MOTION TO STRIKE.

5

CRA/LA argues that the City lacks standing to oppose the Motion because it has no active

6 cross-claims against CRA/LA. (See Dkt. 514, Motion to Strike at 2). Some courts have held that

7 co-defendants lack standing to oppose each other’s motions unless a cross-claim is pending.

8 See, e.g., Eckert v. City of Sacramento, 2009 WL 3211278, *3 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (holding that

9 where “there is no crossclaim between the Defendants . . . [they] are not adverse parties and the

10 City therefore does not have standing to oppose [co-defendant’s] motion”); Blonder v. Casco Inn

11 Residential Care, Inc., 2000 WL 761895, *1 (D. Me. 2000) (holding that “one codefendant [may]

12 be the sole, successful, opposition to another codefendant’s motion for summary judgment” in the

13 “absence of cross-claims,” relying on “principles underlying Rule 56" to avoid trial when

14 appropriate). Other courts have rejected this approach as “unnecessarily myopic[,]” Stone v.

15 Marten Transport, LLC, 2014 WL 1666420, *4 (M.D. Tenn. 2014), and have considered a co-

16 defendant’s opposing brief even when the parties are not “on opposite sides of the ‘v.’” Id.

17 (“Because [co-defendants] certainly ‘have a dog in this fight,’ the court finds that they have

18 standing to challenge the motion.”); see also Helen of Troy, L.P. v. Zotos Corp., 235 F.R.D. 634,

19 640 (W.D. Tex. 2006) (rejecting overly narrow construction of “adverse party” in the context of

20 Rule 56). Here, the court is persuaded that the City has a strong interest in the outcome of the

21 Motion and will therefore consider its opposition.1

22 II. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.

23

“In the aftermath of World War II, the [California] Legislature authorized the formation of

24 community redevelopment agencies in order to remediate urban decay.” Cal. Redevelopment

25 Ass’n v. Matosantos, 53 Cal.4th 231, 245 (2011) (describing the history of redevelopment

26

27

1 The court notes, however, that it would have reached the same conclusions regarding the

merits of CRA/LA’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings regardless of whether it considered the 28 City’s brief.

3

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 535 Filed 08/31/16 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:6787

1 agencies). By 2011, nearly 400 redevelopment agencies were active in the state. See id. at 246.

2 In June of that year, the legislature passed, and Governor Jerry Brown signed, the Dissolution

3 Law, which “dissolve[d] all redevelopment agencies . . . and transfer[red] control of redevelopment

4 agency assets to successor agencies, which [we]re contemplated to be the city or county that

5 created the redevelopment agency[.]” Id. at 250-51.

6

The Dissolution Law “provide[s] a detailed scheme for winding down the activities” of the

7 former redevelopment agencies. See Macy v. City of Fontana, 244 Cal.App.4th 1421, 1428

8 (2016). Specifically, the scheme divided each redevelopment agency’s assets, liabilities, and

9 responsibilities between two distinct entities: a “successor agency” and a “housing successor.”

10 See id. at 1428 (explaining that, “other than a [redevelopment agency’s] housing assets, all assets

11 and liabilities of individual [redevelopment agencies] would be assumed by individual ‘successor

12 agencies’ and that the [redevelopment agency’s] housing assets would be assumed by individual

13 ‘housing successors.’”). The Dissolution Law “gave any municipality that created [a

14 redevelopment agency] the option to become either the [agency’s] ‘successor agency,’ ‘housing

15 successor,’ or both[.]” Id. at 1428-29; see also Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 34173(d) & 34176(a)-

16 (b). If a municipality elected not to become the housing successor, the Dissolution Law “permitted

17 [the] local housing authority to become [the] ‘housing successor[]’” instead. See Macy, 244

18 Cal.App.4th at 1428; see also Cal. Health & Safety Code § 34176(b). If the municipality elected

19 not to become the successor agency, the Dissolution Law automatically created a successor

20 agency in the former redevelopment agency’s place. See Cal. Health & Safety Code §

21 34173(d)(3)(A).

22

The CRA was a redevelopment agency created “to conduct redevelopment and

23 revitalization activities using public and private funds in designated areas of the City of Los

24 Angeles.” (Dkt. 98, SAC at ¶ 36). It was overseen by “a Board of Commissioners appointed by

25 the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles and confirmed by the Los Angeles City Council[,]” (id. at ¶

26 40), and its “every action” was subject to City Council approval. (See id. at ¶ 41). As a result,

27 when the Dissolution Law was enacted, the City was required to decide whether it would become

28 the CRA’s housing successor, successor agency, both, or neither. See Macy, 244 Cal.App.4th

4

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 535 Filed 08/31/16 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:6788

1 at 1428; Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 34173 & 34176; (Dkt. 495-1, [CRA/LA’s] Request for

2 Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Exhibit (“Exh.”) A (“L.A. City Council File No. 12-0049 (2012)”)2 at ECF 5

3 (explaining that the Dissolution Law “eliminated the CRA[] and necessitated [that the] Council act

4 to determine whether the housing functions and assets of the former CRA[] should revert to [the

5 Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles] or be transferred to the [Los Angeles Housing

6 Department])).

7

On January 25, 2012, the City elected to become the CRA’s housing successor and thereby

8 “accept transfer of all rights, powers, duties and obligations, except as otherwise provided in [the

9 Dissolution Law], of CRA[] related to [its] housing assets and functions.” (Dkt. 495-1, L.A. City

10 Council File No. 12-0049 (2012) at ECF 8-9). The City did not, however, elect to become the

11 CRA’s successor agency. (See, generally, id.). Thus, immediately upon the CRA’s dissolution,

12 CRA/LA came into existence to serve as the CRA’s successor agency. See Cal. Health & Safety

13 Code § 34173(d)(3)(A) (“If no local agency elects to serve as a successor agency for a dissolved

14 redevelopment agency, a public body . . . shall be immediately formed . . . and shall be vested with

15 all the powers and duties of a successor agency[.]”). The question now before the court is

16 whether CRA/LA is responsible for redressing the former CRA’s alleged discriminatory conduct

17 as its successor agency, or whether the City alone bears that responsibility as housing successor.

18

The Dissolution Law states that “successor agencies succeed to the organizational status

19 of the former redevelopment agency, but without any legal authority to participate in

20 redevelopment activities, except to complete any work related to an approved enforceable

21

22

2 CRA/LA requests that the court take judicial notice of L.A. City Council File No. 12-0049.

23 (See Dkt. 495, RJN at 2). Neither plaintiffs nor the City oppose this request. (See, generally, Dkt.

501, Defendant City of Los Angeles’ Response to Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings (“City 24 Opp.”); Dkt. 503, Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant CRA/LA’s Motion for Judgment on the

25

Pleadings (“Pls.’ Opp.”)). Under Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court may take judicial notice of matters of public record, including official records such as this one. See Fed. R.

26 Evid. 201; Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (“We may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record[.]”); Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt.

27 Dist., 498 F.3d 1031, 1039 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2007) (taking judicial notice of public report and municipal

law at issue). Accordingly, the court grants CRA/LA’s request as to L.A. City Council File No. 1228 0049. (See Dkt. 495-1, L.A. City Council File No. 12-0049 (2012)).

5

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 535 Filed 08/31/16 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:6789

1 obligation.” Cal. Health & Safety Code § 34173(g). The Dissolution Law defines the term

2 “enforceable obligation” to include seven specific types of obligations held by the former

3 redevelopment agency: (1) outstanding bonds; (2) loans subject to repayment; (3) certain other

4 enforceable payment obligations; (4) judgments, settlements, or binding arbitration decisions; (5)

5 certain enforceable agreements; (6) certain other agreements necessary for operating the

6 successor agency; and (7) repayments to the former redevelopment agency’s Low and Moderate

7 Income Housing Fund. See id. at §§ 34171(d)(1)(A)-(G). Successor agencies like CRA/LA “lack

8 the authority to, and shall not, create new enforceable obligations or begin redevelopment work,

9 except in compliance with an enforceable obligation . . . that existed prior to June 28, 2011.” Id.

10 at § 34177.3(a).

11

The SAC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief pertaining to the CRA’s housing assets,

12 (see Dkt. 98, SAC, Prayer for Relief at 65-68), including: (1) an order declaring that the CRA’s

13 housing “policies, practices, acts, and omissions” violate state and federal law, (see id. at ¶ A); (2)

14 an injunction prohibiting any funding, construction, or rehabilitation of housing assets in a manner

15 that fails to comply with applicable accessibility requirements, (see id. at ¶ B); and (3) an order

16 compelling certain action to bring existing housing assets into compliance with those requirements.

17 (See id. at ¶¶ C-D). The SAC also seeks monetary damages resulting from the CRA’s alleged

18 discriminatory conduct, as well as attorney’s fees and costs incurred in litigating this action. (See

19 id. at ¶¶ E-F). The Dissolution Law makes CRA/LA, as the CRA’s successor agency, responsible

20 for all of these remedies. See Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 34171(d)(1)(C) & 34177.3(b).

21

One of the enforceable obligations defined by the Dissolution Law involves “[p]ayments

22 required by the federal government, preexisting obligations to the state or obligations imposed by

23 state law[.]” Cal. Health & Safety Code § 34171(d)(1)(C). The SAC alleges that the CRA failed

24 to comply with Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135, (see Dkt. 98, SAC at ¶¶ 249-51), which obligated the

25 CRA to “meet the protections and prohibitions contained in Section 202 of the federal Americans

26 with Disabilities Act of 1990 . . . and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation

27 thereof[.]” Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135(b). These obligations were imposed by state law and existed

28 prior to June 28, 2011. See 2006 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 182 (S.B. 1441) (West) (amending Cal.

6

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 535 Filed 08/31/16 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:6790

1 Gov’t Code § 11135, effective January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2011). Accordingly, they are

2 “enforceable obligations” as defined by the Dissolution Law, and fall within CRA/LA’s scope of

3 authority. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 34171(d)(1)(C) (defining an “enforceable obligation”

4 as an “obligation[] imposed by state law”).

5

CRA/LA contends that it “bears no responsibility for the properties at issue due to the City

6 of Los Angeles’s election to become the housing successor and to assume all rights, duties and

7 responsibilities related to the housing functions and assets of the Former Agency.” (Dkt. 494,

8 Motion at 5). However, CRA/LA misconstrues the Dissolution Law, which transfers only a

9 redevelopment agency’s “rights, powers, duties, obligations, and housing assets” to the housing

10 successor, not its liabilities. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 34176(a)(1). Moreover, the

11 Dissolution law provides that “[a]ll litigation involving a redevelopment agency shall automatically

12 be transferred to the successor agency.” Id. at § 34173(g). It would be irrational for the court to

13 conclude that the Dissolution Law transfers litigation to an entity that cannot be held liable for the

14 claims raised in that litigation. See Wilcox v. Birdwhistle, 21 Cal.4th 973, 977-78 (1999) (“[Courts]

15 must select the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature,

16 with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an

17 interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences.”); see also People v. Jeffers, 43 Cal.3d

18 984, 998-99 (1987) (“Courts are reluctant to attribute to the Legislature an intent to create an

19 illogical or confusing scheme; legislative policy is best effectuated by avoiding those constructions

20 which lead to mischief or absurdity.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Torres v.

21 Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc., 26 Cal.4th 995, 1003 (2001) (“In interpreting a statute where the

22 language is clear, courts must follow its plain meaning.”).

23

CRA/LA also urges the court to follow the reasoning set forth in the December 17, 2015,

24 determination letter issued by the California Department of Finance (“DOF”). (See Dkt. 494,

25 Motion at 5; Dkt. 495-8, RJN, Exh. H (“DOF Letter”)).3 According to the DOF Letter, in April 2013,

26
27 3 CRA/LA requests that the court take judicial notice of the DOF Letter, (see Dkt. 495, RJN at 3), and neither plaintiffs nor the City oppose this request. (See, generally, Dkt. 501, City Opp.;
28 Dkt. 503, Pl’s. Opp.). Accordingly, the court grants CRA/LA’s request as to the DOF Letter. See

7

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 535 Filed 08/31/16 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:6791

1 CRA/LA and the City entered into an Affordable Housing Assets and Functions Agreement (“HAT

2 Agreement”), which obligated CRA/LA to “retain the responsibility to remedy any claims or liability

3 that existed prior to the transfer of housing assets” to the City. (See Dkt. 495-8, DOF Letter at

4 ECF 2-3). Based on the HAT Agreement, CRA/LA entered into a Voluntary Compliance

5 Agreement (“VCA”) with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) in

6 September 2014, to retrofit 22 federally-funded housing developments that did not comply with

7 the accessibility requirements imposed by federal law. (See id. at ECF 2). To fund the retrofit,

8 CRA/LA submitted a funding request to the DOF for approval. (See id.). After reviewing certain

9 evidence provided by CRA/LA, the DOF determined that the HAT Agreement violated the

10 Dissolution Law’s mandate that “all rights, powers, duties, obligations, and housing assets . . .

11 shall be transferred to the city.” (See id. at ECF 2-3). The DOF also found that there was no

12 “enforceable obligation prior to June 28, 2011[,]” and thus CRA/LA had no authority to administer

13 the retrofit. (See id. at ECF 3). Accordingly, the DOF denied CRA/LA’s funding request and

14 concluded that it “did not have the authority to enter into the [VCA] with HUD” in the first place.

15 (See id.).

16

The court agrees with plaintiffs and the City that the DOF Letter should be afforded “little

17 to no weight.” (See Dkt. 501, City Opp. at 10). As an initial matter, the DOF is not a court of law

18 and, in any event, its letter carries little, if any, persuasive value given its cursory analysis of the

19 Dissolution Law. (See, generally, Dkt. 495-8, DOF Letter) (failing to consider the Dissolution Law

20 provision automatically transferring litigation to the successor agency). The DOF based its

21 conclusion regarding enforceable obligations on the absence of evidence rather than the

22 application of law. (See Dkt. 503, Pls.’ Opp. at 13-14). The DOF merely concluded that “no other

23 information or documentation was provided by [CRA/LA] to demonstrate an enforceable

24 obligation prior to June 28, 2011[,]” (Dkt. 495-8, DOF Letter at ECF 3) (emphasis added), implying

25 that the DOF might have concluded otherwise if confronted with different or additional evidence.

26 The court is not aware, and CRA/LA does not identify, what evidence the DOF had at its disposal

27

28 supra, n. 2; Harris, 682 F.3d at 1132.

8

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 535 Filed 08/31/16 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:6792

1 when it determined that no enforceable obligation existed prior to June 28, 2011. (See, generally,

2 Dkt. 494, Motion; Dkt. 513, [CRA/LA’s] Reply in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings).

3 Apparent from the face of the DOF Letter, however, is the fact that the DOF did not consider the

4 obligations imposed on the CRA by Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135(b) prior to June 28, 2011, (see,

5 generally, Dkt. 495-8, DOF Letter), which constitute “enforceable obligations” under the Dissolution

6 Law. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 34171(d)(1)(C) (defining an “enforceable obligation” as an

7 “obligation[] imposed by state law”).

8

Further, even assuming the obligations imposed by Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135(b) did not

9 constitute enforceable obligations, CRA/LA would nevertheless be subject to liability in this case.

10 The Dissolution Law authorizes a successor agency like CRA/LA to “create enforceable

11 obligations to conduct the work of winding down the redevelopment agency, including hiring staff,

12 acquiring necessary professional administrative services and legal counsel, and procuring

13 insurance.” Cal. Health & Safety Code § 34177.3(b). Assuming the Dissolution Law prevents

14 CRA/LA from creating a new enforceable obligation to remediate the CRA’s housing assets, see

15 id.,4 it nevertheless does not prevent CRA/LA from paying the damages, costs, or attorney’s fees

16 sought by plaintiffs. (See, generally, id.). In the court’s view, the Dissolution Law necessarily must

17 authorize CRA/LA to create a new enforceable obligation to compensate a plaintiff injured by the

18 CRA’s conduct; to hold otherwise would prevent CRA/LA from winding down the litigation pending

19 against the CRA, thereby frustrating its primary purpose of winding down the CRA’s affairs. See

20 2011 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 5 (A.B. 26) (West) (“It is the intent of the Legislature to do all of the

21 following in this act: . . . [r]equire successor agencies to expeditiously wind down the affairs of the

22 dissolved redevelopment agencies and to provide the successor agencies with limited authority

23 that extends only to the extent needed to implement a winddown of redevelopment agency

24 affairs.”). The court declines CRA/LA’s invitation to construe the Dissolution Law in a manner that

25

26 4 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 34177.3(b) provides that “the work of winding down the
27 redevelopment agency does not include planning, design, redesign, development, demolition, alteration, construction, construction financing, site remediation, site development or improvement,
28 land clearance, seismic retrofits, and other similar work.”

9

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 535 Filed 08/31/16 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:6793

1 frustrates the very goals it seeks to accomplish. See Wilcox, 21 Cal.4th at 977-78; Jeffers, 43

2 Cal.3d at 998-99.

3

Finally, CRA/LA may be subject to successor liability arising from plaintiffs’ federal claims

4 under the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and the FHA. (See Dkt. 98, SAC at ¶¶ 236-38 & 242-48)

5 (asserting Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and FHA claims); see also Equal Rights Ctr. v. Equity

6 Residential, 2016 WL 1258418, *6 (D. Md. 2016) (holding that defendant in FHA action “can be

7 held responsible for design and construction violations . . . under the continuity of enterprise theory

8 of successor liability”); E.E.O.C. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 36 F.Supp.2d 1056, 1057 (N.D. Ill. 1999)

9 (concluding that “successor liability is available under the ADA”); Fleming v. Yuma Reg'l Med.

10 Ctr., 587 F.3d 938, 944 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Whether suit is filed under the Rehabilitation Act or under

11 the [ADA], the substantive standards for determining liability are the same.”). When a federal

12 statute “is silent as to whether federal or state common law standards should apply in evaluating

13 successor liability[,] . . . the national interest in the uniform enforcement of [the statute] and the

14 same interest in preventing evasion by a responsible party by even legitimate resort to state law

15 are the reasons [why] successor liability is appropriate . . . and a uniform federal standard is

16 needed for determining liability[.]” Equal Rights Ctr., 2016 WL 1258418, at *5; see also United

17 States v. Gen. Battery Corp., 423 F.3d 294, 298 (3d Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 941 (2006)

18 (noting in CERCLA case that “[a]lthough the statute fails to address the issue expressly, it is now

19 settled that . . . CERCLA successor liability is a matter of uniform federal law”).

20

Successor liability under federal common law “is primarily factual in nature and is based

21 upon the totality of the circumstances of a given situation[,]” Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp.

22 v. N.L.R.B., 482 U.S. 27, 43, 107 S.Ct. 2225, 2236 (1987), and “[c]ourts have stressed the

23 intensely fact-specific nature of the inquiry.” Sullivan, 623 F.3d at 782; see Howard Johnson Co.,

24 Inc. v. Detroit Local Joint Exec. Bd., 417 U.S. 249, 256, 94 S.Ct. 2236, 2240 (1974) (“Particularly

25 in light of the difficulty of the successorship question, the myriad factual circumstances and legal

26 contexts in which it can arise, and the absence of congressional guidance as to its resolution,

27 emphasis on the facts of each case as it arises is especially appropriate.”). Depending on the

28 context of a given case, the Ninth Circuit has used different formulations to define the elements

10

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 535 Filed 08/31/16 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:6794

1 of successor liability. See, e.g., Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Brown & Bryant, Inc.,

2 159 F.3d 358, 362-64 (9th Cir. 1998) (corporate acquisition context); Steinbach v. Hubbard, 51

3 F.3d 843, 845 (9th Cir. 1995) (employment context). For example, in the corporate acquisition

4 context, the Ninth Circuit has held that “asset purchasers are not liable as successor corporations

5 unless: (1) [t]he purchasing corporation expressly or impliedly agrees to assume the liability; (2)

6 [t]he transaction amounts to a ‘de-facto’ consolidation or merger; (3) [t]he purchasing corporation

7 is merely a continuation of the selling corporation; or (4) [t]he transaction was fraudulently entered

8 into in order to escape liability.” Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 159 F.3d at 362-64.

9 “The primary question . . . is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, there is ‘substantial

10 continuity’ between the old and new enterprise.” Resilient Floor Covering Pension Trust Fund Bd.

11 of Trustees v. Michael’s Floor Covering, Inc., 801 F.3d 1079, 1090 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. denied,

12 136 S.Ct. 2379 (2016) (“Resilient Floor”).

13

Similarly, in the employment context, “successor liability can attach when 1) the subsequent

14 employer was a bona fide successor and 2) the subsequent employer had notice of the potential

15 liability.” Steinbach, 51 F.3d at 845-46 (setting forth considerations under the National Labor

16 Relations Act). The court must also consider “the extent to which the predecessor is able to

17 provide adequate relief directly.” Id. at 846. Ultimately, “[s]uccessor liability is an equitable

18 doctrine, not an inflexible command,” Carpenters Health & Sec. Trust of W. Wash. v. Paramount

19 Scaffold, Inc., 2016 WL 374554, *3 (W.D. Wash. 2016), and thus “[d]epending on the statutory

20 context and the type of claim, certain factors may warrant greater or lesser emphasis.” Resilient

21 Floor, 801 F.3d at 1091.

22

The Ninth Circuit has not addressed successor liability in a situation where, as here, the

23 predecessor entity was dissolved and the successor entity created by operation of state law. Yet,

24 it is well-settled that a state cannot pass a law (i.e., a reorganization law) that, in effect, evades

25 a state or local governmental entity’s obligations under federal law. In other words, to the extent

26 that the Dissolution Law may be construed as limiting CRA/LA’s liability under the Rehabilitation

27 Act, the ADA, or the FHA, it still does not permit CRA/LA to avoid its obligations under those laws

28 to provide plaintiffs a complete remedy for civil rights violations allegedly committed by the CRA.

11

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 535 Filed 08/31/16 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:6795

1 See, e.g., North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann, 402 U.S., 43, 45, 91 S.Ct. 1284,

2 1286 (1971) (noting that “if a state-imposed limitation on a school authority’s discretion operates

3 to inhibit or obstruct” federal law requirements, “it must fall”); Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480,

4 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that, “[w]hen a state’s policies, practices or procedures discriminate

5 against the disabled in violation of the ADA,” public entities must make “reasonable modifications

6 in such policies, practices or procedures . . . unless the public entity can demonstrate that making

7 the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity”); Helen

8 L. v. DiDario, 46 F.3d 325, 338 (3d Cir. 1995) (noting that a state agency “can not rely upon a

9 funding mechanism . . . to justify administering [a] program in a manner that discriminates and

10 then argue that it can not comply with the ADA without fundamentally altering [the] program”).

11 While the parties may disagree as to the temporal scope for which each party is potentially liable,

12 there is no dispute that the CRA’s and thus CRA/LA’s potential liability is covered by the temporal

13 scope of this case. As plaintiffs noted, “[t]his Court . . . can enter judgment against the CRA/LA

14 for the violations alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, regardless of how state law allocates

15 responsibility for satisfying the judgment. The intricacies of the state-law administrative and

16 judicial processes that will later determine which entity satisfies that judgment, and out of what

17 funding stream, are irrelevant to the questions properly before this Court.” (Opp. at 18).

18

In short, “[b]ecause the origins of successor liability are equitable, fairness is a prime

19 consideration in its application.” Criswell v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 868 F.2d 1093, 1094 (9th Cir.),

20 cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066 (1989); see Bates v. Pac. Mar. Ass'n, 744 F.2d 705, 710 (9th Cir.

21 1984) (“[B]oth fairness and necessity are inherent considerations in successorship analysis.”).

22 Further, because “[t]here is, and can be, no single definition of ‘successor’ which is applicable in

23 every legal context[,]” Resilient Floor, 801 F.3d at 1091, the court is persuaded that same general

24 principles of successor liability are applicable here.5 Applying these principles to the

25
26 5 Courts have often “adopted and applied the same considerations” when analyzing successor liability in different contexts. See Sullivan v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 623 F.3d 770, 781 (9th Cir.
27 2010). In general, the same “successorship doctrine extends to legal obligations arising under” a wide variety of federal statutes, including the NLRA, FLSA, Title VII, the FMLA, and others. See
28 Resilient Floor, 801 F.3d at 1090; see also Steinbach, 51 F.3d at 845 (explaining that “federal

12

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 535 Filed 08/31/16 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:6796

1 circumstances of this case, the court finds that CRA/LA could be held liable as a successor to the

2 CRA for the violations alleged in the SAC.6 Given the extensive factual allegations contained in

3 the SAC, (see Dkt. 98, SAC), the court cannot say that “no material issue of fact remains to be

4 resolved and that [CRA/LA] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc.,

5 896 F.2d at 1550. The interests of fairness are best served by allowing plaintiffs to litigate their

6 claims against the entity tasked with winding down the redevelopment agency that allegedly

7 violated plaintiffs’ civil rights under the ADA, FHA, and Rehabilitation Act, as well as Cal. Gov’t

8 Code § 11135. Whether and to what extent that entity is subject to successor liability can be

9 determined at trial or in post-trial proceedings.

10

CONCLUSION

11

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT defendant CRA/LA’s Motion for Judgment

12 on the Pleadings (Document No. 494) is denied.

13 Dated this 31st day of August, 2016.

14

/s/ Fernando M. Olguin

15

United States District Judge

16

17

18 courts have developed a federal common law successorship doctrine that now extends to almost

19 every employment law statute[,]” including the MPPAA, the MSHA, the ADEA, and ERISA). “In

deciding to extend successorship liability to other contexts, courts have recognized that extending 20 liability to successors will sometimes be necessary in order to vindicate important statutory

21

polices[.]” Steinbach, 51 F.3d at 845. Here, since plaintiffs raise Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and FHA claims, the court “looks to those courts which have interpreted Title VII successor liability as

22 guidance[.]” McKee v. Am. Transfer & Storage, 946 F. Supp. 485, 487 (N.D. Tex. 1996) (citation omitted) (“The administrative procedures and the remedies under Title VII are the same as those

23 available under the ADA.”); see also Pac. Shores Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730

F.3d 1142, 1158 & n. 19 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that Title VII standards apply to ADA and FHA 24 claims); Fleming, 587 F.3d at 944 (“Whether suit is filed under the Rehabilitation Act or under the

25 [ADA], the substantive standards for determining liability are the same.”).

26

6 While CRA/LA’s potential for successor liability likely cuts off on January 25, 2012, the date

on which the City expressly assumed the housing functions previously carried out by the CRA,

27 (see Dkt. 495-1, L.A. City Council File No. 12-0049 (2012) at ECF 6), the parties will have to

litigate the temporal scope of each party’s potential liability so that damages and injunctive relief 28 can be apportioned properly.

13

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:4184

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF )

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al.,

)

11

)

Plaintiffs,

)

12

)

v.

)

13

)

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, )

14 et al.,

)

)

15

Defendants.

)

)

16

Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJWx)
ORDER Re: CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

17

The court has reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to the Joint Motion

18 of Rule 19 Owner Defendants to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA (“Motion”), and

19 concludes that oral argument is not necessary to resolve the Motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78;

20 Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 244 F.3d 675, 684 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001).

21

INTRODUCTION

22

The Independent Living Center of Southern California, Fair Housing Council of San

23 Fernando Valley, and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (collectively, “plaintiffs”)

24 filed this action on January 13, 2012, pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section

25 504”), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Title II” or the “ADA”), the Fair Housing Act

26 (“FHA”) and California Government Code § 11135 (“Section 11135”). (See Plaintiffs’ Complaint

27 for Injunctive, Declaratory, and Monetary Relief). Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint

28 for Injunctive, Declaratory, and Monetary Relief (“SAC”) on August 20, 2012, alleging that

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:4185

1 defendants CRA/LA Designated Local Authority, a public entity and successor agency to the

2 Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (“CRA/LA”), and the City of Los

3 Angeles (“City”) (collectively, the “government defendants” or “cross-claimants”)1 have engaged

4 in a “pattern or practice” of discrimination against people with disabilities in violation of federal and

5 state anti-discrimination laws.2 (SAC at ¶ 2).

6

Plaintiffs also name as defendants 61 owners of multifamily residential properties in the City

7 of Los Angeles (collectively, “owner defendants”), which received federal funds from or through

8 the government defendants. (See SAC at ¶¶ 3 & 57-116). Plaintiffs do not allege any affirmative

9 claims against any of the owner defendants, but bring them into this action pursuant to Federal

10 Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b) as necessary parties to enforce any injunctive and/or other relief that

11 may be granted by the court if plaintiffs prevail against the government defendants.3 (See SAC

12 at ¶ 3).

13

On December 14, 2012, the City filed a Crossclaim For Contribution, Indemnity, and

14 Declaratory Relief against all defendants and, on December 20, 2012 filed an Amended

15 Crossclaim (“City’s Am. Crossclaim”). On January 4, 2013, the CRA/LA filed a nearly identical

16 crossclaim against the owner defendants.4 (Compare, generally, Defendant/Cross-Defendant

17 CRA/LA, A Designated Local Authority, Successor to Community Redeployment Agency of the

18 City of Los Angeles’ Cross-claim for Contribution Indemnity and Declaratory Relief (“CRA/LA’s

19

20

1 Plaintiffs also named as a defendant the Oversight Board for the CRA/LA, but all claims against the Oversight Board were dismissed pursuant to the Court’s Order of November 29, 2012.

21

2 On November 29, 2012, pursuant to the City’s and CRA/LA’s motions to dismiss, the court

22 upheld plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Section 504, the ADA, and Section 11135, but dismissed

plaintiffs’ claims under the FHA in their entirety. (See Court’s Order of November 29, 2012). 23

3 “‘[A] person may be joined as a party [under Rule 19(b)] for the sole purpose of making it 24 possible to accord complete relief between those who are already parties, even though no present

25

party asserts a grievance against such person.’” E.E.O.C. v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 400 F.3d 774, 781 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1150 (2006) (brackets in original) (quoting Beverly Hills

26 Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. Webb, 406 F.2d 1275, 1279-80 (9th Cir. 1969)).

27 4 Because the City’s and CRA/LA’s crossclaims against the owner defendants do not materially differ from one another, either factually or legally, the court will, unless otherwise noted, examine
28 the crossclaims together.

2

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 3 of 30 Page ID #:4186

1 Crossclaim”), with City’s Am. Crossclaim). The crossclaimants allege rights to express, implied,

2 and contractual indemnification or contribution from the owner defendants, to the extent that they

3 may be liable to plaintiffs. (See City’s Am. Crossclaim at ¶¶ 66-70; CRA/LA’s Crossclaim at ¶¶

4 54-59).

5

On February 4, 2013, 58 of the 61 owner defendants filed the instant Motion to dismiss the

6 crossclaims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).5 The owner defendants6

7 contend the crossclaims must be dismissed because “no . . . right to indemnification or contribution

8 exists pursuant to any of the statutory violations alleged by the Plaintiffs against the City or the

9 CRA/LA.” (Motion at 4). On February 25, 2013, plaintiffs filed a Non-Opposition to Rule 19 Owner

10 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA (“Non-Opposition”). On February

11 28, 2013, the City filed an Opposition to Joint Motion of Rule 19 Owner Defendants to Dismiss

12 Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA and Request to Strike Plaintiff[s’] Non-Opposition” (“City’s Opp.”).

13 On February 28, 2013, the CRA/LA filed an Opposition to Rule 19 Owner Defendants Motion to

14 Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA (“CRA/LA’s Opp.”). The owner defendants filed a reply

15 brief on March 7, 2013 (“Reply”).

16

FACTUAL BACKGROUND7

17

Plaintiffs are non-profit, community-based organizations that provide services to people with

18 disabilities in the City of Los Angeles and adjoining areas. (See SAC at ¶¶ 9-30). Plaintiffs assert

19 that their missions have been hindered, and the effectiveness of their programs and services

20

21

22 5 On February 12, 2013, two additional owner defendants – Hoover Seniors, L.P. and Vermont

Seniors, L.P. – filed a joinder to the Motion. (See Joinder of Crossdefendants Hoover Seniors, 23 L.P. and Vermont Seniors, L.P. In Motion of Rule 19 Owner Defendants to Dismiss Crossclaims

24

of City and CRA/LA Cross Claims” (“Joinder”)). The Joinder “adopt[s] and incorporate[s] the entirety of the Cross-Defendants’ motion to dismiss, including the memorandum in support and

25 all supporting documentation filed with the Court.” See Joinder at 2.

26 6 Of the owner defendants, only 901 South Broadway Street Limited does not join or otherwise bring its own motion to dismiss.
27 7 Unless otherwise noted, the allegations as stated in this section are based on the plaintiffs’
28 SAC and the government defendants’ crossclaims.

3

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 4 of 30 Page ID #:4187

1 undermined, as a result of the government defendants’ alleged failure to comply with disability

2 anti-discrimination laws. (See id. at ¶¶ 202-27).

3

Defendant CRA/LA is a public agency established as successor to the former Community

4 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (“the Agency”), which conducted

5 redevelopment and revitalization activities using public and private funds in designated areas of 6 the City of Los Angeles.8 (See SAC at ¶¶ 36-48 ). Plaintiffs allege that the City and CRA/LA have

7 received financial assistance from the federal and state governments within the meaning of the

8 Rehabilitation Act and California Government Code § 11135. (See id. at ¶¶ 33-34, 49-51). The

9 City of Los Angeles is sued in its own capacity and in its capacity as a successor to the Agency.

10 (See id. at ¶¶ 35, 53).

11 I. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY AND CRA/LA.

12

Plaintiffs’ claims against the government defendants are as follows: (1) claims one and two

13 allege that the government defendants “discriminated and continue[] to discriminate on the basis

14 of disability in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by acting or failing to act in a

15 manner that” results in unlawful discrimination against or “unlawfully limits people with disabilities

16 from enjoying housing or the opportunity to obtain . . . housing,” (see SAC at ¶¶ 233-38); (2)

17 claims three and four allege that the government defendants “discriminated and continue[] to

18 discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of Title II of the ADA by acting or failing to act in

19 a manner that, among other things[,]” limits or denies people with disabilities the ability to “enjoy[

20 ] housing or the opportunity to obtain . . . housing by engaging in the [complained of] policies,

21 practices, acts, and omissions[,]” (see id. at ¶¶ 239-44); and (3) claim six alleges that the same

22

23 8 Plaintiffs originally named the Agency as a defendant. However, as of February 1, 2012, the

Agency was dissolved as part of a restructuring of redevelopment agencies in California. (See 24 SAC at ¶¶ 43-46); see also California Redev. Assoc. v. Matosantos, 53 Cal.4th 231 (2011)

25

(holding that legislation dissolving community redevelopment agencies is constitutional and establishing a dissolution date of February 1, 2012, for all agencies.). Accordingly, on or about

26 February 1, 2012, the CRA/LA Designated Local Authority was established and became the successor to the Agency. (See SAC at ¶¶ 47-48). The CRA/LA assumed statutorily specified

27 functions, assets, and liabilities of the Agency. (See id. at ¶ 52). With leave of the court, plaintiffs

amended their complaint to substitute the Agency with the CRA/LA as a defendant in its place. 28 (See Court’s Order of November 29, 2012 at 1 n.1).

4

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 5 of 30 Page ID #:4188

1 acts and omissions giving rise to the federal claims violate Cal. Gov. Code § 11135, which

2 imposes non-discrimination obligations on entities receiving financial assistance from the state of

3 California. (See id. at ¶¶ 250-51).

4

Plaintiffs allege that the government defendants have “knowingly allocated millions of

5 dollars in federal, state and other funds to finance housing throughout Los Angeles without

6 ensuring that their programs as a whole and the housing they developed, funded, and significantly

7 assisted is accessible and made meaningfully available to people with disabilities.” (SAC at ¶ 2).

8 According to plaintiffs, the government defendants “have failed, and continue to fail, to maintain

9 policies, practices, or procedures to ensure” that accessible housing units are made available and

10 are meaningfully accessible to people with disabilities. (Id. at ¶¶ 170-72). They contend that, “[a]t

11 all relevant times, the Government Defendants failed to monitor compliance with the Rehabilitation

12 Act accessibility requirements[,]” (id. at ¶ 174), and “failed to exercise oversight over developers

13 and owners of housing in the [Program] in regards to their obligations to comply and their ongoing

14 compliance with disability access provisions of federal law.” (Id. at ¶ 181). “The Government

15 Defendants have failed, and continue to fail, to require that projects within the [Program] comply

16 with federal accessibility requirements, which has the effect of excluding people with disabilities

17 from such developments.” (Id. at ¶ 179).

18

Plaintiffs further allege that the government defendants “failed to ensure compliance with

19 these requirements in housing where the Government Defendants were providing federal funding

20 to the developer and/or owner for the project.” (SAC at ¶ 183). This includes funding granted to

21 the owners of the “61 multifamily projects [of the owner defendants], comprising approximately

22 4,140 units, for which the [government defendants] provided [federal] funds to support new

23 construction or substantial alteration.” (Id. at ¶ 184). Finally, plaintiffs allege that “[n]one of the

24 61 federally-funded multifamily projects contains units accessible to people with mobility and/or

25 auditory or visual impairments in sufficient numbers, sizes and locations to provide people with

26 disabilities meaningful access to this program, service, or activity in violation of Section 504 of the

27 Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, . . . and [California] Government Code § 11135. (Id. at ¶

28 185).

5

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 6 of 30 Page ID #:4189

1 II. GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS’ CROSSCLAIMS AGAINST THE OWNER DEFENDANTS.

2

The government defendants allege that each of the housing property owners received funds

3 from the CRA/LA for the development of a housing project and entered into contractual

4 agreements with the government defendants in which they agreed to abide by the Rehabilitation

5 Act’s requirements. (See City’s Am. Crossclaim at ¶¶ 5-64; CRA/LA’s Crossclaim at ¶ 56).

6 Incorporating by reference the allegations contained in plaintiffs’ SAC, the government defendants

7 allege that they are “entitled to contribution toward or indemnity from [c]rossdefendants, and from

8 each of them for any liability and damages that may be found to exist as to [p]laintiff[s] in this

9 action as a result of the allegations in” the SAC. (City’s Am. Crossclaim at ¶ 66; CRA/LA’s

10 Crossclaim at ¶ 54). They allege that the owner defendants “are each wholly responsible or

11 responsible in part for the injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiff[s] in the [Second] Amended

12 Complaint.” (City’s Crossclaim at ¶ 67 CRA/LA’s Crossclaim at ¶ 55). Accordingly, because they

13 claim a right to recovery from the owner defendants only to the extent the government defendants

14 are found liable to plaintiffs, the government defendants seek indemnification or contribution for

15 any liability found under the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, or Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135. (See City’s

16 Am. Crossclaim at ¶¶ 66-67; CRA/LA’s Crossclaim at ¶¶ 55, 56).

17

The government defendants further allege that the owner defendants “have executed

18 contracts or other written agreements with the CITY [and CRA/LA] or [with] respect to which the

19 CITY [and CRA/LA] [are] beneficiar[ies,]” and that the agreements provide that the owner

20 defendants will “indemnify and hold [crossclaimants] harmless” from the injuries and damages

21 sought by plaintiffs. (City’s Am. Crossclaim at ¶ 67; CRA/LA’s Crossclaim at ¶ 55). On those

22 grounds, the government defendants also seek contribution or indemnity “under general equitable

23 principles and/or the law of contractual indemnity[.]” (City’s Am. Crossclaim at ¶ 69; CRA/LA’s

24 Crossclaim at ¶ 58). Finally, the government defendants seek, among other things, that if the

25 court finds the government defendants liable pursuant to the SAC, it also “enter an order against

26 Crossdefendant(s) that the policies, practices, acts, and/or omissions by the Crossdefendant(s)

27 . . . are the cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries.” (City’s Am. Crossclaim at 26, ¶ 6; CRA/LA’s Crossclaim

28 at ¶ 59).

6

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 7 of 30 Page ID #:4190

1

STANDARD OF REVIEW

2

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should be granted if the claimant fails to

3 proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.

4 Twombly (Twombly), 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal (Iqbal),

5 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2011). “A claim has

6 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

7 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at

8 1949; Cook, 637 F.3d at 1004; Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 812

9 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the government defendants must provide “more than labels and

10 conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do,” Twombly,

11 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1965; Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; see also Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v.

12 Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 974 (2005) (“[T]he court is not

13 required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions

14 cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged. Nor is the court required to accept as true

15 allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable

16 inferences.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), “[s]pecific facts are not necessary;

17 the [complaint] need only give the defendant[s] fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds

18 upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (per

19 curiam) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at

20 1964.

21

In considering whether to dismiss a cross-complaint, the court must accept the allegations

22 of the cross-complaint as true, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93-94, 127 S.Ct. at 2200; Albright v. Oliver,

23 510 U.S. 266, 267, 114 S.Ct. 807, 810 (1994), construe the pleading in the light most favorable

24 to the pleading party, and resolve all doubts in the pleader’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S.

25 411, 421, 89 S.Ct. 1843, 1849 (1969); Berg v. Popham, 412 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 2005). See

26 Brown v. Koch Maschinenbau GMBH, 2010 WL 4365668, *1 (D.Conn. 2010) (internal quotation

27 marks omitted) (“On motions to dismiss a cross-claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court takes the

28 allegations of the cross-claim as true and construes them in a manner favorable to the claimant.”).

7

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 8 of 30 Page ID #:4191

1 Dismissal for failure to state a claim can be warranted based on either a lack of a cognizable legal

2 theory or the absence of factual support for a cognizable legal theory. See Mendiondo v.

3 Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). A [cross-complaint] may also be

4 dismissed for failure to state a claim if it discloses some fact or complete defense that will

5 necessarily defeat the claim. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 1984).

6

DISCUSSION

7 I. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.

8

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., was designed to “maximize

9 employment, economic self-sufficiency, independence, and inclusion and integration into society”

10 of people with disabilities. 29 U.S.C.§ 701(b)(1). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act protects

11 “qualified individual[s] with a disability” from being “subjected to discrimination under any program

12 or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” “solely by reason of her or his disability[.]” 29

13 U.S.C. § 794.

14

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., “governs access

15 to public services.” Gilstrap v. United Air Lines, Inc., 709 F.3d 995, 1002 (9th Cir. 2013). Under

16 the ADA,“qualified individuals with a disability” cannot be “be excluded from participation in or be

17 denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to

18 discrimination by any such entity[,]” “by reason of such disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

19

“There is no significant difference in analysis of the rights and obligations created by the

20 ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.” Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of California, 166 F.3d 1041, 1045

21 n.11 (9th Cir. 1999) (listing cases). “Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the [Rehabilitation Act] both

22 prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. The ADA applies only to public entities, whereas

23 the [Rehabilitation Act] proscribes discrimination in all federally-funded programs.” Lovell v.

24 Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1105 (2003); see also

25 Weinreich v. Los Angeles County Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

26 522 U.S. 971 (1997) (“Title II of the ADA was expressly modeled after Section 504 of the

27 Rehabilitation Act[.]”).

28

8

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:4192

1

Congress provided that the “the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in title VI of the

2 Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . . shall be available to any person aggrieved by any act or failure to act 3 by any recipient of Federal assistance . . . under” the Rehabilitation Act. 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2).9

4 “The remedies, procedures, and rights” under the ADA mirror those under the Rehabilitation Act.

5 42 U.S.C. § 12133 (“The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 794a of Title 29

6 shall be the remedies, procedures, and rights this subchapter provides to any person alleging

7 discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of section 12132 of this title.”).

8

The implementing regulations of Section 504 and ADA Title II are also similar. For

9 example, the regulations implementing Section 504 provide that “[a] recipient, in providing any

10 housing, . . . or service in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance from the

11 Department [of Housing & Urban Development (“HUD”)] may not . . . solely on the basis of

12 handicap:” (1) “[a]id or perpetuate discrimination against a qualified individual with handicaps by

13 providing significant assistance to an agency, organization, or person that discriminates on the

14 basis of handicap in providing any housing . . . to beneficiaries in the recipient’s federally assisted

15 program or activity”; or (2) “[o]therwise limit a qualified individual with handicaps in the enjoyment

16 of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by other qualified individuals receiving 17 the housing[.]” 24 C.F.R. § 8.4(b)(1). Similarly, the regulations implementing Title II of the ADA10

18 provide that “[a] public entity, in providing any aid . . . or service, may not . . . on the basis of

19 disability . . . [a]id or perpetuate discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability by

20 providing significant assistance to an agency, organization, or person that discriminates on the

21 basis of disability in providing any aid . . . or service to beneficiaries of the public entity’s program;”

22 or “[o]therwise limit a qualified individual with a disability in the enjoyment of any right, privilege,

23

9 “In 1978, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act to specify the means of enforcing its ban 24 on discrimination. In particular, § 505(a)(2), 29 U.S.C. §§ 794a, made available the ‘remedies,

25

procedure, and rights set forth in Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964' to victims of discrimination in violation of § 504 of the Act.” Consol. Rail Corp. v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624, 626,

26 104 S.Ct. 1248, 1250 (1984).

27 10 The ADA specifically provides that “regulations under . . . this section shall be consistent with this chapter and with the coordination regulations . . . applicable to recipients of Federal financial
28 assistance under section 794 of Title 29.” 42 U.S.C. §12134(b).

9

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 10 of 30 Page ID #:4193

1 advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving the aid, benefit, or service.” 28 C.F.R. §

2 35.130(b)(1).

3

In short, the analysis of a claim for indemnification or contribution under Section 504 of the

4 Rehabilitation Act is equally applicable to a claim under Title II of the ADA. Similarly, because

5 Section 11135 is California’s equivalent of Section 504, and all of plaintiffs’ claims rely on the

6 same set of facts, the court’s examination of whether indemnification and contribution are

7 cognizable claims under the federal statutes applies equally to the Section 11135 claim. See

8 Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1113-14 (9th Cir. 1987)

9 (finding a private right of action under § 11135 based on “the similarity of language between

10 section 11135 and section 504”); Communities Actively Living Indep. & Free v. City of L.A., 2011

11 WL 4595993, *17 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (Section 11135 “is identical to the Rehabilitation Act except that

12 the entity must receive State financial assistance rather than Federal financial assistance.”)

13 (internal quotation marks omitted).

14 II. CROSSDEFENDANTS CANNOT BE LIABLE PURSUANT TO PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

15

AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS.

16

The crossclaims “[i]ncorporat[e] by reference the allegations contained in plaintiffs’ SAC,”

17 and assert that crossdefendants are liable for “contribution . . . or indemnity . . . for any liability and

18 damages that may be found [against the government defendants] in this action as a result of the

19 allegations in” the SAC. (See City’s Am. Crossclaim at ¶¶ 66-70; CRA/LA’s Crossclaim at ¶¶ 54-

20 59 (alleging rights to indemnification or contribution from the owner defendants “to the extent” that

21 the government defendants they may be liable to plaintiffs). Because indemnity or contribution

22 are sought based only on the allegations in the SAC as stated against the government defendants,

23 the crossclaims are not based on allegations of wrongdoing by the Rule 19 Defendants

24 independent of the actions or liability of the City or CRA/LA.

25

As the court previously explained, “[t]he main focus of this lawsuit is the legality of the

26 overall housing program[.]” (Court’s Order of November 29, 2013, at 6). “Plaintiffs did not file this

27 case because a particular building violated provisions under the various statutes[.]” Id. Rather,

28 plaintiffs filed this case because the “Government Defendants failed, and continue to fail, to take

10

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 11 of 30 Page ID #:4194

1 steps to ensure that the Redevelopment Housing Program [“Program”] is accessible to people with

2 disabilities or that any accessible units that exist are made available to people with disabilities.”

3 (SAC at ¶ 168). Plaintiffs’ allegations are based on the government defendants’ failure to: (1)

4 “maintain policies, practices, or procedures to ensure that” accessible housing is meaningfully

5 accessible to people with disabilities, (see id. at ¶¶ 170-72); (2) “monitor compliance with . . .

6 accessibility requirements[,]” (id. at ¶ 174); and (3) “exercise oversight over developers and

7 owners of housing” who receive federal funds. (Id. at ¶ 181).

8

Public entities have the affirmative duty to “make reasonable modifications in policies,

9 practices, or procedures when . . . necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability[.]”

10 Zukle, 166 F.3d at 1046 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7). Further, “ a public entity may not, directly

11 or through contractual arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration” “[t]hat have the

12 effect of subjecting qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability,”

13 or “[t]hat have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the

14 public entity’s program with respect to individuals with disabilities[.]” 28 C.F.R. §

15 35.130(b)(3)(i),(ii). These duties and obligations are imposed only on the government defendants,

16 not the private owner defendants. Indeed, the actions and omissions complained of – such as

17 administering, monitoring, and overseeing the expenditure of public funds in accessible housing

18 throughout the City of Los Angeles (see SAC at ¶¶ 170-72, 174 & 181), – could not have been

19 taken by the individual private property owners. The government defendants also fail to explain

20 how the court could find the owner defendants liable in the manner plaintiffs seek to hold them

21 liable under subject statutes. (See, generally, City’s Opp. & CRA/LA’s Opp.). While the owner

22 defendants have independent duties under the federal statutes as recipients of federal funds, they

23 cannot be liable for the claims as alleged by plaintiffs, much less so for indemnity or contribution

24 based on the same allegations. Cf. Equal Rights Ctr. v. Archstone Smith Trust, 603 F.Supp.2d

25 814, 824 (D. Md. 2009) aff’d. Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Associates, 602 F.3d 597 (4th Cir.),

26 cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 504 (2010) (“To be sure, [defendant] is correct . . . that [crossdefendant]

27 had an independent obligation to . . . comply with the . . . ADA, [and] would be[] liable only to

28 Plaintiffs on first-party claims under . . . the ADA[.]”). Nevertheless, given the scope of this action,

11

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 12 of 30 Page ID #:4195

1 and because the parties focus their arguments on whether implied or state indemnity or

2 contribution claims exist, the court will address those contentions.

3 III. RIGHT TO CONTRIBUTION OR INDEMNITY UNDER THE ADA AND THE

4

REHABILITATION ACT.

5

The owner defendants contend that “[n]o express or implied right to indemnity or

6 contribution exists under” either Rehabilitation Act or the ADA. (Motion at 6). In addition, they

7 argue that state-based indemnity or contribution claims are preempted by the federal statutes.

8 (See Motion at 9-13). The government defendants respond by arguing that state law indemnity

9 and contribution claims are not preempted because they do not conflict with, but rather support,

10 the purposes of Section 504 and the ADA. (See City’s Opp. at 7-8; CRA/LA’s Opp. at 7-11). The

11 City also argues that a federal right to indemnity or contribution exists because the Rehabilitation

12 Act’s regulations “clearly contemplate the availability of indemnity” claims for governmental

13 entities. (See City’s Opp. at 9-10).

14

A. Standard to Determine A Federal Implied Right of Action.

15

“The right to contribution and indemnification are no different in principle from other implied

16 rights of action.” Mortgages, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Nev. (Las Vegas), 934 F.2d 209,

17 212 (9th Cir. 1991). To determine whether a federal statute provides an implied right to indemnity

18 or contribution, the court must examine whether: (1) Congress intended such a right to exist,

19 either explicitly or implicitly; or (2) the cause of action is recognized by “federal common law

20 through the exercise of judicial power to fashion appropriate remedies for unlawful conduct.”

21 Northwest Airlines v. Transp. Workers Union of Am., AFL-CIO, 451 U.S. 77, 90, 101 S.Ct. 1571,

22 1580 (1981). Because the government defendants do not argue that there is an explicit right under

23 either the ADA or Section 504, (see, generally, City’s Opp.), the court must determine whether (1)

24 implicit rights to contribution or indemnity exist, or (2) whether the remedies are available under

25 federal common law.

26

“In determining whether a federal statute . . . implicitly created [a private] right [of action],

27 our task is one of statutory construction. The ultimate question . . . is whether Congress intended

28 to create the private remedy – for example, a right to contribution – that the plaintiff seeks to

12

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 13 of 30 Page ID #:4196

1 invoke.” Northwest, 451 U.S. at 91, 101 S.Ct. at 1580; see Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 2013

2 WL 3614465, *6 (9th Cir. 2013) (“‘The central inquiry remains whether Congress intended to

3 create, either expressly or by implication, a private cause of action.’”) (quoting Touche Ross & Co.

4 v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 575, 99 S.Ct. 2479, 2488 (1979)). “Factors relevant to this inquiry are

5 the language of the statute itself, its legislative history, [and] the underlying purpose and structure

6 of the statutory scheme[.]” Northwest, 451 U.S. at 91, 101 S.Ct. at 1580. Another significant

7 factor is whether the statute was “adopted for the benefit of” the party invoking the implied right

8 of action, or if “[o]n the contrary, [it] is a member of the class whose activities Congress intended

9 to regulate for the protection and benefit of an entirely distinct class[.]” Texas Indus., Inc. v.

10 Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630, 639, 101 S.Ct. 2061, 2066 (1981) (internal quotation marks,

11 citation, and emphasis omitted); see Mortgages, 934 F.2d at 213 (same).

12

Where there is no implied right of action, the right may nevertheless be created by federal

13 common law in a “few and restricted” instances “in which a federal rule of decision is necessary

14 to protect uniquely federal interests, and those in which Congress has given the courts the power

15 to develop substantive law[.]” Texas Indus., Inc., 451 U.S. at 640, 101 S.Ct. at 2067 (internal

16 quotation marks and citations omitted). “[E]xcept in limited circumstances such as cases involving

17 the United States or resolution of interstate controversies, the courts’ power to fashion federal

18 common law is strictly limited.” Bowers v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 346 F.3d 402, 422 (3rd

19 Cir. 2003).

20

A somewhat different standard applies where the remedial provision for which indemnity

21 or contribution is sought was created by the courts in the first instance. See Musick, Peeler &

22 Garrett v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 508 U.S. 286, 292, 113 S.Ct. 2085, 2088 (1993) (“The

23 parties against whom contribution is sought are, by definition, persons or entities alleged to have

24 violated existing securities laws . . . under a remedial scheme established by the federal courts.”).

25 In this situation, “a federal court has the limited power to define the contours of that [remedial]

26 structure” and create the implied right to enforce the remedy. Id. at 293, 113 S.Ct. at 2089

27 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The court must not “assess the relative merits” of

28

13

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 14 of 30 Page ID #:4197

1 the proposed implied right, but rather “effect[uate] Congress’ objectives in enacting the [underlying]

2 laws[.]” Id. at 294-95, 113 S.Ct. at 2090.

3

B. Whether There Is An Implied Right Of Action For Indemnity Or Contribution Under

4

Section 504 Or Title II Of The ADA.

5

As noted earlier, see supra at 8-10, Section 504 and Title II of the ADA both have similar

6 purposes in eliminating discrimination against disabled individuals by public entities and/or by

7 recipients of federal financial assistance. Section 504 protects “qualified individuals with a

8 disability” from being “excluded from the participation in, . . . denied the benefits of, or . . . 9 subjected to discrimination under any program or activity11 receiving Federal financial assistance”

10 “solely by reason of her or his disability[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 794. Under Title II of the ADA,“qualified

11 individuals with a disability” cannot be “be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits

12 of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any

13 such entity[,]” “by reason of such disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

14

In Northwest, the Supreme Court addressed whether an employer found liable under the

15 Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII could state a claim for contribution from the employee’s union,

16 which allegedly was partially responsible for the violations. See 451 U.S. at 79-80, 101 S.Ct. at

17 1574-75. In examining the statutory language to determine Congressional intent, the Supreme

18 Court explained that even though the language itself did not “create a right to contribution[,]” the

19 “omission, although significant, is not dispositive if . . . the language of the statutes indicates that

20 they were enacted for the special benefit of a class of which petitioner is a member.” Id. at 91-92,

21 101 S.Ct. at 1580-81. The Court then noted that “it cannot possibly be said that employers are

22 members of the class for whose especial benefit either the Equal Pay Act or Title VII was enacted.

23 To the contrary, both statutes are expressly directed against employers; Congress intended in

24 these statutes to regulate their conduct for the benefit of employees.” Id. at 92, 101 S.Ct. at 1581.

25

26 11 A “[p]rogram or activity” is broadly defined to mean “all of the operations of . . . a department,
27 agency, . . . or other instrumentality of . . . a local government” or “the entity of . . . [a] local government that distributes such [federal financial] assistance and each such department or
28 agency[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 794 (b)(1)(A) & (B).

14

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 15 of 30 Page ID #:4198

1

Here, as in Northwest, it cannot be disputed that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act were

2 created for the special benefit of people with disabilities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1) & (2)

3 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (Rehabilitation Act); see also Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922, 930

4 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting L.A. Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir.

5 1987)) (“Section 504 establishes an implied private right of action allowing victims of prohibited

6 discrimination . . . to seek ‘the full panoply of remedies, including equitable relief and

7 [compensatory] damages.’”) (emphasis added). Municipal governments, as public entities using

8 federal funds to provide public services, are the parties whose conduct the statutes intend to

9 regulate. See Northwest, 451 U.S. at 91-92, 101 S.Ct. at 1581. Title II and Section 504 are “in

10 no way intended to ameliorate the liability of wrongdoers by providing defendants with a remedy

11 against [a Rule 19 defendant] with ‘unclean hands.’” Mortgages, Inc., 934 F.2d at 212-13 (holding

12 that “Congress did not intend to create a right of action for contribution or indemnification” because

13 “the FCA does not speak to the right of contribution or indemnification[, and nothing] . . . in the

14 legislative history of the [statute] mentions contribution or indemnification”). Thus, nothing in

15 Section 504 of the ADA can be read as providing for an implied right to indemnity or contribution

16 in favor of the City. See Bowers, 346 F.3d at 433 (“[N]othing in the ADA counsels in favor of

17 recognizing a right to contribution for violations of Title II”); see also Kim v. Fujikawa, 871 F.2d

18 1427, 1432 (9th Cir. 1989) (ERISA “establishes remedies for the benefit of the plan. Therefore,

19 this section cannot be read as providing for an equitable remedy of contribution in favor of a

20 breaching fiduciary.”) (emphasis in original).

21

The comprehensiveness of the remedial schemes of Title II and Section 504 also forecloses

22 remedies not contemplated by Congress. See Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1156 (9th Cir.

23 2002) (party could not state a claim “under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, predicated upon . . . violation of Title

24 II . . . and section 504 . . . because that claim is barred by the comprehensive remedial scheme

25 of those Acts”); Okwu v. McKim, 682 F.3d 841, 844 (9th Cir. 2012) (The “comprehensiveness of

26 the[] remedies suggested that Congress intended the Title II remedial scheme to be the exclusive

27 means by which a party could vindicate . . . Title II ADA rights, and that allowing the plaintiff to use

28 the more general § 1983 remedial scheme instead would be contrary to Congress’s intent.”). “The

15

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 16 of 30 Page ID #:4199

1 comprehensive character of the remedial scheme[s] expressly fashioned by Congress strongly

2 evidences an intent not to authorize additional remedies.” Northwest, 451 U.S. at 93-94, 101 S.Ct.

3 at 1582. Further, there is nothing in the legislative history of the ADA or Rehabilitation Act

4 suggesting an intent to create an implied right to indemnification or contribution. See id. at 94, 101

5 S.Ct. at 1582 (“[W]e conclude that the legislative histories of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII

6 provide no support for petitioner’s position . . . [since] the legislative history of neither statute

7 contains any reference, adverse or favorable, to contribution.”).

8

Nor can the implied right to contribution or indemnity arise under federal common law.

9 “[O]nce Congress addresses a subject, even a subject previously governed by federal common

10 law, the justification for lawmaking by federal courts is greatly diminished. Thereafter, the task of

11 the federal courts is to interpret and apply statutory law, not to create common law.” Northwest,

12 451 U.S. at 95 n. 34, 101 S.Ct. at 1583 n. 34; see Equal Rights Ctr., 603 F.Supp.2d at 822 (“In

13 sum, the unmistakable thrust of Supreme Court precedent is that Congress’ selection (and non-

14 selection) of remedies in comprehensive remedial federal statutes, especially anti-discrimination

15 statutes, is not a proper subject with which federal or state courts ought to tinker.”). Here, there

16 are no “uniquely federal interests” that warrant the creation of implied rights under federal common

17 law. See Texas Industries, 451 U.S. at 639, 101 S.Ct. at 2067; Mortgages, 934 F.2d at 213 (“The

18 right of recovery from another wrongdoer, however, does not implicate any such interests.”). The

19 court may not legislate by adding remedies not contemplated by Congress.

20

The crossclaims fail even under the “less exacting standard based on Musick, asking only

21 whether the availability of a right to [indemnity or] contribution should be implied as a proper part

22 of [a] liability apparatus created by the judiciary to enforce the statutes[,]” Bowers, 346 F.3d at 419,

23 that is, where the courts created the claim for which contribution or indemnity is sought. Id. at 426.

24 In Bowers, the Eleventh Circuit undertook a detailed examination of whether a right of contribution

25 exists under Title II or Section 504. It explained that because Congress explicitly granted

26 remedies available under Title VI when it enacted the Rehabilitation Act and Title II, the acts

27 themselves “arguably contain explicit provisions creat[ing] a private right of action[,]” since, at that

28

16

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 17 of 30 Page ID #:4200

1 time, the courts already recognized a private right of action under Title VI.12 See id.; see also

2 Cannon, 441 U.S. at 694-96, 99 S.Ct. at 1956-57 (holding that section 901 of Title IX authorized

3 an implied private right of action because Congress patterned it after the nearly identical language

4 of Title VI, which had been construed by courts as creating a private right of action); cf. Abrego

5 Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 683-84 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Faced with statutory

6 silence on the burden issue, we presume that Congress is aware of the legal context in which it

7 is legislating.”). If so, then implied rights to indemnity and contribution can be recognized only

8 under the standards set out by Northwest and Texas Industries, which, as discussed above, are

9 foreclosed. See Bowers, 346 F.3d at 423-24 (“The federal interests in both Texas Industries and

10 Northwest Airlines were defined by statutory provisions that were express in creating the

11 substantive damages liability for which contribution was sought[,]” rather than “under a remedial

12 scheme established by the federal courts.”) (quoting Musick, 508 U.S. at 290-92, 113 S.Ct. at

13 2087-88). In any event, even if the remedies under Title II and Section 504 had originated in

14 common law, a right to contribution would still not be warranted because the court is “being asked

15 . . . to formulate a right that belongs not to a member of the class Congress sought to protect, but

16 that instead benefits solely a violator of the duties Congress created for the protection of that

17 class.” Bowers, 346 F.3d at 430; see Kim, 871 F.2d at 1433 (“[A] right of contribution is

18 particularly inappropriate where . . . there is no indication in the legislative history that Congress

19 was concerned with softening the blow on joint wrongdoers.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

20

In short, the court concludes that no implied rights to indemnity or contribution exist under

21 the Rehabilitation Act or Title II of the ADA. This conclusion is consistent with the decisions of

22 several other courts. See, e.g., Bowers, 346 F.3d at 433 (holding that neither Title II nor Section

23 504 recognize implicit rights to contribution); Mims v. Dallas Cnty., 2006 WL 398177, *3 (N.D. Tex.

24 2006), findings and recommendation accepted by Mims v. Dallas Cnty., No. CV 04-2754 (M) (N.D.

25

26

12 Years before the enactment of the Rehabilitation Act, which incorporated the rights and

remedies set forth in Title VI, the “the critical language in Title VI had already been construed as

27 creating a private remedy.” Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 696, 99 S. Ct. 1946, 1957

(1979); see 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2). It is therefore presumed that Congress incorporated the 28 private remedy into the Rehabilitation Act. Cannon, 441 U.S. at 697, 99 S.Ct. at 1958.

17

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 18 of 30 Page ID #:4201

1 Tex. 2006) (rejecting county defendants’ third-party claim for contribution in civil rights action

2 brought by three former inmates alleging violations of Title II and Section 504, where “neither

3 statute explicitly provides for such a right[,] [n]or has any federal court ever implied a right to

4 contribution under the [statutes]”); Equal Rights Ctr., 603 F.Supp.2d at 821-22 (“The clear weight

5 of authority among lower courts applying the reasoning of Northwest Airlines compels the

6 conclusion that there is no right to indemnification under the . . . ADA.”); Access 4 All Inc. v. Trump

7 Int’l Hotel & Tower Condo., 2007 WL 633951, *7 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (Rejecting third-party plaintiff’s

8 action seeking indemnification for any judgment in the underlying ADA lawsuit because there is

9 “no federal common-law right to indemnification under the ADA” and “th[e] Court should not

10 engraft a judicial remedy of indemnification where on has been omitted by the legislature.”); U.S. 11 v. Murphy Dev., LLC, 2009 WL 3614829, *1 (M.D. Tenn. 2009)13 (“The federal courts that have

12 considered the question . . . are in universal agreement that there is no express or implied right

13 to indemnity or contribution under the FHA or ADA.”); “Mathis v. United Homes, LLC, 607

14 F.Supp.2d 411, 419-20 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (holding there is no federal right to contribution and/or

15 indemnity provided by the Fair Housing Act); Sentell v. RPM Mgmt. Co., Inc., 2009 WL 2601367,

16 *4 (E.D. Ark. 2009) (same); U.S. v. Quality Built Const., Inc., 309 F.Supp.2d 767, 778 (E.D.N.C.

17 2003) (same).

18

C. Whether The Regulations Or Section 504 Compliance Manuals Create An Implied

19

Right To Indemnity Or Contribution.

20

The City asserts that one of the regulations implementing Section 504 contemplates a right

21 to contribution or indemnity. (See City’s Opp. at 9-10). Section 8.50(a) of Title 24 of the Code

22 of Federal Regulations requires that “an applicant for Federal financial assistance for [an

23 applicable] program or activity . . . shall submit an Assurance to HUD, or in the case of a

24 subrecipient to a primary recipient, . . . that the program or activity will be operated in compliance”

25

26

13 “Due to the similarity of the ADA and the FHA’s protections of individuals with disabilities

in housing matters, courts often analyze the two statutes as one.” Caron Found. of Florida, Inc.

27 v. City of Delray Beach, 879 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1364 (S.D. Fla. 2012); see Tsombanidis v. W.

Haven Fire Dep’t, 352 F.3d 565, 573 (2d Cir. 2003); Montana Fair Hous., Inc. v. City of Bozeman, 28 854 F.Supp.2d 832, 836 (D. Mont. 2012).

18

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 19 of 30 Page ID #:4202

1 with Section 504. According to the City, “[t]he assurances would be meaningless if the City were

2 unable to enforce [the assurances] by seeking contribution and/or indemnity from a

3 developer/owner that violates the terms of their agreement and violates Federal accessibility

4 requirements.” (City’s Opp. at 10). The City’s assertions are unpersuasive.

5

“In determining whether a particular regulation is enforceable through a statute’s private

6 right of action, [the courts] must look to the statute itself and determine whether it displays

7 Congress’s intent to create the private right purportedly contained in the regulation.” Lonberg v.

8 City of Riverside, 571 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2009). “Only those regulations effectuating the

9 statute’s clear prohibitions or requirements are enforceable through the statute’s private right of

10 action; regulations that do not encapsulate the statutory right and corresponding remedy are not

11 privately enforceable.” Id. at 851; see Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922, 939 (9th Cir. 2008)

12 ([T]o be enforceable through the § 504 implied private right of action, regulations must be tightly

13 enough linked to 504 that they “authoritatively construe” that statutory section, rather than impose

14 new obligations.).

15

As discussed above, there is no such intent to create a private right of action in favor of the

16 class of parties Section 504 regulates. Further, nothing in the legislative scheme allows the

17 analytical leap the City proposes, i.e., that because a subrecipient of federal funds must make an

18 assurance that it will comply with its responsibilities under Section 504, the City has “not just a

19 private right[,] but also a private remedy.” See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286, 121

20 S.Ct. 1511, 1519 (2001). The City did not submit any argument as to how the court may properly

21 construe the regulation as providing a right of action, much less an implied private remedy of

22 indemnification and contribution. (See, generally, City’s Opp.). “[I]t is most certainly incorrect to

23 say that language in a regulation can conjure up a private cause of action that has not been

24 authorized by Congress. Agencies may play the sorcerer’s apprentice but not the sorcerer

25 himself.” Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 291, 121 S.Ct. at 1522.

26

The City also contends that provisions in three HUD compliance manuals referencing

27 indemnification allow the City to seek indemnity against the owner defendants under the

28

19

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 20 of 30 Page ID #:4203

1 Rehabilitation Act.14 (See City’s Opp. at 10). (Id.). The three manuals are entitled: (1)

2 Compliance in HOME Rental Projects: A Guide for Property Owners (“HOME Property Owner 3 Guide”)15; (2) Compliance in HOME Rental Projects: A Guide for [Participating Jurisdictions (“PJ”)] 4 (“HOME PJ Guide”)16; and (3) Managing CDBG, A Guidebook for Grantees on Subrecipient 5 Oversight (“CDBG Oversight Guide”).17 (See Declaration of Jennifer Derwin in Support of City’s

6 Opp. to Joint Motion of Rule 19 Owner Defendants to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA

7 (“Derwin Decl.”), Exhs. 2-4). According to the City, the manuals relate to sources of federal grants

8 known as HOME and CDBG funds, which plaintiffs allege the City has received, and to

9 agreements entered into between public recipients and subrecipients of those funds. (See City’s

10 Opp. at 10 (citing SAC ¶¶ at 147-48)).

11

The City cites to a “Checklist of Elements in a Written Agreement between a PJ and an

12 Owner of Rental Housing[,]” contained in the HOME Property Owner Guide and the HOME PJ

13 Guide. (See City’s Opp. at 10; Derwin Decl., Exh. 2 at 230 & Exh. 3 at 236). The HOME guides

14 include identical checklists listing the term “Indemnification” as one of 13 “general provisions,”

15 which are “recommended” in a written agreement between a PJ and subrecipient, such as the City

16

14 Although the City relies on HUD’s manuals, it does not ask the court to take judicial notice

17 of them. (See, generally, City’s Opp.). The court will, however, sua sponte, take judicial notice of the manuals. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) & (c) (permitting courts to judicially notice “on its own”

18 facts that “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot

reasonably be questioned”); see also Protect Lake Pleasant, LLC v. McDonald, 609 F.Supp.2d 19 895, 922 n.13 (D. Ariz. 2009) (“In the exercise of its discretion, . . . as Fed. R. Evid. 201(c) allows,

20

the court will take judicial notice of [the federal agency’s] website” and its statements regarding an agency manual; cf. Denius v. Dunlap, 330 F.3d 919, 926-27 (7th Cir. 2003) (holding that district

21 court erred in refusing to take judicial notice of information on official website of a federal agency that maintained medical records on retired military personnel).
22 15 The HOME Property Owner Guide is available at:
23 portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/affordablehousing/library/
24 modelguides/2009/2009homerentalpo (last visited on September 17, 2013).

25

16 The HOME Property PJ Guide is available at: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/affordablehousing/li

26 brary/modelguides/2009/2009homerentalpj (last visited on September 17, 2013).

27

17 The CDBG Guide is available at:

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelop 28 ment/library/subrecipient (last visited on September 17, 2013).

20

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 21 of 30 Page ID #:4204

1 and owner defendants. (See Derwin Decl., Exh. 2 at 226 & 230 & Exh. 3 at 232 & 236) (stating

2 that only items “denoted with an asterisk” are required provisions, and listing the term

3 “indemnification” without an asterisk). The City also relies on a “Sample Subrecipient Agreement”

4 form included in the CDBG Oversight Guide, which provides that “[t]he Subrecipient shall hold

5 harmless, defend and indemnify the Grantee from any and all claims, actions, suits, charges and

6 judgments that arise out of the . . . subject matter called for in this Agreement.” (See Derwin Decl.,

7 Exh. 4 at 238 & 242).

8

“[I]nterpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement

9 guidelines, all of which lack the force of law – do not warrant Chevron-style deference.” N. Cal.

10 River Watch v. Wilcox, 633 F.3d 766, 779 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). In

11 N. Cal. River Watch, the Ninth Circuit rejected the federal government’s reliance on an agency

12 handbook regarding the Endangered Species Act, stating that the handbook had “no power to

13 persuade” in its statutory interpretation because the handbook in question provided only “flexible

14 guidelines[.]” 633 F.3d at 779-80. Here, the provisions relied on by the City do not consist of the

15 enforcing department’s interpretation of the statute or regulations. Cf. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v.

16 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-44, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2782 (1984) (“We have

17 long recognized that considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department’s

18 construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer, and the principle of deference to

19 administrative interpretations.”). The three brief references to indemnification provisions in

20 agreements between a participating jurisdiction and a grant subrecipient are mere

21 recommendations. (See Derwin Decl., Exh. 2 at 226, 230 & Exh. 3 at 232, 236 (explaining that

22 only items “denoted with an asterisk” are required, and listing the term “indemnification” without

23 an asterisk), & Exh. 4 at 238 (indicating the agreement is only a sample)). Further, the City has

24 not provided any authority that the subject provisions in the manuals purport to interpret a

25 particular regulation or statutory provision, or that HUD has ever taken the position that the

26 manuals are binding. (See, generally, City’s Opp.); see also N. Cal. River Watch, 633 F.3d at 779

27 n.13 (agency previously took the position that the handbook was not binding, and “in light of the

28 conclusory use of the term in . . . the [h]andbook, there appears to have been little thought given

21

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 22 of 30 Page ID #:4205

1 to the meaning of the term.”). In short, the court is not persuaded that the three HUD manuals are

2 sufficient to establish the existence of an implied right to indemnification under Section 504.

3 IV. WHETHER STATE LAW CLAIMS FOR CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY ARE

4

PREEMPTED UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTES.

5

The government defendants contend that they may nevertheless recover against the owner

6 defendants based on state indemnity and contribution law because those “claims are not expressly

7 preempted” by Section 504 or the ADA. (See CRA/LA’s Opp. at 5; City’s Opp. at 8). They argue

8 that nothing “preclude[s] allocating ultimate responsibility through indemnification and contribution 9 pursuant to state contract or common law.”18 (See id.). The owner defendants respond by

10 invoking the doctrine of conflict preemption and submit that the state claims are barred because

11 they stand as an obstacle to the purposes and objectives of the federal statutes. (See Motion at

12 11-13; Reply at 3-8).

13

“Preemption can occur in one of three ways: express preemption by statute, occupation of

14 the field, or conflict between state and federal regulation.” U.S. v. 4,432 Mastercases of

15 Cigarettes, More Or Less, 448 F.3d 1168, 1189 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Air Conditioning &

16 Refrigeration Inst. v. Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, 410 F.3d 492, 495 (9th Cir.

17 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1205, 126 S.Ct. 2887 (2006)). Neither party suggests that the ADA

18 or Rehabilitation Act expressly preempt state law contribution and indemnity laws, nor do they

19 contend that field preemption applies. (See, generally, City’s Opp. & CRA/LA’s Opp.). Thus,

20 conflict preemption is the only type of preemption at issue in this case.

21

“Conflict preemption occurs when . . . state law ‘stands as an obstacle to the

22 accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress[.]’” Incalza v.

23 Fendi N. Am., Inc., 479 F.3d 1005, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Volt Info. Science, Inc. v. Bd.

24
18 “[T]he [statutes’] preemptive effect on state common-law remedies is a separate question 25 from the availability of these remedies as an implied right of action under the [statutes] or under 26 federal common law.” Miami Valley Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Steiner & Associates, Inc., 483 F.App’x
67, 69, n.3 (6th Cir. 2012); see Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1256 27 (6th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he preemption defense to the state claims and the ‘federal common law’ claims
are conceptually distinct, and resolution of one issue does not [necessarily] affect resolution of the 28 other.”).

22

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 23 of 30 Page ID #:4206

1 of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 477, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 1255 (1989).

2 Every preemption analysis “must be guided by two cornerstones.” Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555,

3 565, 129 S.Ct. 1187, 1194 (2009). The first is that “the purpose of Congress is the ultimate

4 touchstone.” Id.; see Chae v. SLM Corp., 593 F.3d 936, 944 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[I]t is our duty to

5 consider carefully what Congress was trying to accomplish in the [statute] and whether these state

6 law claims create an ‘obstacle’ to the congressional purposes.”). “The second is that a

7 presumption against preemption applies when ‘Congress has legislated . . . in a field which the

8 States have traditionally occupied.’” U.S. v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339, 348 (9th Cir. 2011) aff’d in

9 part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 132 S.Ct. 2492 (2012) (quoting Wyeth, 555 U.S. at 565, 129

10 S.Ct. at 1194).

11

With respect to the first factor in the preemption analysis, it is clear that the objectives of

12 Title II and Section 504 are to provide comprehensive, federal protections for people with

13 disabilities against discrimination. Congress made explicit its purpose in creating a national

14 remedial scheme in which the “Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the

15 [protections] on behalf of individuals with disabilities” and “to invoke the sweep of congressional

16 authority . . . in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with

17 disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(3) & (4). In doing so, Congress provided “remedies,

18 procedures, and rights” for “any person aggrieved by any act or failure to act by any recipient of

19 Federal assistance or Federal provider of such assistance[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2).

20

As to the second factor, the presumption against preemption is inapplicable because the

21 states have not traditionally occupied the field of anti-discrimination law. See Fed’n of African Am.

22 Contractors v. City of Oakland, 96 F.3d 1204, 1214 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Private causes of action

23 against state actors who impair federal civil rights have not been traditionally relegated to state

24 law.”). “The Supreme Court has noted that ‘since the Civil War, the Federal Government and the

25 federal courts have been the ‘primary and powerful reliances’ in protecting citizens against such

26 discrimination.’” Id. (quoting Cannon, 441 U.S. at 708, 99 S.Ct. at 1964). Indeed, the impetus for

27 the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA was the federal government’s recognition of widespread

28 discrimination against people with disabilities at the hands of state governments, and its desire

23

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 24 of 30 Page ID #:4207

1 to eradicate barriers encountered by people with disabilities in carrying out major life activities.

2 As the Supreme Court has explained:

3

Congress enacted Title II against a backdrop of pervasive unequal treatment

4

in the administration of state services and programs, including systematic

5

deprivations of fundamental rights. For example, as of 1979, most States .

6

. . categorically disqualified ‘idiots’ from voting, without regard to individual

7

capacity. The majority of these laws remain on the books, and have been

8

the subject of legal challenge as recently as 2001. Similarly, a number of

9

States have prohibited and continue to prohibit persons with disabilities from

10

engaging in activities such as marrying and serving as jurors. The historical

11

experience that Title II reflects is also documented in this Court’s cases,

12

which have identified unconstitutional treatment of disabled persons by state

13

agencies in a variety of settings, including unjustified commitment, the abuse

14

and neglect of persons committed to state mental health hospitals, and

15

irrational discrimination in zoning decisions[.]

16 Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 524-25, 124 S.Ct. 1978, 1989 (2004). Accordingly,

17 “Congressional enactment of the ADA represents its judgment that there should be a

18 comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with

19 disabilities.” Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374, 121 S. Ct. 955,

20 967 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Based on this authority, and the government

21 defendants’ failure to cite to any authority holding otherwise, (see, generally, City’s Opp. &

22 CRA/LA’s Opp.), the court will not apply a presumption against preemption.

23

A. Whether The State Law Indemnity And Contribution Claims Are Preempted By

24

Section 504 And Title II Of The ADA.

25

The government defendants do not present any authority upholding state indemnity or

26 contribution claims where Title II or Section 504 serve as the underlying statutes. (See, generally,

27 City’s Opp. & CRA/LA’s Opp.). Instead, they defend their state crossclaims primarily on their

28 contention that disallowing the right to indemnity and contribution will undermine the purposes of

24

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 25 of 30 Page ID #:4208

1 the federal statutes because violators – the owner defendants here – will not be held responsible

2 for their wrongdoing. For example, the City asserts that “the Court should not allow the Owner

3 Defendants to escape liability for any violations that occurred at their respective properties.”

4 (City’s Opp. at 2); (see also id. at 8) (“The suggestion that Congress intended to allow the owner

5 to accept federal funding to build a housing project and operate that project for its benefit, yet

6 avoid liability for accessibility violations is an affront to the intent of Congress.”). Similarly, the

7 CRA/LA contends that “Congress could not have intended to allow those who participated in the

8 design and construction decisions, such as Cross-Defendants, and allegedly caused the statutory

9 violations of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act to walk away from indemnification and contribution

10 obligations and leave their share of the wrongdoing for a community-based agency to cover.”

11 (CRA/LA’s Opp. at 9). According to the CRA/LA, the owner defendants’ position would necessarily

12 “emasculate the intended power of those statutes by insulating independent contractor developers

13 from culpability for their own acts.” (CRA/LA’s Opp. at 3).

14

Contrary to the government defendants’ assertions, disallowing the state contribution and

15 indemnity claims will not immunize the owner defendants or diminish their potential liability under

16 the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. The owner defendants, as subrecipients of federal funds,

17 remain “on the hook” based on their independent responsibilities under the subject statutes. See

18 Equal Rights Ctr., 603 F.Supp.2d at 824 (denying state law indemnity claim under the ADA and

19 FHA and explaining that cross-defendant maintained independent obligations under the statutes

20 and its failure to meet that obligation “open[ed] [it] up to liability[,]” although not to cross-claimant.);

21 U.S. v. Bryan Co., 2012 WL 2051861, *5 (S.D. Miss. 2012) (“If [cross-defendant architect] drew

22 up inaccessible building plans and the [crossclaimants] failed to correct them at some point before

23 or during construction, both sides may have exposure under the FHA and ADA.”).

24

The government defendants also raise policy arguments in support of their state law

25 counterclaims. The CRA/LA argues that “allocating ultimate responsibility through indemnification

26 and contribution pursuant to state contract or common law . . . strengthens the goals of the ADA

27 and Rehabilitation to achieve greater incentives for non-discrimination of the disabled.” (CRA/LA’s

28 Opp. at 5). The City asserts that the state crossclaims are not preempted because they “further

25

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 26 of 30 Page ID #:4209

1 the congressional purpose of improving accessibility and eliminating discrimination by ensuring

2 that the primary violators are held accountable for designing and constructing buildings that are

3 not accessible.” (City’s Opp. at 8); (see also CRA/LA’s Opp. at 10 (“No policy goal of the ADA or

4 any disability law is served by letting those who committed the wrongful acts . . . escape liability

5 for their actions.”)). The government defendants’ policy arguments are unpersuasive.

6

“In determining whether state law stands as an obstacle to the full implementation of a

7 federal law, it is not enough to say that the ultimate goal of both federal and state law is the same.”

8 Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 103, 112 S.Ct. 2374, 2385 (1992) (citing

9 Michigan Canners & Freezers Ass’n., Inc. v. Agric. Mktg. & Bargaining Bd., 467 U.S. 461, 477, 104

10 S.Ct. 2518, 2527(1984) (state statute establishing association to represent agricultural producers

11 pre-empted even though it and the federal Agricultural Fair Practices Act “share the goal of

12 augmenting the producer’s bargaining power”). In other words, the question is not whether the

13 court believes it is good policy to allow state law indemnity claims to go forward because they may

14 further the goals of Section 504 and the ADA. Rather, the question is whether the crossclaims

15 “interfere[] with the methods by which the federal statute[s] [were] designed to reach [their] goal.”

16 Gade, 505 U.S. at 103, 112 S.Ct. at 2385 (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether a state

17 claim fails under obstacle preemption “requires the court independently to consider national

18 interests and their putative conflict with state interests . . . [P]reemption under [an obstacle

19 preemption] theory is more an exercise of policy choices by a court than strict statutory

20 construction.” Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Associates, 602 F.3d 597, 601 (4th Cir. 2010)

21 (alterations in original). “[T]he granting of [state law] indemnity in any situation represents a

22 judicial choice of policy[,] and courts have long recognized that the doctrine is not available where

23 it would operate against public policy.” W. Steamship Lines, Inc. v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp.,

24 8 Cal.4th 100, 109-10 (1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

25

In Equal Rights Ctr., a case raising similar issues, the Fourth Circuit held that allowing a

26 housing developer to shift its responsibility to another party through state indemnity counterclaims

27 “are antithetical to Congress’ purpose in enacting the FHA and ADA” because the statutes do not

28 allow wrongdoers to offset their liability. See 602 F.3d at 824-25. Similarly, in Bryan Co., the court

26

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 27 of 30 Page ID #:4210

1 rejected the contention that a state indemnity cause of action “would actually advance . . . the

2 fundamental goals of the FHA,” explaining that the availability of indemnification would disincentive

3 parties from proactive compliance with the statute. 2012 WL 2051861, at *5. Rather, it explained

4 that congressional objectives are best served when parties with duties under the anti-

5 discrimination statutes remain independently responsible for compliance, and determined that the

6 state claim was conflict preempted because it “would frustrate, disturb, interfere with, or seriously

7 compromise the purposes of the FHA and ADA.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation

8 omitted); see also Access 4 All, 2007 WL 633951, at *6 (Rejecting cross-complainant’s action

9 seeking indemnification for any judgment against it in an underlying ADA suit pursuant to either

10 the common law of New York, or federal common law); Murphy Dev., 2009 WL 3614829, at *2

11 (“[S]tate-law claims for express or implied indemnity and/or contribution will also be dismissed with

12 prejudice . . . because allowing recovery under state law for indemnity and/or contribution would

13 frustrate the achievement of Congress’ purposes in adopting the FHA and the ADA.”).

14

Congress chose to meet the goals of Section 504 and Title II by creating rights and

15 remedies for victims of disability discrimination. Congress created a comprehensive remedial

16 scheme allowing victims of disability discrimination to bring private causes of actions against public

17 and private entities that use public funds in a discriminatory manner. In short, allowing public

18 entities regulated by Section 504 and Title II to seek indemnification or contribution through state

19 law to offset their liability would “interfere[] with the methods by which the federal statute[s] w[ere]

20 designed to reach [their] goal.” Gade, 505 U.S. at 103, 112 S.Ct. at 2385.

21

B. Whether The Government Defendants’ Contractual Indemnity Crossclaims Are

22

Preempted By Section 504 And The ADA.

23

According to the crossclaims, each of the owner defendants “entered into an agreement

24 to receive funds from” the government defendants. (See City’s Am. Crossclaim at ¶¶ 5-64;

25 CRA/LA’s Crossclaim at ¶¶ 5-42). “[T]he agreements . . . provide that the [owner defendants]

26 would comply with all applicable federal . . . standards, [and] disabled and handicapped

27 requirements” and, therefore, “[t]o the extent that Cross-Claimant is held responsible for non

28 compliance with [the federal laws], Cross-Claimaint is entitled to contribution and indemnity[.]”

27

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 28 of 30 Page ID #:4211

1 (CRA/LA’s Crossclaim at ¶ 56); (see City’s Am. Crossclaim at ¶ 67) (“Such contracts or

2 agreements provide that Crossdefendants executing said documents are to indemnify and hold

3 harmless the [government defendants] from the injuries and damages sought by the Plaintiffs

4 herein.”). The CRA/LA contends that “[n]othing in the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act or Section

5 11135 set aside contractual responsibilities to enforce the rules and regulations of their respective

6 statutory schemes.” (CRA/LA’s Opp. at 3).

7

In Equal Rights Ctr., the court addressed a similar contention as that made by the

8 government defendants, i.e., that a contractual indemnity claim was proper because the subject

9 contracts “contain[ed] express indemnity provisions for losses and damages arising out of . . .

10 failure to perform . . . duties and obligations under the contract.” 603 F.Supp.2d at 825. After

11 determining that the contractual indemnity claim was derivative of the first-party claims under the

12 ADA and FHA, the court explained that the “claim for indemnity must first be evaluated under

13 those statutes if the Congressional purposes are to be fully achieved.” Id. Stating that “[t]he same

14 imperative of Congressional purpose applies to attempts to ‘contract around’ the ‘non-delegable’

15 duties imposed by” the statues, the court concluded that the statutes’ “goals would be undermined”

16 if a party were allowed to seek contractual indemnification. Id.; see Walker v. Crigler, 976 F.2d

17 900, 904 (4th Cir.1992) (“[T]he regulatory purposes of the FHA and ADA would be undermined

18 by allowing a claim for [contractual] indemnity.”).

19

As in Equal Rights Center, the government defendants’ contractual indemnity claim, based

20 on their contracts with the owner defendants, is barred every bit as much as their implied

21 indemnity claim discussed above. Indeed, the government defendants make no substantive

22 distinction between the contractual indemnity claim and the non-contractual claims. (See,

23 generally, City’s Crossclaim & CRA/LA’s crossclaim). Thus, the contractual indemnity claims meet

24 the same fate as the state law indemnity and contribution claims discussed above. (See supra

25 at 22-27). In short, the court agrees with the owner defendants that “the contract claims of the City

26 and the CRA/LA are nothing more than an unsupportable end run around the unavailability of

27 indemnification or contribution under these civil rights statutes.” (Motion at 4).

28

28

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 29 of 30 Page ID #:4212

1 V. THE CROSSCLAIMS ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

2

The government defendants request leave to amend their crossclaims in the event the

3 owner defendants’ Motion is granted. (See City’s Opp. at 15; CRA/LA’s Opp. at 15). Specifically,

4 they seek to amend their crossclaims to “plead . . . state law claim[s] for breach of contract based

5 upon the contractual duties owed by the Owner Defendants.” (See id.). While leave to amend

6 should be freely given when justice so requires, see Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir.

7 1999), leave to amend may be denied if the court “determines that the pleading could not possibly

8 be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

9

Here, any reiteration of a state breach of contract claim that depends on the City or

10 CRA/LA’s liability pursuant to plaintiffs’ allegations will, in essence, be an indemnification or

11 contribution claim. Any such amendment, even if new facts are alleged, will fail as a matter of law.

12 See Equal Rights Ctr., 603 F.Supp.2d at 821 (Claims for relief “clothed [in] . . . the state law garb

13 of breach of contract . . . are . . . derivative claims in the in the sense that they arise solely based

14 on [the government defendants’] actual or potential first-party liability under, i.e., its violation of”

15 Section 504 and Title II.); Niles Bolton, 602 F.3d at 602 (state claims for breach of contract . . . are

16 preempted when they are merely de facto claims for indemnification or contribution under civil

17 rights statutes).

18

Further, to the extent the government defendants may have any colorable state law claims

19 for breach of contact that are not derivative, but rather independent, of their own liability to

20 plaintiffs, see U.S. ex rel. Madden v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 4 F.3d 827, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1993)

21 (“counterclaims for indemnification or contribution by definition . . .have the effect of offsetting

22 liability,” but “[c]ounterclaims for independent damages are distinguishable, however, because

23 they are not dependant on [the counterclaimant’s] liability.”), the court is unwilling, under the

24 circumstances of this case, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims. Supplemental

25 jurisdiction is proper only where the federal and state claims “are so related . . . that they form part

26 of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. §

27 1367(a). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a court may decline to exercise supplemental

28 jurisdiction if the state claim “substantially predominates” over the federal claim. Issues of

29

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 308 Filed 09/19/13 Page 30 of 30 Page ID #:4213

1 “economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” may also support a decision to decline jurisdiction

2 over a state law claim. Executive Software v. United States District Court, 24 F.3d 1545, 1556 (9th

3 Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Ca. Dept. of Water Res. v. Powerex Corp., 533 F.3d

4 1087 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

5

As noted by the owner defendants, “if the City and the CRA/LA are permitted to amend their

6 crosscomplaints to add state law breach of contract claims against the Rule 19 Defendants, an

7 already unwieldy action will become unmanageable.” (Reply at 9). The breach of contract claims

8 “will result in the creation of 61 state law ‘mini-actions’ for which this Court will be asked to assume

9 supplemental jurisdiction[,]” since they will be based on 61 individual agreements with their own

10 set of underlying facts. (See id.). In addition, the breach of contract crossclaims will be too

11 attenuated from the primary claims alleging violations of federal (and analogous state) disability

12 anti-discrimination statutes. The risk is far too great that the 61 breach of contract

13 crosscomplaints would “predominate over” the federal claims in plaintiffs’ action. In short, the

14 government defendants’ request for leave to amend will be denied and the cross-claims will be

15 dismissed with prejudice.

16

CONCLUSION

17

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT the Joint Motion of Rule 19 Owner

18 Defendants to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA (Document No. 242) is granted. The

19 City’s and CRA/LA’s crossclaims are dismissed with prejudice.

20 Dated this 19th day of September, 2013.

21

22

/s/

Fernando M. Olguin

23

United States District Judge

24

25

26

27

28

30

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 406 Filed 09/23/14 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:5292
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CV 12-0551 FMO (PJWx)

Date September 23, 2014

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa Deputy Clerk

None Present Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order Re: Pending Motion

The court has reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to CrossDefendant CRA/LA, a Designated Local Authority, Successor to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(c) as to the Amended Cross-Claim for Indemnity and Contribution of the City of Los Angeles (“Motion”), and concludes that oral argument is not necessary to resolve the Motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 244 F.3d 675, 684 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001).

INTRODUCTION

The Independent Living Center of Southern California, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (collectively, “plaintiffs”) filed this action pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“§ 504”), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Title II” or the “ADA”), the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and California Government Code § 11135 (“§ 11135”). (See Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Injunctive, Declaratory, and Monetary Relief). Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint for Injunctive, Declaratory, and Monetary Relief (“SAC”) on August 20, 2012, alleging that defendants CRA/LA Designated Local Authority, a public entity and successor agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (“CRA/LA”), and the City of Los Angeles (“City”) (collectively, the “government defendants”) have engaged in a “pattern or practice” of discrimination against people with disabilities in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. (See SAC at ¶ 2). On December 20, 2012, the City filed an Amended Crossclaim For Contribution, Indemnity, and Declaratory Relief (“City’s Am. Crossclaim”) against, among other parties, the CRA/LA. (See City’s Am. Crossclaim at ¶ 4).

BACKGROUND

I. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS.

Plaintiffs are non-profit, community-based organizations that provide services to people with disabilities in the City of Los Angeles and adjoining areas. (See SAC at ¶¶ 9-30). Plaintiffs claim

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 9

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 406 Filed 09/23/14 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:5293
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CV 12-0551 FMO (PJWx)

Date September 23, 2014

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

that the government defendants “discriminated and continue[] to discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Cal. Gov. Code § 11135 by acting or failing to act in a manner that” results in unlawful discrimination against or “unlawfully limits people with disabilities from enjoying housing or the opportunity to obtain . . . housing.” (Id. at ¶¶ 233-44, 250-51). Plaintiffs allege that the government defendants have “knowingly allocated millions of dollars in federal, state and other funds to finance housing throughout Los Angeles without ensuring” meaningful accessibility for people with disabilities. (Id. at ¶ 2). According to plaintiffs, “the Government Defendants failed to monitor compliance with the Rehabilitation Act accessibility requirements[,]” (id. at ¶ 174), and “failed to exercise oversight over developers and owners of housing in the [Program] in regards to their obligations to comply and their ongoing compliance with disability access provisions of federal law.” (Id. at ¶ 181).

Plaintiffs allege that the government defendants failed to ensure compliance with these requirements with regard to “at least 61 multifamily projects, comprising approximately 4,140 units, for which the [government defendants] provided [federal] funds to support new construction or substantial alteration.” (SAC at ¶ 184). “None of the 61 federally-funded multifamily projects contains units accessible to people with mobility and/or auditory or visual impairments in sufficient numbers, sizes and locations to provide people with disabilities meaningful access to this program, service, or activity in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, . . . and [California] Government Code § 11135.” (Id. at ¶ 185).

Plaintiffs brought into this action the above-described 61 owners (collectively, the “owner defendants”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b) as necessary parties to enforce any injunctive or other relief that may be granted by the court if plaintiffs prevail against the government defendants. (See SAC at ¶ 3 & 57-116). Plaintiffs do not allege affirmative claims against any of the owner defendants. (See, generally, id.).

II. GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS’ CROSSCLAIM AGAINST OWNER DEFENDANTS.

The City filed a Crossclaim For Contribution, Indemnity, and Declaratory Relief against the owner defendants and the CRA/LA. (See City’s Am. Crossclaim). The CRA/LA subsequently filed a nearly identical crossclaim against the owner defendants. (Compare Defendant/CrossDefendant CRA/LA, A Designated Local Authority, Successor to Community Redeployment Agency of the City of Los Angeles’ Cross-claim for Contribution Indemnity and Declaratory Relief, with City’s Am. Crossclaim).

On September 19, 2013, the court granted the owner defendants’ motion to dismiss the crossclaims of the City and the CRA/LA. (See Court’s Order of September 19, 2013, at 29). The court found that: (1) the owner defendants could not be liable to the government defendants based on plaintiffs’ claims; (2) no express or implied right of contribution or indemnity exists under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act; (3) the comprehensive remedial scheme of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act preempts state law rights to contribution and indemnity; and (4) the government

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 9

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 406 Filed 09/23/14 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:5294
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CV 12-0551 FMO (PJWx)

Date September 23, 2014

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

defendants could not rely upon contractual indemnity provisions as an “end run around the unavailability of indemnification or contribution under these civil rights statutes.” (See id. at 10-28).

III. THE CITY’S CROSSCLAIM AGAINST CRA/LA.

The City asserts a crossclaim, alleging that the CRA/LA is “wholly responsible or responsible in part for the injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiff[s] . . . and/or that [the CRA/LA] . . . executed contracts or other written agreements with the City, . . . [which] provide that [the CRA/LA is] to indemnify and hold harmless the City from the injuries and damages sought by the Plaintiffs herein.” (City’s Am. Crossclaim at ¶ 67). The City argues that plaintiffs are suing it “for alleged violations of its obligations as a recipient of federal funding for affordable housing,” while “the CRA/LA is being sued for alleged violations of its obligations as a true subrecipient of such funding[,]” and “[a]s such, the basis for indemnity and/or contribution is direct and appropriate.” (See City’s Opposition to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of CRA/LA (“City’s Opp.”) at 7).

LEGAL STANDARD

“After the pleadings are closed – but early enough not to delay trial – a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A motion brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(c) will be denied unless it appears that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any statement of facts which could be proven in support of the plaintiff’s claim. See Provenzano v. United States, 123 F.Supp.2d 554, 556 (S.D. Cal. 2000). “[T]he same standard of review applicable to a Rule 12(b) motion applies to its Rule 12(c) analog,” because the motions are “functionally identical.” Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 812 (1989). The court therefore employs the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should be granted if the claimant fails to proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2011). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Cook, 637 F.3d at 1004; Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 2010). The City must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1965; Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; see also Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 974 (2005) (“[T]he court is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged. Nor is the court required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “Specific

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 9

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 406 Filed 09/23/14 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:5295
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CV 12-0551 FMO (PJWx)

Date September 23, 2014

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

facts are not necessary; the [complaint] need only give the defendant[s] fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (per curiam) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

In considering whether to dismiss a cross-complaint, the court must accept the allegations of the cross-complaint as true, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93-94, 127 S.Ct. at 2200; Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 267, 114 S.Ct. 807, 810 (1994), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the pleading party, and resolve all doubts in the pleader’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, 89 S.Ct. 1843, 1849 (1969); Berg v. Popham, 412 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 2005). See Brown v. Koch Maschinenbau GMBH, 2010 WL 4365668, *1 (D. Conn. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (on motions to dismiss a cross-claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), “a court takes the allegations of the cross-claim as true and construes them in a manner favorable to the claimant.”). Dismissal for failure to state a claim can be warranted based on either a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of factual support for a cognizable legal theory. See Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). A [cross-complaint] may also be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it discloses some fact or complete defense that will necessarily defeat the claim. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 1984).

DISCUSSION

I. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act protects “qualified individual[s] with a disability” from being “subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” “solely by reason of her or his disability[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 794. Under Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131, et seq., “qualified individuals with a disability” cannot be “be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity[,]” “by reason of such disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

“There is no significant difference in analysis of the rights and obligations created by the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.” Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of California, 166 F.3d 1041, 1045 n.11 (9th Cir. 1999) (listing cases). “Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the [Rehabilitation Act] both prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. The ADA applies only to public entities, whereas the [Rehabilitation Act] proscribes discrimination in all federally-funded programs.” Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1105 (2003); see also Weinreich v. Los Angeles County Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 971 (1997) (“Title II of the ADA was expressly modeled after Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act[.]”). The remedies, procedures, and rights under the ADA mirror those under the Rehabilitation Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 12133. In addition, California Government Code § 11135 “is identical to the Rehabilitation Act except that the entity must receive State financial assistance rather than Federal financial assistance.” Communities Actively Living Indep. & Free v. City of

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 9

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 406 Filed 09/23/14 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:5296
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CV 12-0551 FMO (PJWx)

Date September 23, 2014

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

L.A., 2011 WL 4595993, *17 (C.D. Cal. 2011). Since plaintiffs’ claims under each statute rely on the same set of facts, the court’s analysis of the City’s crossclaim will apply to each statute.

II. THE CITY CANNOT AVOID LIABILITY BY WAY OF INDEMNIFICATION OR CONTRIBUTION FROM CRA/LA.

The City argues that, notwithstanding the Court’s Order of September 19, 2013, (“September 19, 2013, Order”), it has a valid claim for indemnity and/or contribution against the CRA/LA based on: (1) an implied right of indemnity or contribution in § 504, the ADA, or § 11135; and (2) a state law right to contractual indemnity or contribution. (See City’s Opp. at 6-11). In distinguishing the instant action from the dismissed crossclaim against the owner defendants, the City overlooks much of the September 19, 2013, Order’s reasoning, contending that the fact that “the Owner Defendants were never alleged to have violated the civil rights of the intended beneficiaries of Section 504 and the ADA” was central to the court’s dismissal. (See id. at 6). For the same reasons that the government defendants were barred from shifting liability to the owner defendants, (see Court’s Order of September 19, 2013, at 10-28), the City may not shift liability to the CRA/LA.

A. The City’s Independent Liability Under the Civil Rights Statutes.

The City correctly points out, (see City’s Opp. at 6), that the court found no cognizable right of indemnity or contribution against the owner defendants in part because the government defendants’ “crossclaims are not based on allegations of wrongdoing by the . . . [owner defendants] independent of the actions or liability of the City or CRA/LA.” (See Court’s Order of September 19, 2013, at 10). The City argues – without citation to case law – that the court’s findings are therefore limited to defendants whose conduct is not alleged to violate the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Section 11135, while a right of indemnity or contribution is available between public entities whose conduct is at issue. (See City’s Opp. at 6-7). The court is not persuaded by the City’s arguments.

Unlike the owner defendants, plaintiffs allege that the City is directly involved in the violations due to its significant planning and reporting responsibilities with regard to housing development. (See SAC at ¶¶ 137-41, 146-57). In order to obtain federal funding for housing development, the City must submit a Consolidated Plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) describing the Los Angeles housing market and its needs – including those specific to people with disabilities – every five years. (See id. at ¶¶ 137-40). State law requires the City to maintain a “blueprint” of its plan to meet the housing needs of Los Angeles residents. (See id. at ¶ 141). Plaintiffs allege that the City has received “millions of dollars” in federal, state and local funds “for the purposes of developing affordable housing.” (See id. at ¶ 146-57). By virtue of its role in oversight, planning and directing public dollars in housing development, plaintiffs contend that the City is liable under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act and § 11135 for its failure to “maintain policies, practices, or procedures to ensure that accessible units” are available to

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 5 of 9

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 406 Filed 09/23/14 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:5297
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CV 12-0551 FMO (PJWx)

Date September 23, 2014

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

people with disabilities. (See id. at ¶¶ 165-183).
B. No Implied Right to Indemnification or Contribution Exists Under the Statutes.
In the September 19, 2013, Order, the court found that “nothing in [the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA] can be read as providing for an implied right to indemnity or contribution in favor of the City.” (Court’s Order of September 19, 2013, at 15). The City nonetheless argues that “Congress intended a right of action for indemnity to exist” under the statutes. (See City’s Opp. at 8). The court finds the City’s argument to be contrary to the weight of authority because: (1) the civil rights statutes regulate public entities, like the City, in favor of people with disabilities, and therefore do not support an implied right of action in the City’s favor; and (2) the statutes’ comprehensive remedial scheme bars an implied right of action therein or under federal common law. (See Court’s Order of September 19, 2013, at 12-22). The fact that the City seeks indemnification or contribution from its codefendant, the CRA/LA, rather than the owner defendants does not change the analysis. The court’s conclusion that the civil rights statutes do not afford the City a right to indemnification or contribution is consistent with the decisions of several other courts. (See id. at 17-18) (collecting cases).
The City’s argument that federal regulations and HUD compliance manuals1 reveal that the civil rights statutes do, in fact, create an implied right of indemnification or contribution “among recipients and subrecipients of . . . federal funding,” (see City’s Opp. at 8-9), is unpersuasive. The City points to the same regulatory provisions and manuals, and recites the same arguments, (compare id., with City’s Opposition to Joint Motion of Rule 19 Owner Defendants to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA and Request to Strike Plaintiffs’ Non-Opposition at 10), that the court addressed in its September 19, 2013, Order. (See Court’s Order of September 19, 2013, at 18-22). The regulations can no more provide the City a vehicle for indemnity or contribution than the civil rights statutes they promulgate. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 291, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 1522 (2001) (“[I]t is most certainly incorrect to say that language in a regulation can conjure up a private cause of action that has not been authorized by Congress.”). The HUD manuals, meanwhile, merely recommend inclusion of indemnification agreements in contracts between recipients and subrecipients. (See Derwin Decl., Exh. 2 at 226, 230 & Exh. 3 at 232, 236 (explaining that only items “denoted with an asterisk” are required, and listing the term “indemnification” without an asterisk), & Exh. 4 at 238 (indicating the agreement is only a sample)). The City does not contend that they have the force of law as binding interpretations of statutory

1 The three manuals are entitled: (1) Compliance in HOME Rental Projects: A Guide for

Property Owners (“HOME Property Owner Guide”); (2) Compliance in HOME Rental Projects: A

Guide for [Participating Jurisdictions (“PJ”)] (“HOME PJ Guide”); and (3) Managing CDBG, A

Guidebook for Grantees on Subrecipient Oversight (“CDBG Oversight Guide”). (See Declaration

of Jennifer Derwin in Support of City’s Opp. to Joint Motion of Rule 19 Owner Defendants to

Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA (“Derwin Decl.”), Exhs. 2-4).

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 6 of 9

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 406 Filed 09/23/14 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:5298
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CV 12-0551 FMO (PJWx)

Date September 23, 2014

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

provisions or federal regulations. (See, generally, City’s Opp.); see also N. Cal. River Watch v. Wilcox, 633 F.3d 766, 779 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[I]nterpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law – do not warrant Chevronstyle deference.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

C. The City’s Contractual Indemnity and Contribution Claims Are Unavailing.

The court’s previous determination that there was no contractual indemnity or contribution remedy available to the government defendants under state law, (see Court’s Order of September 19, 2013, at 22-28), applies with equal force to the City’s Amended Crossclaim. The City’s claim for state law contractual indemnity or contribution conflicts with Congress’s comprehensive federal scheme, and it is therefore barred.

Through enactment of § 504 and Title II of the ADA, Congress created a comprehensive remedial scheme allowing victims of disability discrimination to bring private causes of actions against public and private entities that use public funds in a discriminatory manner. See Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374, 121 S.Ct. 955, 967 (2001) (“Congressional enactment of the ADA represents its judgment that there should be a comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Allowing public entities regulated by Section 504 and Title II to seek indemnification or contribution through state law to offset their liability would “interfere[] with the methods by which the federal statute[s] w[ere] designed to reach [their] goal.” Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 103, 112 S.Ct. 2374, 2385 (1992). Federal regulations reinforce the court’s finding: “A public entity may not, directly or through contractual arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration . . . [t]hat have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the public entity’s program with respect to individuals with disabilities[.]” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3)(i),(ii) (emphasis added).

To give effect to an indemnity agreement between the codefendants would undermine Congress’s goal of ensuring public entities’ administration of programs in a non-discriminatory fashion. See Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Associates, 602 F.3d 597, 601 (4th Cir. 2010) (disallowing a housing developer from shifting its responsibility to another party through state indemnity counterclaims because such claims “are antithetical to Congress’ purpose in enacting the [Fair Housing Act] and ADA,” which do not allow wrongdoers to offset their liability); Walker v. Crigler, 976 F.2d 900, 904 (4th Cir.1992) (“[T]he duty of a property owner not to discriminate in the leasing or sale of that property is non-delegable.”); U.S. v. Bryan Co., 2012 WL 2051861, *5 (S.D. Miss. 2012) (explaining that the availability of indemnification would disincentivize parties from proactive compliance with the statute and finding the state claim was conflict preempted because it “would frustrate, disturb, interfere with, or seriously compromise the purposes of the FHA and ADA.”); Access 4 All v. Trump Int’l Hotel & Tower Condo., 2007 WL 633951, *6 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (rejecting cross-complainant’s action seeking indemnification for any judgment against it in an underlying ADA suit pursuant to either the common law of New York, or federal common law);

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 7 of 9

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 406 Filed 09/23/14 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:5299
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CV 12-0551 FMO (PJWx)

Date September 23, 2014

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

U.S. v. Murphy Dev., LLC, 2009 WL 3614829, *2 (M.D. Tenn. 2009) (“[S]tate-law claims for express or implied indemnity and/or contribution will also be dismissed with prejudice . . . because allowing recovery under state law for indemnity and/or contribution would frustrate the achievement of Congress’ purposes in adopting the FHA and the ADA.”).2
III. THE CITY’S CROSSCLAIM IS DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Having liberally construed and assumed the truth of the allegations, the court is persuaded that there is no basis for concluding that the City’s crossclaim against CRA/LA can be saved through amendment of the Amended Crossclaim. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Courts are not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”). In the September 19, 2013, Order, the court denied the government defendants leave to amend to assert state law breach of contract claims against the owner defendants because such claims would merely constitute derivative claims for indemnity or contribution. (See Court’s Order of September 19, 2013, at 29). Additionally, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the “61 state law mini-actions” the defendants’ proposed amendment would generate. (See id. at 29-30) (internal quotations omitted).
Here, other than stating in a conclusory manner that it wants leave to amend, the City does not explain how it would amend its pleading to make out a colorable indemnity or contribution claim against the CRA/LA. (See, generally, City’s Opp. at 14). In light of the foregoing, the court is persuaded that there are no facts that the City could provide that would state a valid contribution or indemnity claim against the CRA/LA. Under the circumstances, it would be futile to afford the City another opportunity to state these claims against the CRA/LA. See Cafasso, United States ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where the plaintiff has previously filed an amended complaint.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc., 363 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1043, 124 S. Ct. 2176 (2004), overruled on other grounds by Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541, 551 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“Leave to amend is generally within the discretion of the district court.”).
This Order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis.

2 “Due to the similarity of the ADA and the FHA’s protections of individuals with disabilities in

housing matters, courts often analyze the two statutes as one.” Caron Found. of Florida, Inc. v.

City of Delray Beach, 879 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1364 (S.D. Fla. 2012); see Tsombanidis v. W. Haven

Fire Dep’t, 352 F.3d 565, 573 (2d Cir. 2003); Montana Fair Hous., Inc. v. City of Bozeman, 854

F.Supp.2d 832, 836 (D. Mont. 2012). Thus, the City’s contention that “the Rehabilitation Act is the

thrust of Plaintiffs’ allegations” and is distinct from the ADA and FHA in this analysis, (see City’s

Opp. at 14), is unpersuasive.

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 8 of 9

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 406 Filed 09/23/14 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:5300
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CV 12-0551 FMO (PJWx)

Date September 23, 2014

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT the CRA/LA’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c) as to the Amended Cross-claim of City for Indemnity and Contribution of the City of Los Angeles (Document No. 318) is granted. The City’s Amended Crossclaim (Document No. 220) is dismissed with prejudice.

CV-90 (10/08)

Initials of Preparer

00

: 00

vdr

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 9 of 9

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:3721

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

12

13 INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER Case No. CV12-00551 FMO (PJWx)

OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al.,

14

Plaintiffs,

~B~~~I1?~iffi:Mt?~~D]

15

AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.

16

Trial Date: December 3, 2013

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

Time: 9a.m.

17 CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Judge: Hon. Patrick Walsh

18

Defendants.

19

20

21

22

ANY PARTY INTENDING TO SUBMIT TO

23

THECOURTANYDOCUMENTSCOVERED BV THIS PROTECTIVE ORDER SHALL FILE A

24
25

tlf MOTION UNDER LOCAL RULE 79-5
REQUESTING PERMISSION TO FILE THEM UNDER SFAL

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:3722

1

The parties in the above-styled action believe that certain documents and

2 things, answers to interrogatories, testimony, and other responses provided by the

3 parties or by third parties will contain information that is especially sensitive and

4 entitled to confidential treatment in the course of discovery. The patties have

5 therefore agreed to the terms ofthis Consent Confidentiality and Protective Order.

6

1. Application. This Agreement and Order shall govern the disclosure,

7 handling, and disposition of any document, infonnation, or other discovery material

s that contains information to be designated as "highly confidential'' as defined

9 herein, and that is furnished in this litigation by parties or non-patties, in cmmection

10 with answers to interrogatories, requests for admissions, responses to document

11 requests, responses to subpoenas duces tecum, deposition testimony, or otherwise,

12 to any other party. Because of the highly confidential nature ofthis material, the

13 patties agree that disclosure of such material shall be for "attorneys' eyes only,'' as

14 fUlther defined and limited by the provisions ofthis Agreement and Order set fmth

15 below.

16

2. Definition. Information subject to the designation "highly

17 confidential" and disclosure limitation of"attomeys' eyes only" shall mean and

18 include specific data regarding the finances, pattnership agreements, or corporate

19 stmcture of owners ofproperties concerned in this lawsuit or their members,

20 shareholders, third party investors or sponsors. This definition shall include any

21 material setting fmth fmancial data including budgets, pro forma statements, draw

22 requests, net worth statements, year end statement on fmancial accounts, tax

23 documents, loan or credit applications or agreements, balance sheets, inter-creditor

24 agreements, settlement statements, financial audits, and personal compensation of

25 the owners of propetties concetned in this lawsuit and their members, shareholders,

26 third party investors or sponsors. This defmition shall also include information

27 identifying the private financial or personal information of individuals. The

28 foregoing definition is not exhaustive and the patties reserve the right to identify
- 1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:3723

1 additional documents as "highly confidential" if additional types of documents are

2 discovered that contain the type of information described above as highly

3 confidential infonnation.

4

3. Exclusion. The designation "highly confidential" and disclosure

s limitation of"attorneys' eyes only" does not apply to any information as described

6 in paragraph 2 of this Agreement and Order that is specifically regarding,

7 referencing, or concerning one ofthe propetties defined in paragraphs 57-116 ofthe

8 Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. #98) or to organizational documents ofthose

9 properties. For example, budgets, pro fmma statements, draw requests, net worth

lO statements, year"end statements on financial accounts, tax documents, loan or credit

11 applications or agt·eements, balance sheets, inter"creditor agreements, settlement

12 statements, financial audits, and personal compensation data of the properties

13 defined in paragraphs 57"116 ofthe Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. #98) are

14 excluded from the designation of"highly confidential" and disclosure limitation of

15 "attorneys' eyes only." The designation "highly confidential" and disclosure

16 limitation of"attmneys' eyes only" also does not apply to any infonnation in the

17 possession of any government agency that would be required to be disclosed to

18 members ofthe public pursuant to the Califmnia Public Records Act, Gov't Code

19 §6250 et seq. or the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §522 et seq.

20 Voluntary disclosure by a party of its own documents or information to the Court in

21 a publicly filed document renders such document or information not "highly

22 confidential."

23

4. Designation.

24

4.1. Good Faith Claims. Any party may designate as "Highly

25 Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" at the time of disclosure or thereafter, any

26 documents, other tangible things, or information that the asserting party in good

27 faith believes are within the definition set fmth in paragraph 2 ofthis Agreement

28 and Order and which is not subject to the exclusion ofparagraph 3. The inadvettent
-2" STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:3724

1 production of any "highly confidential" document is not intended to be, and shall

2 not operate as, a waiver of the "highly confidential" status of that document, in

3 whole or in part. Nor is any such inadvertent production intended to be, nor shall it

4 constitute, a waiver of any right to object to any use of such document or ofthe

5 information contained therein.

6

4.2. Produced Documents. Copies of documents that the pmducing

7 party believes constitute or contain information that is "highly confidential" shall be

8 marked or otherwise designated "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" ATTORNEYS'

9 EYES ONLY."

10

4.3. Inspection ofDocuments. In the event a producing party elects

11 to make its documents available for inspection and the requesting party elects to

12 inspect them, no designation of"HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" ATIORNEYS'

-~

13 EYES ONLY" need be made in advance ofthe inspection. During such inspection,

14 all material produced shall be considered subject to this designation. Ifthe

15 inspecting party selects specified documents to be copied, any patty who asserts

16 that the selected documents contain "highly confidential information" shall

17 designate "highly confidential" information as applicable, in accordance with

18 paragraph 2 and 3 of this Agreement and Order within ten days ofthe time such

19 copies are produced. Ifthe inspecting party selects documents to be copied that are

20 stored on electronic, magnetic, optical or other non"paper media, such as compact

21 discs, DVDs, video tapes and audio tapes (collectively, "data storage devices"), any

22 patty who asserts that the selected documents contain "highly confidential

23 information" shall designate the data storage device as containing "highly

24 confidential" information as applicable, within ten days of the time copies of such

25 data storage devices are produced.

26

5. Objections to Designation. Any party objecting to a designation of

27 information as "highly confidential" - or to the lack ofsuch designation - shall

28 notify in writing the producing patty and all other parties ofthe objection,
~ 3-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Pa....g.. e-5······o·-··f·-··1....6····-·····P--·-a-··-·g···e····--I···D.····#···-·:···3·····7··-··2-····5········-··--·······- ..I

1 specifically identifying each document at issue. In accordance with the Federal

2 Rules governing discovery disputes, the parties thereafter shall confer within ten

3 (1 0) days in an attempt to resolve their differences. The parties agree that as a

4 general matter documents containing "highly confidential" information may be

5 used in this litigation if the "highly confidential" information is redacted and no

6 other grounds for objection to use of the documents apply. The parties agree that

7 during the meet and confer process they will discuss the scope and appropriateness

8 ofredactions to resolve any differences or objections to public disclosure. Nothing

9 in this Agreement and Order shall prevent a patty from redacting confidential or

10 private information fi·om a document and producing the document with that

11 information already redacted. The parties also agree that ifthe party to whom the

12 allegedly "highly confidential" infonnation pertains agrees that the "attorneys' eyes

13 only" designation is not necessary, the information shall not be considered "highly

14 confidential." If the parties are unable to resolve their differences, the objecting

15 patty shall, after the conference concludes, file with the Court a motion to challenge

16 the "highly confidential" designation (or non-designation). The material in

17 question shall retain "highly confidentiaP' status if any party claims such until the

18 Court tules otherwise.

19

6. Custody. All "highly confidential" information and any and all copies,

20 extracts, and summaries thereof, including memoranda relating thereto, shall be

21 retained by the receiving patty in the custody of counsel ofrecord, or by persons to

22 whom disclosure is authorized under this Agreement and Order.

23

7. Handling Prior to Trial.

24

7.1. Authorized Disclosure ofHighly Confidential Information.

25 Disclosure of information that is "highly confidential" is authorized only for use in

26 connection with this litigation, and is intended for attorneys' eyes only. To that

27 end, such information may be disclosed by the receiving party only to the following

28 persons:

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:3726

1

a. The Court, pursuant to paragraph 8 of this Agreement and Order;

2

b. Qualified persons taking testimony involving the information, and

3 necessary stenographic, videotape and clerical personnel;

4

c. Counsel ofrecord for the parties in this litigation, including attorneys,

5 clerks, paralegals, and secretarial personnel;

6

d. Designated experts, consultants and their staff who are consulted by

7 counsel for a patty to this litigation, provided that each such person has signed an

8 undertaking in the form of Exhibit A attached hereto and agrees to be bound by the

9 terms ofthis Agreement and Order; and

10

e. Outside vendors employed by counsel for copying, scanning, and

11 general handling of documents, provided that each such vendor has signed an

12 undertaking in the form of Exhibit A attached hereto and agrees to be bound by the

13 tenns ofthis Agreement and Order.

14

A receiving patty who discloses "highly confidential" infonnation in

15 accordance with this subparagraph shall maintain a list of all persons to whom a

16 receiving party has disclosed the "highly confidential" information, and shall

17 furnish the written acknowledgements and disclosure list to the Comt upon its

18 request or order. This does not apply to counsel or their staff.

19

7.2. Unauthorized Disclosure. If"highly confidential" information

20 is disclosed to any person other than in the manner authorized by this Agreement

21 and Order, the patty or person responsible for the disclosure must immediately

22 bring the facts relating to such disclosure to the attention ofthe producing party and

23 if appropriate, to the Comt. Without prejudice to other rights and remedies ofthe

24 producing patty, the responsible party or person shall immediately make every

25 effort to obtain the return ofthe "highly confidentiar' information (including

26 without limitation, from the person to whom the unauthorized disclosure was made

27 and from any other person to whom "highly confidential" information was directed

28 as a direct or indirect result ofthe unauthorized disclosure) and to prevent further
- 5STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:3727

1 disclosure on its own pati or on the pali of any person to whom the unauthorized

2 disclosure was made.

3

7.3. Further Disclosures. The attorneys ofrecord for a party who

4 wishes to disclose "highly confidential'' information to persons other than those

5 identified in paragraph 7.1 shall notify the attorneys ofrecord for the other parties.

6 The attorneys shall discuss in good faith whether disclosure can be made. Ifthey

7 cannot agree, the patty seeking disclosure shall move the Court, on reasonable

8 notice, for an order permitting disclosures. No disclosure of the information to

9 persons other than those identified in paragraph 7.1 shall be made pending a ruling

10 by the Comi.

11

8. Court Filings. The parties will comply with Local Rule 79-5 when

12 contemplating or resisting the filing of any "highly confidential" information.

13

9. Handling After Disposition. Within thhty (30) days of the conclusion

14 ofthis litigation, whether by way ofsettlement or judgment, including the

15 exhaustion of all appeals, the attorney for each receiving party shall collect,

16 assemble and return all "highly confidential" information, including all copies,

17 extracts, and summaries thereof, including memoranda and notes relating thereto, in

18 the possession ofthe receiving party, its counsel, or other authorized recipients to

19 whom that patty provided the information, but not including copies, extracts,

20 summaries, or memoranda that contain or constitute attorney work product. If

21 requested by the designating party within ninety (90) days ofthe conclusion ofthis

22 litigation, all copies, extracts, summaries, and memoranda that contain or constitute

23 attomey-work product shall be destroyed and the att01ney for each receiving patty

24 shall cetiify in writing that all such copies, extracts, summaries and memoranda

25 have been destroyed. The obligation to return or destroy shall occur prior to the

26 termination ofthis litigation when an individual or entity is no longer a patty or

27 when counsel, expert, or consultant is no longer retained in the case, whichever

28 comes earlier.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:3728

1

10. No Implied Waivers. The execution of this Agreement and Order shall

2 not be interpreted as a waiver ofthe right to object, under applicable law, to the

3 furnishing of information in response to discovery requests ot· to object to a

4 requested inspection of documents or facilities. Parties producing "highly

5 confidential" information in this litigation are doing so only pursuant to the terms

6 of this Agreement and Order. Neither the agreement to, or the taking of any action

7 in accordance with, the provisions of this Agreement and Order, nor the failure to

8 object thereto, shall be interpreted as a waiver ofany claim or position or defense in

9 this action, or any other actions.

10

11. Care in Storage. Any person in possession of "highly confidential''

11 information produced by another patty shall exercise reasonable and appropriate

12 care with regard to the storage, custody, copying, and use of the "highly

13 confidential" information to ensure that the confidential and sensitive nature of

14 same is maintained.

15

12. No Admission. Neither this Agreement and Order nor the designation

16 of any item as "highly confidential" shall be construed as an admission that such

17 material, or any testimony concerning such material, would be admissible in

18 evidence in this litigation or in any other proceeding.

19

13. Parties' Own Documents. This Agreement and Order shall in no way

20 restrict the_parties in their use oftheir own documents and information, or in their 21 use of documents or information obtained in the ordinary course of their operations,

22 and nothing in this Agreement and Order shall preclude any patty fi·om voluntarily 23 disclosing its own documents or information to any patty or nonparty. Nothing in

24 this order shall preclude any of the patties fi·om showing a document designated as 25 "highly confidential" to an individual who prepared the document. Nothing in this

26 order shall preclude any of the patties from showing a document designated as

27 "highly confidential" to an individual who is identified on the face of the document

28 as an addressee or copy address, but before doing so the patties shall confirm with
-7STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

' '
Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:3729

t the author or producing party that the document is a final draft that was in fact sent

2 to the addressee or copy address.

3

14. Relevant Evidence. If any party desires to introduce a "highly

4 confidential, document in open court (at trial or otherwise) the parties agree that (a)

5 nothing in this Agreement and Order shall prevent the presentation of relevant

6 evidence to the Comt or trier of fact, and (ii) the patties will cooperate to facilitate

7 the introduction in evidence ofsuch document or portions as are relevant while

8 preserving the confidentiality of other information contained in the document by

9 such means as redaction, an agreed statement of the facts therein, closing the

10 courtroom for publication ofthe confidential matter, or othel' similar means. A

11 patty intending to introduce such evidence shall provide notice to the othel' parties

12 at the pretrial conference, ifpossible, or ifnot, then sufficiently in advance of its

13 introduction to enable the parties to confer and seek a ruling from the Court on the

14 method of introduction.

15

15. No Effect on Other Rights. This Agreement and Order shall in no way

16 abrogate or diminish any preMexisting contractual, statutory, or other legal

17 obligations or rights of any party with respect to "highly confidential, infonnation.

18

16. Further Protection. Nothing in this Agreement and Order shall

19 preclude a patty from seeking and obtaining from the Court a modification ofthis

20 Agreement and Order. Except for the propetties listed in paragraphs 57-116 ofthe

21 Second Amended Complaint ("SAC," Dkt. #98), the parties have made no

22 agreement with respect to infonnation spedfic to any of the properties described in

23 paragraph 164 ofthe SAC because the parties disagree regru·ding the obligations

24 sm1·ounding disclosure of inf01mation regarding those properties. Once that

25 disagreement is resolved, the parties may modify this Agreement and Order to

26 reflect that resolution.

27

17. General.

28

17.1. The parties agree to submit this Agreement and Order for entry

- 8-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW

Document 295

Filed 07/29/13

Page 10 of 16

Page

ID .•

' ~

#:3730

1 by the Comt and to be bound by its tetms prior and subsequent to entry by the

2 Court.
3

17.2. The Comt retains jurisdiction over the parties after the dismissal

4 of this action regarding any dispute concerning the improper use of information

5 disclosed under protection ofthis Agreement and Order.

6

17.3. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, all obligations and

7 duties arising under this Protective Order shall forever survive the termination of

8 this action.

9

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

10
11 DATED: July 26, 2013

DISABILITY RIGHfS CALIFORNIA

12

Is/ Autumn Elliott

By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

13

AUTUMN ELLIOTT

14

15

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16 DATED: July 24, 2013
17

BYRNE & NIXON LLP

18

Is/ Mark A. Byrne

19

By:
MA•~RK~A~.~B~YRNE=-----------------

20

21

Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Claimant

City ofLos Angeles

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
-9~
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:3731

1 DATED: July 26,2013 2

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 DATED: July 25,2013
11
12

Is/ Robett M. Collins By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ MELISSA T. DAUGHERTY ROBERT M. COLLINS
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross"Claimant Community Redevelopment Agency for the City of Los Angeles and CRAILA, a Designated Local Agency
Is/ Theresa L. Kitay By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Theresa L. Kitay

13
14 15 16 DATED: July 26,2013

Attorney for Defendants listed in App. A and Lead Counsel for Rule 19 Owner Defendants Group
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

17 18 19 20 21 22 DATED: July 26, 2013

Is/ William J. Goines By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ William J. Goines
Attorneys for Defendant Redrock Noho Residential, LLC
Law Offices of Chl'istopher P. Warne

23

Is/ Christopher P. Warne

24

By:

25

Chr~ ist~ op- he~ r P-. - W- atn-e-----------

26

Attorneys for Defendant 105 East I Street, LP

27

28 - 10-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:3732

..... --1

1 DATED: July_, 2013
2 3 4

The Law Office ofDimitrios P. Biller1
By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Dimitrios P. Biller

5

Attorneys for Defendant Korean Family Housing

6

Corp.

7 DATED: July 26, 2013
8 9 10

Levy, Small & Lallas
Is/ Leo D. Plotkin By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Leo D. Plotkin

11 12
DATED: July 26, 2013
13 14 15 16 17 18
DATED: July 26, 2013
19
20
21 22 23

Attorneys for Defendant Menlo Park, LP
Lara & Ibat1'a LLP
Is/ Robetto Lara By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Robetto Lara
Attorneys for Defendants New Tierra del Sol, LP and 4651 Huntington, LP
Baird Holm LLP
Is/ Scott P. Moore By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Scott P. Moore
Attorneys for Defendant Amistad Plaza, LP

24

25

26

27 1 Counsel was asked to confirm by 3:30p.m. on July 26th ifhe/she auth01ized Byrne & Nixon

28

LLP to sign the proposed protective otder on his/her behalf. No response was received from the Law Office ofDimitdos P. Biller.

- 11-

STIPULATION AND {PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:3733

1 DATED: July 26, 2013
2 3 4

Baker Keener & Nahra LLP
Is/ R. Jeffrey Neer
By:__________________________ R. Jeffrey Neer

5 6
DATED: July 26, 2013
7
8 9 10

Attorneys for Defendant Penny Lane Centers
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Is/ Megan K. Garibaldi By:~------------------­
Mark J. Austin Megan K. Garibaldi

11

Attorneys for Defendant Imani Fe, LP

12

13

14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15

16

Hon. Patrick J. alsh

17

United States District Court Magistrate Judge

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25

26

27

28
- 12STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:3734

1

EXIDBITA

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

3

4

The undersigned hereby acknowledges that:

5

1. I have read the CONSENT CONFIDENTIALITY AND

6 PROTECTIVE ORDER, which was entered by the Court on _ _ _ _, 2013,

7 in Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al. v. City ofLos Angeles,

8 California, eta/., Case No. 2:12"cv-00551-FMO"PJW,pending in the United States

9 District Court for the Central District of California.

10

2. I am one ofthe persons contemplated in paragraph 7.1 thereof as being

11 given access to the information designated "highly confidential'' and intended as for

12 attorneys' eyes only.

13

3. I fully understand and agree to abide by the obligations and conditions

14 thereunder.

15

4. I agree that any documents or information designated "highly

16 confidential" will be used only in the preparation ofthe prosecution or defense of

17 this action, as contemplated by the order.

18

19 Date: 20
21
22

Signature

23

Printed Name

24

25

26

Title or Position

27

28 - 13-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:3735

1

APPENDIX A

2

RULE 19 OWNER DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED

3

BYTHERESAL.KITAY,ATTORNEY ATLAW

4

5 1. 12129 ElDorado Avenue, LP 6 2. 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, LP
7 3. Adams 935, LP
8 4. AMCAL Montecito Fund, LP
9 5. Andalucia Senior Apattments, LP
10 6. Ardmore 959 Partners, LP 11 7. Asturias Senior Apattments, LP 12 8. B S Broadway Village II, LP 13 9. Behringer Harvard NoHo, LLC 14 10. Buckingham Senior Apartments, LP 15 11. Cantabria Senior Apattments, LP 16 12. Carondelet Comt Pattners, LP 17 13. Casa Rampatt, LP 18 14. Central Village Apartments, LP 19 15. Decro Orion Apartments, LP 20 16. Dect·o Osborne Apartments, LP 21 17. East LA Community Corporation 22 18. Eastside Village, LP 23 19. Esperanza Community Housing Corporation 24 20. Eugene Hotel, LP 25 21. FAME West 25th Street, LP 26 22. Far East Building, LP 27 23. Grandview Nine, LP
28 "14 w
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 295 Filed 07/29/13 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:3736
1 24. Hmt Village, LP 2 25. Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, LP 3 26. Hobatt Heights Partners, LP 4 27. Hoover Seniors
5 28. Las Margaritas, LP 6 29. Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc. 7 30. Los Cuatro Vientos, LP 8 31. Morgan Place, LP 9 32. New Genesis Apartments, LP 10 33. NoHo Senim· Villas, LP 11 34. 0 L Hope, L.P. 12 35. P G Housing Partners, LP 13 36. Palm Village Senior Housing Corp. 14 37. Palomar Apa1tments, LP 15 38. Renato Apartments, LP 16 39. Rittenhouse Limited Partnership 17 40. Selma~Hudson Community Limited Pattnership 18 41. Seven Maples, LP 19 42. Sherman Village Apattments, LP 20 43. Sherman Way Community Housing, LP 21 44. Stovall Housing Corporation 22 45. Vermont Seniors 23 46. WA Court,LP 24 47. Watts/Athens Preservation XVII, LP 25 48. West Angeles Villas, LP 26 49. Western/Carlton II, LP 27 50. Yale Terrace, LP
28
- 15STIPULATION AND {PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 1 of 122 Page ID #:2765

1 MICHAEL G. ALLEN*

D. SCOTT CHANG #146403

2 JAMIE L. CROOK #245757

RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX

3

PLLC 1225 19th St. NW, Suite 600

4 Washington D.C. 20036

Telephone: (202) 728-1888

5 Facsimile: (202) 728-0848

schang@relmanlaw.com

6

* Application for admission pro

7 hac vice approved by Court order

Doc. No. 15

8

PAULA D. PEARLMAN #109038

9 MARIA MICHELLE UZETA

#164402

10 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL

CENTER

11 Loyola Public Interest Law Center

800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120

12 Los Angeles, CA 90017

Telephone: (213) 736-1496

13 Facsimile: (213) 736-1428

Michelle.Uzeta@lls.edu

14

DAVID GEFFEN #129342 DAVID GEFFEN LAW FIRM 530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 434-1111 Facsimile: (310) 434-1115 Geffenlaw@aol.com DARA SCHUR #98638 DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 1330 Broadway, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 267-1200 Facsimile: (510)267-1201 Dara.Schur@disabilityrightsca .org AUTUMN ELLIOTT #230043 DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 350 S. Bixel Ave., Suite 290 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 213-8000 Facsimile: (213) 213-8001 Autumn.Elliott@disability rightsca.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

(WESTERN DIVISION)

18 INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF )

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al.

)

19

)

Plaintiffs,

)

20

)

vs.

)

21

)

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

)

22 CALIFORNIA, et al.,

)

)

23

Defendants.

)

)

24

)

)

25

)

26

Case No.: 12-CV-551 SJO (PJWx) JOINT STIPULATION BY PLAINTIFF THE FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF SAN FERNANDO VALLEY AND DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA RE: DISCOVERY Judge: Hon. Patrick J. Walsh Courtroom: 23, Third Floor, Spring St. Courthouse Complaint Filed: Jan. 13, 2012 Discovery Cut-Off: Sept. 3, 2013 Pre-Trial Conference: Nov. 18, 2013 Trial: Dec. 3, 2013

27

28

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW) Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 2 of 122 Page ID #:2766

1
2 I.
3 4 5 6 7 8
9 II.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS...............................................................2 A. PLAINTIFF’S INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT..............................2
1. Nature of the Case.......................................................................2 2. Meet and Confer Efforts .............................................................3 B. THE CITY’S INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT................................4 1. Nature of the Case.......................................................................5 2. The City’s Efforts to Respond to the Broad Requests................5 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT ISSUE...............7 A. THE CITY’S OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION IN GENERAL ............................................................7 1. Plaintiff’s Argument ...................................................................7
a. Standards for Discovery ...................................................7 b. The City’s Generalized Objections ..................................8
i. The City’s Generalized Burdensomeness Objections ..................................9
2. The City’s Argument ................................................................11 a. Plaintiff Did Not Meet and Confer with the City Regarding the City’s Purported “Generalized Objections” ...............................................11 b. The City Has Not Relied On Improper General Objections .........................................................12 c. The City Explained the Basis for its Burdensome Objections..................................................14 d. The City Is Continuing to Search for Responsive Documents.............................................15
B. DOCUMENT REQUEST NOS. 35 AND 44 .....................................16 1. Plaintiff’s Argument .................................................................18 a. The City Waived Its Claim of Privilege to Requests Nos. 35 and 44 by Failing to Produce a Timely Privilege Log....................................18
i
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW) Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 3 of 122 Page ID #:2767

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
III.
26 27 28

b. The City’s Generalized Objections to Requests 35 and 44 Should be Overruled.......................19
2. The City’s Argument ................................................................21 C. DOCUMENT REQUEST NOS. 4, 7-17, 19, 21,
23-27, 29, 30, 32 and 46......................................................................24 1. Plaintiff’s Argument .................................................................54
a. The City Failed to Produce Responsive Documents Or Certify That It Has Produced All Responsive Documents in Response to Request Nos. 4, 7-17, 19, 21, 23-27, 29, 30, 32 and 46 ...........................................54
2. The City’s Argument ................................................................57 a. The City Compiled with Rule 34(b)(2)(E) .....................57 b. The City Produced Documents in Response to Request Nos. 7, 9, 12, 19, 23-25, 27, 29, 30 and 32 ...........................................59 c. The City Produced Responsive Documents for Request Nos. 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21 and 46 and Continues to Search for Responsive Documents...................................................61
D. DOCUMENT REQUEST NOS. 3, 5 & 6 ...........................................61 1. Plaintiff’s Argument .................................................................65 a. The City Should Be Required to Conduct a Further Search for Responsive Documents .................65 2. The City’s Argument ................................................................66
E. DOCUMENT REQUEST NOS. 36-40...............................................66 1. Plaintiff’s Argument .................................................................73 a. The City Should Be Required to Search for Responsive Documents in Specific Departments of the City..................................................73 2. The City’s Argument ................................................................74
INTERROGATORIES AT ISSUE................................................................76 A. INTERROGATORY NOS. 2-8...........................................................76
1. Plaintiff’s Argument .................................................................96
ii
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW) Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 4 of 122 Page ID #:2768

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
IV.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a. The City Should be Required to Provide Complete, Written Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8 ...............................................96
2. The City’s Argument ................................................................98 B. INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9-25 ..............................101
1. Plaintiff’s Argument ...............................................................101 a. Plaintiff Has Not Exceeded the Permissible Number of Interrogatories ............................................101
2. The City’s Argument ..............................................................105 C. VERIFICATIONS.............................................................................110
1. Plaintiff’s Argument ...............................................................110 2. The City’s Argument ..............................................................110 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AT ISSUE ..............................................110 1. Plaintiff’s Argument..........................................................................111 a. The Court Should Order The City to
Conduct the Required Inquiry Necessary to Respond to Requests for Admission Nos. 185 and 190 ....................................................................111 2. The City’s Argument.........................................................................114
iii
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW) Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 5 of 122 Page ID #:2769

1 I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS

2

A. PLAINTIFF’S INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

3

Through this motion to compel, Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San

4 Fernando Valley (“Fair Housing Council”) seeks an order requiring that Defendant

5 City of Los Angeles (the “City”): (1) produce documents or certify that all

6 responsive documents have been produced in response to its Request for Production

7 of Documents Nos. 3-6, 7-17, 19, 21, 23-27, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36-40, 44 and 46; (2)

8 provide responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Nos. 2-25; and (3) provide responses to

9 Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission Nos. 185 and 190. Fair Housing Council’s

10 motion to compel should be granted because the information and documents sought

11 are relevant to the claims and defenses herein and the City has failed to meet its

12 burden of asserting specific objections or supporting its objections.

13

1. Nature of the Case

14

Fair Housing Council’s mission includes helping people with disabilities find

15 and keep accessible and affordable housing. Together with two co-Plaintiffs with

16 similar missions, Fair Housing Council alleges that the City and the Designated

17 Local Authority of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los

18 Angeles (“DLA”) violated their obligations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

19 Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Government Code

20 Section 11135 by failing to ensure that people with physical disabilities have

21 meaningful access to DLA-funded housing programs.

22

The City and the DLA receive federal and state housing funds (Second Am.

23 Compl. (“SAC”) ¶¶ 33, 38, 146-57.) Defendants solicited bids from third parties and

24 provided funding for tens of thousands of DLA-assisted rental units, which Plaintiffs

25 have denominated the Redevelopment Housing Program. (Id. ¶¶ 158-64.) Plaintiffs

26 allege that the City and DLA have operated the Redevelopment Housing Program in

27 a fashion that denies meaningful access to people with disabilities and identify at

28 least 61 multifamily projects within the Redevelopment Housing Program that

- 2 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 6 of 122 Page ID #:2770

1 received federal funds and lack the required level of accessibility. (Id. ¶¶ 165-86.)

2

The Rehabilitation Act decrees that any recipient of federal funds (such as the

3 City and the DLA) is prohibited from discriminating based on disability. Since

4 1988, HUD’s Section 504 regulations have required “recipients” to comply with the

5 accessibility requirements of the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (“UFAS”),

6 which requires a higher level of accessibility than other architectural standards.

7

Through policies that discriminate against people with disabilities, the City

8 and the DLA have made the Redevelopment Housing Program largely off-limits for

9 people with disabilities.

10

2. Meet and Confer Efforts

11

Fair Housing Council first propounded a set of interrogatories, requests for

12 admission and request for production of documents approximately five months ago

13 on October 23 and 26, 2012. (Decl. of Michael G. Allen (“Allen Decl.”) ¶ 2.) On

14 November 27 and 30, 2012, the City responded to Fair Housing Council’s first round

15 of written discovery. (Allen Decl. ¶ 3.)

16

On January 8, 2013, Fair Housing Council sent a letter to the City setting forth

17 deficiencies in the City’s discovery responses. (Ex. 1 to Allen Decl., 1/8/13 Ltr.

18 from Pl. to City.) On January 11, 2013, Fair Housing Council sent another letter

19 describing the discovery responses that Fair Housing Council intended to move to

20 compel if meet and confer efforts were not successful. (Ex. 2 to Allen Decl., 1/11/13

21 Ltr. from Pl. to City.) Fair Housing Council and the City held two meet and confer

22 conferences on January 11, 2013 and January 16, 2013. (Allen Decl. ¶ 6.)

23

On January 15, 2013, the City supplemented its initial responses to Fair

24 Housing Council’s production of documents. (Allen Decl. ¶ 7.) The City wrote a

25 letter summarizing the City’s responses to the issues raised by Fair Housing Council

26 on January 24, 2013. (Ex. 3 to Allen Decl., 1/24/13 Ltr. from City to Pl.) The City

27 agreed to conduct a further search for documents responsive to the requests for

28 production of documents but refused to produce a privilege log. (Id.) Additionally,

- 3 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 7 of 122 Page ID #:2771

1 in its January 24, 2012 letter, the City agreed to supplement certain responses to

2 Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and described in greater detail its objections to certain

3 interrogatories and requests for admission to which it had withheld responsive

4 information.

5

On February 6, 2013, Fair Housing Council sent a follow-up discovery letter,

6 outlining the issues in dispute with respect to Fair Housing Council’s Interrogatories

7 and Requests for Admission and informing the City that Plaintiff intended to compel

8 Defendant’s responses to its outstanding requests for written discovery. (Ex. 4 to

9 Allen Decl., 2/6/13 Ltr. from Pl. to City.) On February 13, 2013, Fair Housing

10 Council wrote another letter to the City requesting that the City produce any

11 additional documents responsive to the document requests at issue or certify that all

12 responsive documents had been produced and produce a privilege log by February

13 21, 2013. (Ex. 5 to Allen Decl., 2/13/13 Ltr. from Pl. to City.)

14

On February 22, 2013, the City provided supplemental responses to some of

15 Fair Housing Council’s Interrogatories and Requests for Admission; however, the

16 City has maintained its objection with respect to a number of Plaintiff’s requests for

17 written discovery and has continued to withhold responsive information. With

18 respect to the Requests for Production, the City has not produced any additional

19 responsive documents, and has not certified that all responsive documents have been

20 produced or produced a privilege log. (Allen Decl. ¶ 11.) The specific discovery

21 requests in dispute, along with the parties’ respective positions, are detailed below.

22

B. THE CITY’S INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

23

Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley (“Plaintiff” or

24 “FHCSFV”) seeks an order compelling the City to produce documents, or certify that

25 all responsive documents have been produced more than five months before the

26 discovery cut-off date. Plaintiff’s request is premature and unnecessary. The City

27 has already produced approximately 25,000 pages of documents and is in the process

28 of making additional documents available for inspection. Further, Plaintiff has

- 4 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 8 of 122 Page ID #:2772

1 ignored the City’s repeated invitations to identify any specific documents it wishes to

2 obtain to expedite their production. Plaintiff also seeks an order compelling the City

3 to respond to two requests for admission that are properly directed at defendant

4 CRA/LA, not the City, and respond to interrogatories that exceed the number

5 allowed under Rule 33. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion should be denied.

6

1. Nature of the Case

7

Plaintiffs allege that the City received federal housing and community

8 development funds from HUD and the State of California and directed some of those

9 funds to the CRA/LA. Plaintiffs identify sixty-one multi-family housing projects

10 that purportedly received federal funds, but allegedly do not contain sufficient

11 accessible units. (SAC ¶¶ 184-185). Plaintiffs have named the owners of these

12 properties as the “Owner Defendants.” Plaintiffs further allege that the Owner

13 Defendants are part of a “Redevelopment Housing Program” operated by the City

14 and CRA/LA. (SAC ¶¶ 164, 184-85). The City, the CRA/LA and the Owner 15 Defendants all deny that such a program ever existed.1 (City’s Answer (Docket No.

16 212) ¶ 164; CRA/LA’s Answer (Docket No. 213) ¶ 164; Owner Defendants’ Joint

17 Motion (Docket No. 242-1) at p. 10, n. 6).

18

2. The City’s Efforts to Respond to the Broad Requests

19

FHCSFV first propounded discovery requests on the City in July 2012. At the

20 time its corporate status was suspended by the Secretary of State. As a result,

21 FHCSFV lacked the legal capacity to prosecute or defend a civil action. On August

22 13, 2012, counsel for the City spoke to counsel for FHCSFV regarding the discovery

23 requests and specifically raised concerns over the broad scope of the discovery

24 requests, including that they sought information and documents dating back to June

25 15, 1990. Counsel also noted that FHCSFV’s definition of “Identify” was compound

26 1 The City provided federal funds for the development of multi-family housing 27 projects on a project-by-project basis. The City objects to Plaintiffs’ attempt to create
a “Redevelopment Housing Program” because it specifically relates to the Plaintiffs’ 28 burden of proof at trial and the scope of the discovery requests.

- 5 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 9 of 122 Page ID #:2773

1 and called for several discrete pieces of information. Counsel for FHCSFV agreed to

2 consider the issues. Declaration of Jennifer Derwin ¶ 2.

3

After FHCSFV’s corporate status was re-instated, FHCSFV served the

4 discovery requests at issue on October 23 and October 26, 2012. Plaintiff made no

5 attempt to address the City’s objection to the term Identify, or the scope of the

6 requests. The City timely responded to the FHCSFV’s discovery requests on

7 November 27 and 30, 2012. The City produced documents along with an index.

8 The City produced additional documents, along with an index, on January 15 and

9 March 12, 2013. (See Byrne Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 9.)

10

On December 17, 2012, the parties met and conferred regarding Plaintiff’s use

11 of the defined term “Redevelopment Housing Program.” The parties scheduled a

12 telephonic conference for January 11, 2013. Counsel for FHCSFV stated that he

13 would provide a letter outlining all of FHCSFV’s concerns regarding the City’s

14 discovery responses by December 21, 2012, before the holidays. The City did not

15 receive a letter until the afternoon of January 8, 2013. The eleven page letter raised a

16 variety of new issues and failed to comply with Local Rule 37.1 by specifying the

17 terms of the discovery order that FHCSFV intended to seek. (See Byrne Decl. ¶ 4.)

18

On January 11, 2013, the parties conferred by telephone. The City raised its

19 concerns about being able to adequately respond to the issues raised for the first time 20 in the January 8th letter and informed Plaintiff of its failure to comply with the

21 requirements of Local Rule 37-1. FHCSFV reluctantly agreed to schedule a second

22 telephonic conference on January 16, 2013. (See Byrne Decl. ¶ 5.)

23

On January 16, 2013, the parties conferred and on January 24, 2013, the City

24 sent a letter confirming its understanding of the discovery issues, including potential

25 solutions, and requested further information from FHCSFV. (Ex. 3.)

26

On February 6, 2013, Plaintiff reworded Requests for Admission Nos. 45, 46

27 and 198. The City responded to those requests on February 22, 2013. (Ex. 12.)

28

On February 14, 2013, the City responded to Plaintiff’s February 6th letter and

- 6 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 10 of 122 Page ID #:2774

1 again attempted to resolve the issues surrounding Interrogatories Nos. 185 and 190.

2 The City also renewed its request that Plaintiffs identify any specific documents that

3 they sought to expedite their production. The City also stated that it would be

4 making additional documents available for inspection. (See Byrne Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 7.)

5

On February 19, 2013, the City received a letter from Plaintiff dated February

6 13, 2013, raising five specific discovery issues, one of which the City believed the

7 parties had already resolved regarding the manner of production, and demanded a

8 response by February 21, 2013. On February 20, 2013, the City notified FHCSFV 9 that the letter was not received until February 19th and requested additional time to

10 respond to Plaintiff’s complaint regarding the manner of production and the new

11 legal authority from outside the Circuit. (See Byrne Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. 11.) On

12 February 21, 2013, counsel responded: “We will proceed with drafting our portion of

13 the joint stipulation . . .” and suggested that the City “just put your substantive

14 position in your response to our draft [joint stipulation].” (Ex. 11.)

15

On March 12, 2013, counsel for the City contacted Plaintiff regarding several

16 issues that had not been previously raised by Plaintiff and asked to meet and confer

17 with respect to the issues. Counsel noted his belief that the parties may be able to

18 resolve some of the objections if the City had a better understanding of what Plaintiff

19 actually wanted. Plaintiff declined to do so. (See Byrne Decl. ¶14, Ex. 14.)

20
II.
21
22
23

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT ISSUE A. THE CITY’S OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION IN GENERAL 1. Plaintiff’s Argument

24

a. Standards for Discovery

25

A party can discover “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s

26 claims or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be
27 admissible at the trial if the discovery appears calculated to lead to the discovery of
28 admissible evidence.” Id.
- 7 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW) Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 11 of 122 Page ID #:2775

1

“The party who resists discovery has the burden to show discovery should not

2 be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its

3 objections.” Keith H. v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist., 228 F.R.D. 652, 655-56

4 (C.D. Cal.2005); Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975)

5 (holding that under liberal discovery principles of the Federal Rules, a party resisting

6 discovery is required to carry a heavy burden to show why discovery should be

7 denied).

8

b. The City’s Generalized Objections

9

The City objects to nearly every one of Fair Housing Council’s requests for

10 production of documents by asserting generalized objections, including objections

11 that the requests or the documents sought are: (1) vague and ambiguous; (2)

12 irrelevant; (3) overbroad in time and scope and therefore burdensome; (3)

13 burdensome and oppressive; (4) equally available to Plaintiffs; and (5) privileged or

14 protected by the work product doctrine.

15

“[I]t is well settled that all grounds for objection must be stated with

16 specificity.” Ramirez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 251 F.R.D. 407, 409 (C.D. Cal. 2005)

17 (citing Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981)); United States ex rel.

18 O’Connel v. Chapman Univ., 245 F.R.D. 646, 649 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (collecting

19 cases); McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485

20 (5th Cir. 1990) (general objections that requests were irrelevant and burdensome

21 were insufficient to meet party’s burden to explain why discovery requests were

22 objectionable). Objections must be specific and be supported by a detailed

23 explanation why the discovery requests are improper. See In re Folding Carton

24 Antitrust Litigation, 83 F.R.D. 260, 264 (N.D. Ill. 1979) (citing United States v. 58.

25 16 Acres of Land, 66 F.R.D. 570, 572 (E.D. Ill. 1975). The failure to provide

26 specific objections may result in a waiver of objections. See Ramirez, 231 F.R.D. at

27 407 (citing Allianz Ins. Co. v. Surface Specialties, Inc., No. 03-2470, 2005 WL

28 44534, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 7, 2005) (“The familiar litany of general objections,

- 8 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 12 of 122 Page ID #:2776

1 including overly broad, burdensome, or oppressive, will not alone constitute a

2 successful objection to an interrogatory, nor will a general objection fulfill the

3 objecting party’s burden to explain its objections.”).

4

In this case, the City cites the same litany of generalized general objections in

5 response to nearly every request for production of documents. The City has not

6 provided specific objections explaining why each particular document request is

7 objectionable.
8

i. The City’s Generalized Burdensomeness Objections

9

The City objects to nearly every one of Fair Housing Council’s requests for

10 production of documents on the grounds of burdensomeness. But generalized and

11 conclusory objections based on burden are improper. Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v.

12 Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985) (holding that recitation of expense

13 and burdensomeness are merely conclusory and do not justify objections). To

14 properly invoke a burdensomeness objection, the party resisting discovery, “must

15 show specifically how, despite the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal

16 discovery rules, each [request] is not relevant or how each is overly broad,

17 burdensome or oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the

18 nature of the burden.” Houdini, Inc. v. Gabriel, No. CV 04-09574-GHK, 2005 WL

19 6070171, *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2005) (quoting Roesberg v. Johns-Manville Corp.,

20 85 F.R.D. 292, 296 (E.D. Pa.1980) (internal citations omitted). The party objecting

21 on the grounds of burdensomeness “has an obligation to provide sufficient detail in

22 terms of time, money and procedure required to produce the requested documents.”

23 Cory v. Aztec Steel Bldg., Inc., 225 F.R.D. 667, 672 (D. Kan. 2005) (internal

24 quotation and citation omitted). In addition, a responding party must explain and/or

25 establish the basis for his objection at the time he asserts his objection. See Allianz

26 Ins. Co. v. Surface Specialties, Inc., No. 03-2470, 2005 WL 44534, at *2 (D. Kan.

27 Jan. 7, 2005).

28

The City asserts the same burdensomeness objections to nearly every request

- 9 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 13 of 122 Page ID #:2777

1 for production of document

2

The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents

from a time period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to

3

time and scope, would require the City to conduct an unduly

burdensome and oppressive investigation . . . . The City objects to this

4

request to the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that

it purports to require the City to make an unreasonable and unduly

5

burdensome investigation to identify all responsive documents in the

possession of any employee or representative of the City, including

6

email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employ.

7

8

Here, the City did not provide any declarations offering evidence establishing

9 the nature of the burden it would incur in responding to each of the requests for

10 production of documents at the time it served its responses. By failing to provide

11 specific information about the nature of the burden imposed by responding to the

12 requests for production of documents, Fair Housing Council was denied the

13 opportunity to challenge the objection.

14

The minimal information regarding the burden imposed on the City does not

15 apply to Fair Housing Council’s requests for production of documents. For example,

16 responding to Fair Housing Council’s requests does not require the City to search

17 every employee’s records for the past 20 years. Most of the relevant responsive

18 documents are likely to be located in a few City departments such as the Los Angeles

19 Housing Department or the Community Development Department.

20

In addition, the temporal scope of Fair Housing Council’s requests is proper.

21 Fair Housing Council defined the temporal scope of its requests for production of

22 documents as June 15, 1990 to the present. (Allen Decl. ¶ 14.) Based on the

23 discovery conducted thus far, the City first provided funding for a housing project in

24 the Community Redevelopment Agency’s housing program in 1995 and continued to

25 fund such housing until 2012. (See Allen Decl. ¶ 15.) The temporal scope of

26 Plaintiff’s discovery is appropriate in this case alleging systemic failure to provide

27 program access in violation of Section 504 and Title II of the Americans with

28 Disabilities Act (“ADA”). See Lopez v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., No. C-99-

- 10 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 14 of 122 Page ID #:2778

1 3260 SI, 2002 WL 34721347 at*2-3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2002) (allowing a temporal

2 scope dating back to 1977, the effective date of Section 504, in a systemic case

3 alleging denial of program access by a school district).

4

Even if the City could make a showing that the discovery was burdensome,

5 burdensomeness alone is insufficient where the requested material is relevant. See

6 Bayer Corp. and Subsidiaries v. United States, 850 F. Supp. 2d 522, 539 (W.D. Pa.

7 2012) (“Merely because compliance with a ‘Request for Production’ would be costly

8 or time-consuming is not ordinarily sufficient reason to grant a protective order

9 where the requested material is relevant and necessary to the discovery of

10 evidence.”) (citing Luey v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 240 F. Supp. 632, 634-5 (W.D. Mich.

11 1965).

12

2. The City’s Argument

13

a. Plaintiff Did Not Meet and Confer with the City

Regarding the City’s Purported “Generalized

14

Objections”

15

Plaintiff has not properly raised its allegation that the City improperly lodged

16 generalized objections in response to the document requests, nor is it clear what

17 relief Plaintiff seeks in this section of the Joint Stipulation. As a preliminary matter,

18 during the meet and confer process, Plaintiff only raised this objection with respect

19 to the City’s response to Request Nos. 35, 44, 45 and 47. (Ex. 1.) If Plaintiff had a

20 complaint with respect to the City’s objections to the balance of the document

21 requests, Plaintiff should have raised the issue so that the parties could discuss the

22 City’s objections to each document request during the meet and confer process.

23 After receiving the proposed Joint Stipulation and learning that Plaintiff took issue

24 with the City’s objections, the City raised Plaintiff’s failure to do so and asked to

25 meet and confer to see if the issue could be resolved or at least narrow the document

26 requests at issue. Plaintiff refused to do so. (Byrne Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. 14.)

27

28

- 11 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 15 of 122 Page ID #:2779

b. The City Has Not Relied on Improper General

1

Objections

2

In the Joint Stipulation, Plaintiff asserts that the City objected to nearly every

3 request for production by asserting generalized objections, including objections that

4 the requests are “(1) vague and ambiguous; (2) irrelevant; (3) overbroad in time and

5 scope and therefore burdensome; (3) burdensome and oppressive; (4) equally

6 available to Plaintiffs; and (5) privileged or protected by the work product doctrine.”

7 Plaintiff’s summary of the objections is misleading. The City did not rely on general

8 boilerplate objections as suggested by Plaintiff. The Document Requests seek forty-

9 seven broad categories of documents based upon thirty extremely broad definitions

10 and for the time period from June of 1990 to the present. In response, the City set

11 forth appropriate objections to each of the requests. For example, Request Number 6

12 sought:

13

Any and all documents, including, but not limited to statutes,

14

ordinances, regulations, policies, procedures, guidelines, forms, and/or

15

certifications, concerning the distribution of Federal housing and

16

community development funds to any entity.

17 The City responded:

18

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and

19

ambiguous as to “policies procedures, guidelines, forms, and/or

20

certifications.” The City objects to this request on the ground that it

21

seeks documents from a time period of more than twenty (20) years, it is

22

overbroad as to time and scope, would require the City to conduct an

23

unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and seeks documents

24

that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated to

25

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this

26

request to the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that

27

it purports to require the City to make an unreasonable and unduly

28

burdensome investigation to identify all responsive documents in the

- 12 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 16 of 122 Page ID #:2780

1

possession of any employee or representative of the City, including

2

email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

3

during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of

4

employees. The City objects to this request to the extent that it seeks

5

information pertaining to third-parties, including personnel records, and

6

financial records, the disclosure of which would constitute an

7

unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional, statutory

8

and/or common law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The

9

City objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information

10

protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or

11

attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process and government

12

information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

13

declines to produce such information. The City objects to this request to

14

the extent that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s

15

possession, are publically available or are obtainable from other sources

16

that are more convenient and less burdensome or equally available to

17

Plaintiff. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the

18

City responds as follows: In response to the Requests the City will

19

produce the documents listed on Attachment A. Furthermore, additional

20

information responsive to this request is publically available through the

21

City Clerk’s website at

22

http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm.I

23

Each of the stated objections was appropriate in light of how the request was

24 framed. For example, by seeking “any and all documents” “concerning the

25 distribution of Federal housing and community development funds to any entity,” the

26 request potentially called for privileged information such as correspondence between

27 the City and its counsel with respect to the distribution of funds. The objection was

28 included to preserve the objection if such privileged information was located that

- 13 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 17 of 122 Page ID #:2781

1 otherwise would have been responsive to the request. Similarly, the request

2 potentially called for confidential financial information belonging to third parties to

3 the extent that an application submitted for such funding contained confidential

4 financial information with respect to the applicant. On the other hand, by seeking

5 “statutes, ordinances, regulations,” the request sought information that was publicly

6 and equally available to Plaintiff. The basis for the City’s objection that the request

7 was overbroad and unduly burdensome is explained below. Notwithstanding its

8 objections, the City produced documents in response to the request and directed

9 Plaintiff to the City Clerk’s website where Plaintiff could obtain additional

10 information. During the meet and confer process, counsel informed Plaintiff that the

11 City had not completed its document production and additional documents would be

12 produced.
13

c. The City Explained the Basis for its Burdensome Objections

14

Plaintiff quotes a portion of the City’s burdensome objections. The full

15 objection states:

16

The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents

17

from a time period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to

18

time and scope, would require the City to conduct an unduly

19

burdensome and oppressive investigation and seeks documents that are

20

not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the

21

discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to the

22

extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to

23

require the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome

24

investigation to identify all responsive documents in the possession of

25

any employee or representative of the City, including email

26

correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years during

27

which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees.

28 Thus, the objection itself explains the nature of the burden imposed by the breadth

- 14 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 18 of 122 Page ID #:2782

1 and scope of the request. Specifically, the Document Requests called for documents 2 during the time period of June 15, 1990 to the present. (Byrne Decl. ¶ 2.) It is 3 unduly burdensome to require a party to search for documents covering a time period 4 of more than twenty years and seeks information that is not relevant to the lawsuit. 5 Further, the Plaintiff defined the City to include all employees. (Byrne Decl. ¶ 2.) 6 Finally, Plaintiff did not limit the request to any particular department(s) within the 7 City purporting to require the City to search Citywide for responsive documents. 8 Such unnecessarily broad and unlimited requests are unduly burdensome and the 9 City properly set forth the basis of its objection.

10

d. The City Is Continuing to Search for Responsive

11

Documents

12

Notwithstanding its objections to the Document Requests, to date, the City has

13 produced approximately 25,000 pages of documents and directed Plaintiff to

14 additional documents that are available for inspection at the Department of Building

15 and Safety. The City is also in the process of making construction and finance files

16 for the projects identified in the Second Amended Complaint available for

17 inspection, which will be available once it resolves issues with respect to confidential

18 third party information that is contained within the files. During the meet and confer

19 process, the City made it clear that its document production was not yet complete

20 and that additional documents would be produced.

21

Plaintiff complains that the City has not provided affidavits supporting its

22 burdensome objection. Plaintiff never asked for affidavits during the meet and

23 confer process. The parties should meet and confer regarding the issue after the City

24 completes its documents production if there are any areas where Plaintiff seeks

25 additional documents that the City asserts in cannot provide without undue burden.

26

27

28

- 15 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 19 of 122 Page ID #:2783

1

B. DOCUMENT REQUEST NOS. 35 AND 44

2 Request No. 35: Any and all documents, including, but not limited to, survey and

3 audit reports, checklists, documents reflecting communications with inspectors or

4 any other person or entity about compliance reports, including, but not limited to

5 scheduling and report status, reflecting an assessment of which units within the

6 Redevelopment Housing Program met or meet the requirements of the Uniform

7 Federal Accessibility Standards (“UFAS”).

8 Response to Request No. 35:

9

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

10 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

11 period more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

12 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

13 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

14 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

15 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

16 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

17 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

18 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

19 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

20 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

21 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to Plaintiff’s definition of

22 “Redevelopment Housing Program” as overbroad, vague and ambiguous and seeking

23 information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to CRA/LA

24 for the development multi-family housing projects on a project-by-project basis. In a

25 good faith attempt to respond to the Requests, the City will interpret the phrase as

26 referring to those multi-family housing projects for which the City provided federal

27 funds to the CRA/LA for the development of the project. The City objects to this

28 request to the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the

- 16 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 20 of 122 Page ID #:2784

1 attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process

2 and government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

3 declines to produce such information. The City objects to this request to the extent

4 that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, are publically

5 available or are obtainable from other sources that are more convenient and less

6 burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff.

7 Request No. 44: Any and all documents relating to any statements given by any

8 person that relate to this lawsuit in any manner.

9 Response to Request No. 44:

10

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous as

11 to “statements.” The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks

12 documents from a time period of almost twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time

13 and scope, would require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive

14 investigation and seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not

15 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City

16 objects to this request to the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in

17 that it purports to require the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome

18 investigation to identify all responsive documents in the possession of any employee

19 or representative of the City, including email correspondence, over a period of more

20 than twenty (20) years during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of

21 employees. The City objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that

22 is not in the possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to this

23 request to the extent it seeks information from the CRA/LA. On February 1, 2012,

24 the CRA was dissolved pursuant to California Assembly Bill 1X 26 and the CRA/LA

25 Designated Local Authority (not the City) became successor to the CRA/LA. The

26 City objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from

27 disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine,

28 deliberative process and government information privilege, or any other applicable

- 17 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 21 of 122 Page ID #:2785

1 privilege, and the City declines to produce such information. The City objects to this 2 request to the extent that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, 3 are publically available or are obtainable from other sources that are more 4 convenient and less burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff.

5

1. Plaintiff’s Argument

6

a. The City Waived Its Claim of Privilege to Requests Nos.

7

35 and 44 by Failing to Produce a Timely Privilege Log

8

Plaintiff Fair Housing Council moves to compel responses to Document

9 Requests Nos. 35 and 44. The City asserts generalized attorney-client privilege or

10 the work product doctrine, deliberative process, and government information

11 privilege in response to Document Request Nos. 35 and 44 but has refused to

12 produce a privilege log.

13

Under Rule 26(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party that

14 “withholds discovery materials because of a claim of privilege or work product

15 protection must notify the other party that it is withholding material.” Ramirez 231

16 F.R.D. at 410 (citing 1993 Notes to Adv. Comm. to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)). A party

17 withholding information “must provide sufficient information (i.e. a privilege log) to

18 enable the other party to evaluate the applicability of the privilege or protection.” Id.

19 (citing 1993 Notes to Adv. Comm. to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) and Clarke v. Am.

20 Commerce Nat’l Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992)). Providing a privilege log

21 has become “an almost universal method of asserting privilege under the Federal

22 Rules.” Caudle v. District of Columbia, 263 F.R.D. 29, 35 (D.D.C. 2009).

23

As the party asserting the privilege or work product objection, the City must

24 provide sufficient information to establish that each element of the privilege or

25 immunity applies. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. W., 748 F.2d 540, 542 (10th

26 Cir. 1984); Kidwiler v. Progressive Paloverde Ins. Co., 192 F.R.D. 536, 542 (N.D.

27 W. Va. 2000). “Failure to do so is not excused because the document is later shown

28 to be one which would have been privileged if a timely showing had been made.”

- 18 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 22 of 122 Page ID #:2786

1 Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 748 F.2d at 542; see Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v.

2 Rawstrom, 183 F.R.D. 668, 670 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (objections to interrogatories

3 waived where they were interposed for the first time in supplemental responses).

4 The applicability of a privilege turns not only on the nature of the document but “on

5 the adequacy and timeliness of the showing.” Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 748

6 F.2d at 542.

7

In this case, the City failed to produce a privilege log or other information

8 identifying each element of the privilege or work product doctrine and therefore its

9 objections based on privilege are waived.

10

The City contends that it is not required to produce a privilege log because the

11 documents are privileged and therefore not subject to discovery. The City’s

12 argument is nonsensical and circular. The City must provide a privilege log to

13 properly assert a privilege and allow Fair Housing Council to evaluate the

14 applicability of the privilege or the protection. If a party could be absolved of any

15 responsibility to produce documents based on a blanket assertion of privilege and

16 without producing a privilege log, assertions of privilege could never be challenged

17 by the propounding party or reviewed by courts.

18

b. The City’s Generalized Objections to Requests 35 and

19

44 Should Be Overruled

20

Request No. 35: Fair Housing Council’s Request No. 35 requested “[a]ny and

21 all documents . . . reflecting an assessment of which units within the Redevelopment

22 Housing Program met or meet the requirements of the Uniform Federal Accessibility

23 Standards(“UFAS”).” Fair Housing Council’s request also described examples of

24 documents that might be responsive to this request including survey and audit

25 reports, checklists, and documents reflecting communications with inspectors about

26 compliance reports.

27

The City objected to Fair Housing Council’s requests by asserting general

28 objections and refused to produce responsive documents. The City’s general

- 19 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 23 of 122 Page ID #:2787

1 objections are improper objections and the City failed to support its objections. See

2 United States ex rel O’Connell, 245 F.R.D. at 649; (supra Part II.B at 5-8).

3

Responsive documents to Fair Housing Council’s request are highly relevant.

4 Plaintiffs have alleged that the City and the DLA2 have failed to make the DLA’s

5 housing program accessible to people with disabilities. The Ninth Circuit has

6 recognized that “the focus of the prohibition in § 504 is ‘whether disabled persons

7 were denied “meaningful access.”’” Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922, 937 (9th

8 Cir. 2008) (quoting Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480,1484 (9th Cir. 1996). HUD

9 § 504 regulations describe specific architectural and other requirements that apply to

10 housing projects that received federal financial assistance. For example, HUD’s

11 regulations require that at least five percent of the total dwelling units in new

12 multifamily housing projects receiving federal financial assistance meet the

13 requirements set forth in the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (“UFAS”) and

14 that at least an additional two percent must be accessible per UFAS requirements for

15 people with hearing or vision impairments. 24 C.F.R.§ 8.22(a) & (b). Whether

16 housing projects within the DLA’s housing program that received federal funds from

17 the City meet UFAS standards is therefore relevant to whether the City and the DLA

18 have made the housing program meaningfully accessible to people with disabilities.

19

During the meet and confer process, Fair Housing Council requested that the

20 City produce a privilege log and produce all non-privileged documents responsive to

21 Document Request Nos. 35 and 44. (Ex. 5 to Allen Decl.) The City agreed to search

22 for additional responsive documents (see Ex. 3 to Allen Decl.) but it has failed to

23 produce additional non-privileged, responsive documents, certify that all responsive

24 documents have been produced or provide a privilege log. (Allen Decl. ¶ 10.)

25

By failing to timely provide a privilege log at the time of its responses, the

26 2 The DLA is the successor to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of 27 Los Angeles. The Community Redevelopment Agency was abolished by statute in
February 2012. For consistency, Fair Housing Council refers to DLA even when 28 events occurred before February 2012.

- 20 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 24 of 122 Page ID #:2788

1 City has waived any privileges and Fair Housing Council requests that the Court

2 compel the City to produce all responsive documents to Request No. 35.

3

Request No. 44: Request No. 44 seeks statements relating to this lawsuit. The

4 City again asserted improper general objections in response to Request No. 44. By

5 its very terms, statements relating to this lawsuit are “relevant to any party’s claims

6 or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Although documents responsive to this request

7 may be protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, the

8 City has refused to provide a timely privilege log. Fair Housing Council seeks an

9 order compelling the City to provide a privilege log and to produce any non-

10 privileged documents responsive to this request.

11

2. The City’s Argument

12

The City acknowledges the need for a party to provide sufficient information

13 to support the assertion of privilege when documents are withheld from production

14 on the grounds of privilege. However, the City has not identified any documents that

15 are responsive to the Document Requests but are being withheld on the grounds of

16 privilege. If and when any such privileged documents are withheld from production,

17 the City will provide a privilege log. Here, Plaintiff seeks a privilege log identifying

18 documents prepared by, or at the direction of, counsel for the City in connection with

19 its representation of the City in this matter, i.e., counsel’s litigation files, including

20 documents related to a consultant hired by the City in connection with its defense of

21 this matter. The City asserts that these documents are not discoverable and are not

22 the proper subject of a privilege log.

23

Request No. 35

24

Request No. 35 seeks documents reflecting an assessment of which units meet

25 the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards. During the parties’ teleconference on

26 January 16, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel specifically noted that he was aware that the

27 City had hired a third party to conduct inspections of the units for UFAS compliance

28 and asserted that Plaintiff was entitled to the results of those inspections in response

- 21 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 25 of 122 Page ID #:2789

1 to Request No. 35. (Byrne Decl. ¶ 6.) Counsel for the City explained that the City

2 hired the consultant in accordance with Rule 26(b)(4) and in accordance with FRCP

3 26(b)(4)(D), a party may not, by interrogatories or deposition, “discover facts known

4 or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by

5 another party in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial and who is not

6 expected to be called as a witness at trial.” See Feist v. RCN Corporation 2012 WL

7 5412362 *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2012) (no discovery concerning a non-testifying

8 expert is permissible). Plaintiff questioned who hired the consultant and the City

9 explained that the third party consultant had been hired by counsel and was

10 considered a non-testifying expert. (Byrne Decl. ¶ 6.)

11

The Advisory Committee Notes to the Rule 26 make clear that the obligation

12 to provide “pertinent information concerning withheld privileged materials applies

13 only to items ‘otherwise discoverable.’” It is clear from the parties’ discussion on

14 January 16, that Plaintiff is attempting to make the City reveal documents provided

15 by their non-testifying expert, an area the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has never

16 considered “otherwise discoverable.” Plaintiff’s demand for a privilege log, or lose

17 the privilege due to the failure to produce such a log should be disallowed by the

18 Court, because it is clear that the Plaintiff is seeking information that is not otherwise

19 discoverable.

20

The Plaintiff’s argument regarding the responsive nature of the requested

21 documents is misplaced. Whether the documents they seek are responsive is not the

22 legal standard set forth in Rule 26(b)(4)(D) and case law. Plaintiff’s request to the

23 Court seeks to bypass well established law from both this Circuit that barring a

24 showing of exceptional circumstance, Plaintiff is not entitled to the material that it

25 seeks, and such material is shielded from discovery. See FRCP 26(b); Plymovent

26 Corp. v. Air Tech Solutions Inc., 243 F.R.D. 139, 143 (D.N.J. 2007) (“Rule

27 26(b)(4)(B) thus creates a safe harbor whereby facts and opinions of nontestfying,

28 consulting experts are shielded from discovery except upon a showing of exceptional

- 22 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 26 of 122 Page ID #:2790

1 circumstances. Indeed, some courts have construed 26(b)(4)(B) as creating a

2 privilege against disclosure.”). The purpose of the exceptional circumstances rule is

3 to prevent a party from replacing the work of its own experts with that of its

4 opponent and the party seeking discovery has the burden to prove that the required

5 exceptional circumstances exist. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Pure Air on the Lake

6 Ltd. Partnership, 154 F.R.D. 202, 207-208 (N.D. Ind. 1993) (parties failed to show

7 exceptional circumstances necessary to justify disclosure of consulting experts

8 report); Bank of Brussels Lambert v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 175 F.R.D. 34, 44,

9 (S.D.N.Y 1997) (party seeking discovery of non-testifying expert carries burden of

10 showing exceptional circumstances).

11

Request No. 44

12

Request No. 44 seeks any statements given by any person that relate to the

13 lawsuit in any manner. Putting aside the City’s objections to the broadness of the 14 request and the vagueness of the term “statements,” during the January 16th 15 teleconference and in its January 24th letter, the City informed Plaintiff that the only

16 potentially responsive material the City had was attorney-client privilege/work

17 product information that was created by or at the direction of counsel after the

18 lawsuit was filed, which is not otherwise discoverable material. (Byrne Decl. ¶ 6, Ex.

19 3, p. 6.) The work-product doctrine specifically protects “written statements, private

20 memoranda and personal recollections prepared or formed by an adverse party's

21 counsel in the course of his legal duties.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510

22 (1947); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3)(A) (“Ordinarily, a party may not discover

23 documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for

24 trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other party's attorney,

25 consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent)”). The City further informed

26 Plaintiff that it would continue to search for responsive documents that were not

27 privileged and would produce non-privileged documents, if any were located, or

28 provide a privilege log for any privileged documents that were located but withheld

- 23 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 27 of 122 Page ID #:2791

1 from production. (Ex. 3, p.6.)

2

The City requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s request that the Court order

3 the City to produce all documents responsive to Request No. 35. The documents

4 sought by Plaintiff are privileged and the City did not waive its privilege by not

5 providing a privilege log for any documents created by, or at the direction of,

6 counsel for the City after the lawsuit was filed in connection with its representation

7 of the City in this lawsuit – litigation files are not the proper subject of a privilege

8 log. The City also requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s request that the City be

9 ordered to provide a privilege log and ordered to produce any non-privileged

10 documents in response to Request No. 44 because the City has already agreed to do

11 so to the extent that it locates any non-privileged documents, or discovers any

12 documents that fall within the scope of discovery, but are withheld from production

13 on the grounds of privilege.

14

A. DOCUMENT REQUEST NOS. 4, 7-17, 19, 21, 23-27, 29, 30, 32

15

and 46

16 Request No. 4: Any and all documents reflecting the City’s obligations with respect

17 to accessibility in the Redevelopment Housing Program.

18 Response to Request No. 4:

19

The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a

20 time period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope,

21 would require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive

22 investigation and seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not

23 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City

24 objects to this request to the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in

25 that it purports to require the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome

26 investigation to identify all responsive documents in the possession of any employee

27 or representative of the City, including email correspondence, over a period of more

28 than twenty (20) years during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of

- 24 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 28 of 122 Page ID #:2792

1 employees. The City objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information

2 pertaining to third-parties, including personnel records, and financial records, the

3 disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’

4 constitutional, statutory and/or common law rights to personal privacy and

5 confidentiality. The City objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information

6 protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work

7 product doctrine, deliberative process and government information privilege, or any

8 other applicable privilege, and the City declines to produce such information. The

9 City objects to Plaintiff’s definition of “Redevelopment Housing Program” as

10 overbroad, vague and ambiguous and seeking information not relevant to this

11 lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to CRA/LA for the development multi-

12 family housing projects on a project by project basis. In a good faith attempt to

13 respond to the Request, the City will interpret the phrase as referring to those multi-

14 family housing projects for which the City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for

15 the development of the project.

16

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

17 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

18 Attachment A.

19 Request No. 7: Any and all documents reflecting communications, including, but

20 not limited to, e-mail correspondence; letters; minutes, logs, and/or notes

21 memorializing any telephone communications; and/or minutes, logs, and/or notes

22 memorializing any meetings or in-person conversations, whether formal or informal,

23 between you and the CRA/LA concerning the need for accessible housing within the

24 City of Los Angeles.

25 Response to Request No. 7:

26

The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a

27 time period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope,

28 would require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive

- 25 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 29 of 122 Page ID #:2793

1 investigation and seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not

2 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City

3 objects to this request to the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in

4 that it purports to require the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome

5 investigation to identify all responsive documents in the possession of any employee

6 or representative of the City, including email correspondence, over a period of more

7 than twenty (20) years during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of

8 employees. The City objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that

9 is not in the possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to this

10 request to the extent it seeks information from the CRA/LA. On February 1, 2012,

11 the CRA was dissolved pursuant to California Assembly Bill 1X 26 and the CRA/LA

12 Designated Local Authority (not the City) became successor to the CRA/LA. The

13 City objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from

14 disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine,

15 deliberative process and government information privilege, or any other applicable

16 privilege, and the City declines to produce such information.

17

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

18 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

19 Attachment A.

20 Request No. 8: Any and all documents reflecting communications, including, but

21 not limited to, e-mail correspondence; letters; minutes, logs, and/or notes

22 memorializing any telephone communications; and/or minutes, logs, and/or notes

23 memorializing any meetings or in-person conversations, whether formal or informal,

24 between you and the CRA/LA concerning accessibility with respect to the

25 Redevelopment Housing Program.

26 Response to Request No. 8:

27

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

28 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

- 26 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 30 of 122 Page ID #:2794

1 period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

2 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

3 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

4 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

5 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

6 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

7 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

8 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

9 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

10 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

11 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to this request to the

12 extent it seeks information from the CRA/LA. On February 1, 2012, the CRA was

13 dissolved pursuant to California Assembly Bill 1X 26 and the CRA/LA Designated

14 Local Authority (not the City) became successor to the CRA/LA. The City objects to

15 this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the

16 attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process

17 and government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

18 declines to produce such information. The City objects to Plaintiff’s definition of

19 “Redevelopment Housing Program” as overbroad, vague and ambiguous and seeking

20 information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to CRA/LA

21 for the development multi-family housing projects on a project by project basis. In a

22 good faith attempt to respond to the Request, the City will interpret the phrase as

23 referring to those multi-family housing projects for which the City provided federal

24 funds to the CRA/LA for the development of the project.

25

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

26 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

27 Attachment A.

28 Request No. 9: Any and all documents reflecting communications, including, but

- 27 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 31 of 122 Page ID #:2795

1 not limited to, e-mail correspondence; letters; minutes, logs, and/or notes

2 memorializing any telephone communications; and/or minutes, logs, and/or notes

3 memorializing any meetings or in-person conversations, whether formal or informal,

4 between you and the CRA/LA concerning requests for or receipt of federal and state

5 funds to support housing development and rehabilitation.

6 Response to Request No. 9:

7

The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a

8 time period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope,

9 would require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive

10 investigation and seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not

11 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City

12 objects to this request to the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in

13 that it purports to require the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome

14 investigation to identify all responsive documents in the possession of any employee

15 or representative of the City, including email correspondence, over a period of more

16 than twenty (20) years during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of

17 employees. The City objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that

18 is not in the possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to this

19 request to the extent it seeks information from the CRA/LA. On February 1, 2012,

20 the CRA was dissolved pursuant to California Assembly Bill 1X 26 and the CRA/LA

21 Designated Local Authority (not the City) became successor to the CRA/LA. The

22 City objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from

23 disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine,

24 deliberative process and government information privilege, or any other applicable

25 privilege, and the City declines to produce such information.

26

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

27 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

28 Attachment A.

- 28 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 32 of 122 Page ID #:2796

1 Request No. 10: Any and all documents reflecting communications, including, but

2 not limited to, e-mail correspondence; letters; minutes, logs, and/or notes

3 memorializing any telephone communications; and/or minutes, logs, and/or notes

4 memorializing any meetings or in-person conversations, whether formal or informal,

5 between you and the CRA/LA concerning accessibility obligations in housing

6 imposed by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities

7 Act, the Federal Fair Housing Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,

8 and/or California Government Code § 11135.

9 Response to Request No. 10:

10

The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a

11 time period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope,

12 would require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive

13 investigation and seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not

14 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City

15 objects to this request to the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in

16 that it purports to require the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome

17 investigation to identify all responsive documents in the possession of any employee

18 or representative of the City, including email correspondence, over a period of more

19 than twenty (20) years during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of

20 employees. The City objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that

21 is not in the possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to this

22 request to the extent it seeks information from the CRA/LA. On February 1, 2012,

23 the CRA was dissolved pursuant to California Assembly Bill 1X 26 and the CRA/LA

24 Designated Local Authority (not the City) became successor to the CRA/LA. The

25 City objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from

26 disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine,

27 deliberative process and government information privilege, or any other applicable

28 privilege, and the City declines to produce such information.

- 29 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 33 of 122 Page ID #:2797

1

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

2 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

3 Attachment A.

4 Request No. 11: Any and all documents reflecting communications, including, but

5 not limited to, e-mail correspondence; letters; minutes, logs, or notes memorializing

6 any telephone communications; and/or minutes, logs, or notes memorializing any

7 meetings or in-person conversations, whether formal or informal, between you and

8 the CRA/LA concerning the City’s, the CRA/LA’s, and/or any Subrecipient’s

9 compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with

10 Disabilities Act, the Federal Fair Housing Act, the California Fair Employment and

11 Housing Act, and/or California Government Code § 11135.

12 Response to Request No. 11:

13

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

14 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

15 period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

16 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

17 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

18 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

19 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

20 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

21 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

22 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

23 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

24 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

25 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to this request to the

26 extent it seeks information from the CRA/LA. On February 1, 2012, the CRA was

27 dissolved pursuant to California Assembly Bill 1X 26 and the CRA/LA Designated

28 Local Authority (not the City) became successor to the CRA/LA. The City objects to

- 30 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 34 of 122 Page ID #:2798

1 this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the

2 attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process

3 and government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

4 declines to produce such information.

5

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

6 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

7 Attachment A.

8 Request No. 12: Any and all documents, including, but not limited to, e-mail

9 correspondence; letters; minutes, logs, and/or notes memorializing any telephone

10 communications; minutes, logs, and/or notes memorializing any meetings or in-

11 person conversations, whether formal or informal; contracts; agreements; loan and

12 financing agreements or documents; disposition and development loan agreements;

13 owner participation agreements; covenants to any such agreements; documents of

14 title; notes; deeds of trust; performance deeds of trust; certificates of compliance;

15 plans and specifications; investigation reports, surveys, and/or audits, given to,

16 received from, or relating to, any Owner Defendant(s) concerning the need for

17 accessible housing within the City of Los Angeles.

18 Response to Request No. 12:

19

The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a

20 time period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope,

21 would require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive

22 investigation and seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not

23 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City

24 objects to this request to the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in

25 that it purports to require the City to make an unreasonable unduly burdensome

26 investigation to identify all responsive documents in the possession of any employee

27 or representative of the City, including email correspondence, over a period of more

28 than twenty (20) years during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of

- 31 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 35 of 122 Page ID #:2799

1 employees. The City objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that

2 is not in the possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to the

3 Requests to the extent that they seek documents pertaining to third-parties, including

4 personnel records and financial records, the disclosure of which would constitute an

5 unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional, statutory and/or common

6 law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The City objects to Plaintiff’s

7 definition of “Nominal Defendants” or “Owner Defendants” as overbroad, vague,

8 and ambiguous and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City

9 provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for the development multi-family housing

10 projects on a project-by-project basis. The City at this time is still investigating

11 whether the multifamily projects who have been named as parties to this action in

12 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint were the recipients of direct or indirect funding

13 from the City. The City objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information

14 protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work

15 product doctrine, deliberative process and government information privilege, or any

16 other applicable privilege, and the City declines to produce such information. The

17 City objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents that are already in

18 Plaintiff’s possession, are publically available or are obtainable from other sources

19 that are more convenient and less burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff.

20

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

21 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

22 Attachment A.

23 Request No. 13: Any and all documents, including, but not limited to, e-mail

24 correspondence; letters; minutes, logs, and/or notes memorializing any telephone

25 communications; minutes, logs, and/or notes memorializing any meetings or in-

26 person conversations, whether formal or informal; contracts; agreements; loan and

27 financing agreements or documents; disposition and development loan agreements;

28 owner participation agreements; covenants to any such agreements; documents of

- 32 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 36 of 122 Page ID #:2800

1 title; notes; deeds of trust; performance deeds of trust; certificates of compliance;

2 plans and specifications; investigation reports, surveys, and/or audits, given to,

3 received from, or relating to, any Owner Defendant(s) concerning accessibility with

4 respect to the Redevelopment Housing Program.

5 Response to Request No. 13:

6

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

7 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

8 period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

9 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

10 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

11 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

12 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

13 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

14 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

15 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

16 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

17 objects to the request to the extent that they seek documents pertaining to third-

18 parties, including personnel records and financial records, the disclosure of which

19 would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional,

20 statutory and/or common law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The City

21 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from

22 disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine,

23 deliberative process and government information privilege, or any other applicable

24 privilege, and the City declines to produce such information. The City objects to this

25 request to the extent that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession,

26 are publically available or are obtainable from other sources that are more

27 convenient and less burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff. The City objects to

28 Plaintiff’s definition of “Redevelopment Housing Program” as overbroad, vague and

- 33 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 37 of 122 Page ID #:2801

1 ambiguous and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided

2 federal funds to CRA/LA for the development multi-family housing projects on a

3 project by project basis. In a good faith attempt to respond to the Request, the City

4 will interpret the phrase as referring to those multi-family housing projects for which

5 the City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for the development of the project.

6 The City objects to Plaintiff’s definition of “Nominal Defendants” or “Owner

7 Defendants” as overbroad, vague, and ambiguous and seeking information not

8 relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for the

9 development multi-family housing projects on a project-by-project basis. The City

10 at this time is still investigating whether the multifamily projects who have been

11 named as parties to this action in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint were the

12 recipients of direct or indirect funding from the City.

13

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

14 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

15 Attachment A.

16 Request No. 14: Any and all documents, including, but not limited to, e-mail

17 correspondence; letters; minutes, logs, and/or notes memorializing any telephone

18 communications; minutes, logs, and/or notes memorializing any meetings or in-

19 person conversations, whether formal or informal; contracts; agreements; loan and

20 financing agreements or documents; disposition and development loan agreements;

21 owner participation agreements; covenants to any such agreements; documents of

22 title; notes; deeds of trust; performance deeds of trust; certificates of compliance;

23 plans and specifications; investigation reports, surveys, and/or audits, given to,

24 received from, or relating to, any Owner Defendant(s) concerning requests for or

25 receipt of federal and state funds to support housing development and rehabilitation

26 within the Redevelopment Housing Program.

27 Response to Request No. 14:

28

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

- 34 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 38 of 122 Page ID #:2802
1 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time 2 period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would 3 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and 4 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated 5 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to 6 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require 7 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify 8 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the 9 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years 10 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City 11 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the 12 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to the request to the 13 extent that they seek documents pertaining to third-parties, including personnel 14 records and financial records, the disclosure of which would constitute an 15 unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional, statutory and/or common 16 law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The City objects to this request to 17 the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client 18 privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process and 19 government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City 20 declines to produce such information. The City objects to this request to the extent 21 that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, are publically 22 available or are obtainable from other sources that are more convenient and less 23 burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff. The City objects to Plaintiff’s 24 definition of “Redevelopment Housing Program” as overbroad, vague and 25 ambiguous and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided 26 federal funds to CRA/LA for the development multi-family housing projects on a 27 project by project basis. In a good faith attempt to respond to the Request, the City 28 will interpret the phrase as referring to those multi-family housing projects for which
- 35 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW) Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 39 of 122 Page ID #:2803

1 the City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for the development of the project.

2 The City objects to Plaintiff’s definition of “Nominal Defendants” or “Owner

3 Defendants” as overbroad, vague, and ambiguous and seeking information not

4 relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for the

5 development multi-family housing projects on a project-by-project basis. The City

6 at this time is still investigating whether the multifamily projects who have been

7 named as parties to this action in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint were the

8 recipients of direct or indirect funding from the City.

9

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

10 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

11 Attachment A.

12 Request No. 15: Any and all documents, including, but not limited to, e-mail

13 correspondence; letters; minutes, logs, and/or notes memorializing any telephone

14 communications; minutes, logs, and/or notes memorializing any meetings or in-

15 person conversations, whether formal or informal; contracts; agreements; loan and

16 financing agreements or documents; disposition and development loan agreements;

17 owner participation agreements; covenants to any such agreements; documents of

18 title; notes; deeds of trust; performance deeds of trust; certificates of compliance;

19 plans and specifications; investigation reports, surveys, and/or audits, given to,

20 received from, or relating to, any Owner Defendant(s) concerning accessibility

21 obligations in housing imposed by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the

22 Americans with Disabilities Act, the Federal Fair Housing Act, the California Fair

23 Employment and Housing Act, and/or California Government Code § 11135.

24 Response to Request No. 15:

25

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

26 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

27 period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

28 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

- 36 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 40 of 122 Page ID #:2804

1 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

2 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

3 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

4 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

5 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

6 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

7 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

8 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

9 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to the request to the

10 extent that they seek documents pertaining to third-parties, including personnel

11 records and financial records, the disclosure of which would constitute an

12 unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional, statutory and/or common

13 law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The City objects to this request to

14 the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

15 privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process and

16 government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

17 declines to produce such information. The City objects to this request to the extent

18 that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, are publically

19 available or are obtainable from other sources that are more convenient and less

20 burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff. The City objects to Plaintiff’s definition

21 of “Nominal Defendants” or “Owner Defendants” as overbroad, vague, and

22 ambiguous and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided

23 federal funds to the CRA/LA for the development multi-family housing projects on a

24 project-by-project basis. The City at this time is still investigating whether the

25 multifamily projects who have been named as parties to this action in Plaintiffs’ First

26 Amended Complaint were the recipients of direct or indirect funding from the City.

27

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

28 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

- 37 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 41 of 122 Page ID #:2805

1 Attachment A.

2 Request No. 16: Any and all documents, including, but not limited to, e-mail

3 correspondence; letters; minutes, logs, and/or notes memorializing any telephone

4 communications; minutes, logs, and/or notes memorializing any meetings or in-

5 person conversations, whether formal or informal; contracts; agreements; loan and

6 financing agreements or documents; disposition and development loan agreements;

7 owner participation agreements; covenants to any such agreements; documents of

8 title; notes; deeds of trust; performance deeds of trust; certificates of compliance;

9 plans and specifications; investigation reports, surveys, and/or audits, given to,

10 received from, or relating to, any Owner Defendant(s) concerning the City’s,

11 CRA/LA’s and/or any Subrecipient’s compliance with Section 504 of the

12 Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Federal Fair Housing

13 Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and/or California

14 Government Code § 11135.

15 Response to Request No. 16:

16

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

17 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

18 period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

19 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

20 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

21 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

22 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

23 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

24 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

25 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

26 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

27 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

28 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to this request to the

- 38 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 42 of 122 Page ID #:2806

1 extent it seeks information from the CRA/LA. On February 1, 2012, the CRA was 2 dissolved pursuant to California Assembly Bill 1X 26 and the CRA/LA Designated 3 Local Authority (not the City) became successor to the CRA/LA. The City objects to

4 the requests to the extent that they seek documents pertaining to third-parties,

5 including personnel records and financial records, the disclosure of which would

6 constitute an unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional, statutory

7 and/or common law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The City objects 8 to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the 9 attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process 10 and government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

11 declines to produce such information. The City objects to this request to the extent

12 that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, are publically

13 available or are obtainable from other sources that are more convenient and less

14 burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff. The City objects to Plaintiff’s 15 definition of “Nominal Defendants” or “Owner Defendants” as overbroad, vague, 16 and ambiguous and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City 17 provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for the development multi-family housing

18 projects on a project-by-project basis. The City at this time is still investigating

19 whether the multifamily projects who have been named as parties to this action in

20 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint were the recipients of direct or indirect funding

21 from the City.

22

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

23 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

24 Attachment A.

25 Request No. 17: Any and all documents by which you transferred federal housing

26 and community development funds to the CRA/LA, as well as any documents

27 relating to that transfer of funds.

28

- 39 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 43 of 122 Page ID #:2807

1 Response to Request No. 17:

2

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

3 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

4 period of almost twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

5 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

6 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

7 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

8 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

9 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

10 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

11 City, including email correspondence over a period of more than twenty (20) years

12 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

13 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

14 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to this request to the

15 extent it seeks information from the CRA/LA. On February 1, 2012, the CRA was

16 dissolved pursuant to California Assembly Bill 1X 26 and the CRA/LA Designated

17 Local Authority (not the City) became successor to the CRA/LA. The City objects to

18 this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the

19 attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process

20 and government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

21 declines to produce such information.

22

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

23 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

24 Attachment A.

25 Request No. 19: Any and all documents, including, but not limited to, e-mail

26 correspondences; letters; minutes, logs, and/or notes memorializing any telephone

27 communications; minutes, logs, and/or notes memorializing any meetings or in-

28 person conversations, whether formal or informal; grant applications; Consolidated

- 40 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 44 of 122 Page ID #:2808

1 Plans; Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs); Annual

2 Action Plans; annual grantee certifications of compliance with civil rights, fair

3 housing, and accessibility obligations; accomplishment reports; performance profile

4 reports; expenditure reports; self-evaluations; needs assessments or transition plans;

5 strategic plans; surveys; housing element plans and reports; reports detailing any

6 analysis of impediments to fair housing choice; and/or other compliance reports or

7 documents, including any supporting documents, submitted to or received from

8 HUD, the State of California or any State agency, and/or any local government or

9 administrative agency concerning accessibility with respect to the Redevelopment

10 Housing Program.

11 Response to Request No. 19:

12

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

13 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

14 period of almost twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

15 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

16 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

17 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

18 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

19 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

20 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

21 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

22 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

23 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

24 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to Plaintiff’s definition of

25 “Redevelopment Housing Program” as overbroad, vague and ambiguous and seeking

26 information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to CRA/LA

27 for the development multi-family housing projects on a project-by-project basis. In a

28 good faith attempt to respond to the Requests, the City will interpret the phrase as

- 41 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 45 of 122 Page ID #:2809

1 referring to those multi-family housing projects for which the City provided federal

2 funds to the CRA/LA for the development of the project. The City objects to this

3 request to the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the

4 attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process

5 and government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

6 declines to produce such information. The City objects to this request to the extent

7 that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, are publically

8 available or are obtainable from other sources that are more convenient and less

9 burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff.

10

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

11 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

12 Attachment A.

13 Request No. 21: Any and all documents, including, but not limited to, e-mail

14 correspondences; letters; minutes, logs, and/or notes memorializing any telephone

15 communications; minutes, logs, and/or notes memorializing any meetings or in-

16 person conversations, whether formal or informal; grant applications; Consolidated

17 Plans; Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs); Annual

18 Action Plans; annual grantee certifications of compliance with civil rights, fair

19 housing, and accessibility obligations; accomplishment reports, performance profile

20 reports; expenditure reports; self-evaluations; needs assessments or transition plans;

21 strategic plans; surveys; housing element plans and reports; reports detailing any

22 analysis of impediments to fair housing choice; and/or other compliance reports or

23 documents, including any supporting documents, submitted to or received from

24 HUD, the State of California or any State agency, and/or any local government or

25 administrative agency concerning accessibility obligations in housing imposed by

26 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the

27 Federal Fair Housing Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and/or

28 California Government Code § 11135.

- 42 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 46 of 122 Page ID #:2810

1 Response to Request No. 21:

2

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

3 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

4 period of almost twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

5 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

6 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

7 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

8 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

9 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

10 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

11 City over a period of more than twenty (20) years during which time the City has

12 employed tens of thousands of employees. The City objects to this request to the

13 extent that it seeks information that is not in the possession, custody or control of the

14 City. The City objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected

15 from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product

16 doctrine, deliberative process and government information privilege, or any other

17 applicable privilege, and the City declines to produce such information. The City

18 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents that are already in

19 Plaintiff’s possession, are publically available or are obtainable from other sources

20 that are more convenient and less burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff.

21

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

22 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

23 Attachment A.

24 Request No. 23: Any and all documents reflecting communications between you

25 and any private advocacy group concerning the need for accessible housing within

26 the City of Los Angeles.

27 Response to Request No. 23:

28

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

- 43 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 47 of 122 Page ID #:2811

1 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

2 period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

3 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

4 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

5 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

6 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

7 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

8 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

9 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

10 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

11 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

12 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to the request to the

13 extent that they seek documents pertaining to third-parties, including personnel

14 records and financial records, the disclosure of which would constitute an

15 unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional, statutory and/or common

16 law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The City objects to this request to

17 the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

18 privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process and

19 government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

20 declines to produce such information. The City objects to this request to the extent

21 that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, are publically

22 available or are obtainable from other sources that are more convenient and less

23 burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff.

24

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

25 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

26 Attachment A.

27 Request No. 24: Any and all documents reflecting communications between you

28 and any private advocacy group concerning accessibility with respect to the

- 44 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 48 of 122 Page ID #:2812

1 Redevelopment Housing Program.

2 Response to Request No. 24:

3

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

4 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

5 period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

6 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

7 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

8 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

9 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

10 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

11 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

12 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

13 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

14 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

15 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to Plaintiff’s definition of

16 “Redevelopment Housing Program” as overbroad, vague and ambiguous and seeking

17 information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to CRA/LA

18 for the development multi-family housing projects on a project-by-project basis. In a

19 good faith attempt to respond to the Requests, the City will interpret the phrase as

20 referring to those multi-family housing projects for which the City provided federal

21 funds to the CRA/LA for the development of the project. The City objects to this

22 request to the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the

23 attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process

24 and government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

25 declines to produce such information. The City objects to the request to the extent

26 that they seek documents pertaining to third-parties, including personnel records and

27 financial records, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion

28 of the affected parties’ constitutional, statutory and/or common law rights to personal

- 45 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 49 of 122 Page ID #:2813

1 privacy and confidentiality. The City objects to this request to the extent that it seeks

2 documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, are publically available or are

3 obtainable from other sources that are more convenient and less burdensome or

4 equally available to Plaintiff.

5

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

6 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

7 Attachment A.

8 Request No. 25: Any and all documents reflecting communications between you

9 and any private advocacy group concerning accessibility obligations in housing

10 imposed by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities

11 Act, the Federal Fair Housing Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,

12 and/or California Government Code § 11135.

13 Response to Request No. 25:

14

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

15 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

16 period of almost twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

17 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

18 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

19 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

20 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

21 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

22 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

23 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

24 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

25 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

26 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to the request to the

27 extent that they seek documents pertaining to third-parties, including personnel

28 records and financial records, the disclosure of which would constitute an

- 46 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 50 of 122 Page ID #:2814

1 unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional, statutory and/or common

2 law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The City objects to this request to

3 the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

4 privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process and

5 government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

6 declines to produce such information. The City objects to this request to the extent

7 that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, are publically

8 available or are obtainable from other sources that are more convenient and less

9 burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff.

10

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

11 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

12 Attachment A.

13 Request No. 26: Any and all documents reflecting communications between you

14 and any private advocacy group concerning the City’s, CRA/LA’s and/or

15 Subrecipients’ compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans

16 with Disabilities Act, the Federal Fair Housing Act, the California Fair Employment

17 and Housing Act, and/or California Government Code § 11135.

18 Response to Request No. 26:

19

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

20 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

21 period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

22 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

23 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

24 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

25 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

26 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

27 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

28 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

- 47 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 51 of 122 Page ID #:2815

1 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

2 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

3 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to this request to the

4 extent it seeks information from the CRA/LA. On February 1, 2012, the CRA was

5 dissolved pursuant to California Assembly Bill 1X 26 and the CRA/LA Designated

6 Local Authority (not the City) became successor to the CRA/LA. The City objects to

7 this request to the extent that it seeks information pertaining to third-parties,

8 including personnel records, and financial records, the disclosure of which would

9 constitute an unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional, statutory

10 and/or common law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The City objects

11 to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the

12 attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process

13 and government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

14 declines to produce such information. The City objects to this request to the extent

15 that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, are publically

16 available or are obtainable from other sources that are more convenient and less

17 burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff.

18

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

19 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

20 Attachment A.

21 Request No. 27: Any and all documents, including, but not limited to, any financial

22 reports, expenditure reports, annual reports, budget reports, and any supporting

23 documents, reflecting the City’s finances, revenues, and expenses relating to the

24 Redevelopment Housing Program.

25 Response to Request No. 27:

26

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

27 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

28 period of more than (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would require

- 48 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 52 of 122 Page ID #:2816

1 the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and seeks

2 documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead

3 to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to the extent

4 that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require the City to

5 make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify all

6 responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

7 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

8 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

9 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

10 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to the request to the

11 extent that they seek documents pertaining to third-parties, including personnel

12 records and financial records, the disclosure of which would constitute an

13 unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional, statutory and/or common

14 law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The City objects to this request to

15 the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

16 privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process and

17 government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

18 declines to produce such information. The City objects to this request to the extent

19 that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, are publically

20 available or are obtainable from other sources that are more convenient and less

21 burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff. The City objects to Plaintiff’s

22 definition of “Redevelopment Housing Program” as overbroad, vague and

23 ambiguous and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided

24 federal funds to CRA/LA for the development multi-family housing projects on a

25 project by project basis. In a good faith attempt to respond to the Request, the City

26 will interpret the phrase as referring to those multi-family housing projects for which

27 the City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for the development of the project.

28

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

- 49 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 53 of 122 Page ID #:2817

1 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

2 Attachment A.

3 Request No. 29: Any and all documents relating to any meetings, including, but not

4 limited to, meeting agendas, resolutions, minutes, notes, and/or audio/video

5 recordings at which housing needs of people with disabilities within the City of Los

6 Angeles was discussed.

7 Response to Request No. 29:

8

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

9 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

10 period of almost twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

11 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

12 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

13 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

14 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

15 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

16 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

17 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

18 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

19 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

20 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to the request to the

21 extent that they seek documents pertaining to third-parties, including personnel

22 records and financial records, the disclosure of which would constitute an

23 unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional, statutory and/or common

24 law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The City objects to this request to

25 the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

26 privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process and

27 government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

28 declines to produce such information.

- 50 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 54 of 122 Page ID #:2818

1

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

2 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

3 Attachment A.

4 Request No. 30: Any and all documents relating to any meetings, including, but not

5 limited to, meeting agendas, resolutions, minutes, notes, and/or audio/video

6 recordings at which accessibility with respect to the Redevelopment Housing

7 Program was discussed.

8 Response to Request No. 30:

9

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

10 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

11 period of more than (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would require

12 the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and seeks

13 documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead

14 to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to the extent

15 that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require the City to

16 make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify all

17 responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

18 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

19 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

20 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

21 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to this request to the

22 extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

23 privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process and

24 government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

25 declines to produce such information. The City objects to Plaintiff’s definition of

26 “Redevelopment Housing Program” as overbroad, vague and ambiguous and seeking

27 information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to CRA/LA

28 for the development multi-family housing projects on a project by project basis. In a

- 51 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 55 of 122 Page ID #:2819

1 good faith attempt to respond to the Request, the City will interpret the phrase as

2 referring to those multi-family housing projects for which the City provided federal

3 funds to the CRA/LA for the development of the project.

4

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

5 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

6 Attachment A.

7 Request No. 32: Any and all documents relating to any meetings, including, but not

8 limited to, meeting agendas, resolutions, minutes, notes, and/or audio/video

9 recordings at which accessibility obligations in housing imposed by Section 504 of

10 the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Federal Fair Housing

11 Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and/or California

12 Government Code § 11135 were discussed.

13 Response to Request No. 32:

14

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

15 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

16 period of almost twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

17 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

18 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

19 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

20 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

21 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

22 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

23 City, including email correspondence over a period of more than twenty (20) years

24 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

25 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

26 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to this request to the

27 extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

28 privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process and

- 52 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 56 of 122 Page ID #:2820

1 government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

2 declines to produce such information. The City objects to this request to the extent

3 that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, are publically

4 available or are obtainable from other sources that are more convenient and less

5 burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff.

6

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

7 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

8 Attachment A. Additional information responsive to this request is publically

9 available at http://cityclerk.lacity.org.

10 Request No. 46: Any and all documents that you relied on, in any way, in evaluating

11 or preparing your defense to this litigation.

12 Response to Request 46:

13

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

14 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

15 period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

16 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

17 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

18 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

19 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

20 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

21 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

22 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

23 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

24 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

25 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to this request to the

26 extent it seeks information from the CRA/LA. On February 1, 2012, the CRA was

27 dissolved pursuant to California Assembly Bill 1X 26 and the CRA/LA Designated

28 Local Authority (not the City) became successor to the CRA/LA. The City objects to

- 53 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 57 of 122 Page ID #:2821

1 this request to the extent that it seeks information pertaining to third-parties, 2 including personnel records, and financial records, the disclosure of which would 3 constitute an unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional, statutory

4 and/or common law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The City objects

5 to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the

6 attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process

7 and government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City 8 declines to produce such information. The City objects to this request to the extent 9 that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, are publically 10 available or are obtainable from other sources that are more convenient and less

11 burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff.

12

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

13 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

14 Attachment A.

15

1. Plaintiff’s Argument

16

a. The City Failed to Produce Responsive Documents Or

17

Certify That It Has Produced All Responsive

Documents in Response to Request Nos. 4, 7-17, 19, 21,

18

23-27, 29, 30, 32 and 46

19

In its responses to Fair Housing Council’s requests for production of

20 documents, the City agreed to produce documents responsive to Request Nos. 4, 721 17, 19, 21, 23-27, 29, 30, 32, and 46, but it has not produced responsive documents 22 and has refused to produce a certification that all responsive documents have been 23 produced.

24

The City asserts improper generalized objections to these requests for

25 production of documents and fails to support its objections. (See supra Part II.B at

26 5-8.) The parties do not dispute the discoverability of responsive documents but

27 rather whether all documents responsive to Request Nos. 4, 7-17, 19, 21, 23-27, 29, 28 30, 32, and 46 have been produced.

- 54 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 58 of 122 Page ID #:2822

1

The City’s method of organizing its production of documents fails to comply

2 with Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and has made it difficult for

3 Fair Housing Council to determine whether responsive documents have been

4 produced. Rule 34(b)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that

5 “[a] party must produce documents as they are kept in the ordinary course of

6 business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the

7 request.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E). The purpose of this provision of the Federal 8 Rules of Civil Procedure is “to prevent a party from obscuring the significance of 9 documents by giving some structure to the production.” City of Colton v. Am. 10 Promotional Events, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 578, 584 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (quoting

11 Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co., No. 09-CV-10179, 2009 WL

12 5151745, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 18, 2009).

13

In this case, the City produced two CDs with PDFs of responsive documents

14 (Attachments A and B) but failed to organize them either in the method in which

15 they are kept in the ordinary course of business or label them to correspond to the

16 categories in the request. (See Ex. 6 to Allen Decl.)

17

While the City correctly points out that it may produce documents in the

18 manner in which they are maintained in the ordinary course of business, the City

19 must also provide:

20

at least some modicum of information regarding how they are ordinarily

kept in order to allow the requesting party to make meaningful use of

21

the documents. At a minimum, that means that the disclosing party

should provide information about each document which ideally would

22

include, in some fashion, the identity of the custodian or person from

whom the documents were obtained, an indication of whether they are

23

retained in hard copy or digital format, assurance that the documents

have been produced in the order in which they are maintained, and a

24

general description of the filing system from which they were

recovered.

25

26 Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Hubbell, 255 F.R.D. 331, 337 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see

27 Synventive Molding Solutions, Inc. v. Husky Injection Molding Sys., Inc., 262 F.R.D. 28 365, 370 (D. Vt. 2009) (same). The City has failed to provide any additional

- 55 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 59 of 122 Page ID #:2823

1 information providing context for the documents produced in violation of Rule 34.

2

Based on Fair Housing Council’s review of the documents produced, the City

3 has not produced any documents responsive to several categories including Request

4 Nos. 7, 9, 12, 19, 23-26, 27, 29, 30, and 32. Request Nos. 7 and 9 seek

5 communications between the City and the CRA regarding the need for accessible

6 housing and requests for or receipt of federal and state funds. Request No. 12 seeks 7 documents given to or received from any of the Owner Defendants3 regarding the

8 need for accessible housing. Request No. 19 seeks documents submitted to or

9 received from any governmental agencies regarding the accessibility of housing

10 receiving City funding and included in the CRA’s housing inventory. Document

11 Request Nos. 23-26 seek communications between the City and private advocacy

12 groups concerning the need for accessible housing, the accessibility of the projects

13 receiving funding from the City and included in the CRA’s housing inventory, the

14 accessibility obligations imposed by disability laws, and compliance with

15 accessibility requirements. Document Request Nos. 29, 30, and 32 request

16 documents related to meetings regarding these same topics. Request No. 27 seeks

17 documents reflecting the City’s expenses, revenues and finances of housing projects

18 receiving City money and included in the CRA’s housing inventory.

19

With respect to the remaining requests for production of documents (Request

20 Nos. 4, 8, 10, 11, 13-17, 21 & 46) the City arguably may have produced some

21 documents that are tangentially responsive to these categories of documents, but Fair

22 Housing Council seeks an order requiring the City to certify that all responsive

23 documents have been produced in response to these requests.

24

In the meet and confer process, Fair Housing Council sought the production of

25 documents responsive to these requests or a certification that all responsive

26 documents have been produced. (Ex. 5 to Allen Decl.) The City agreed to provide

27 3 Plaintiffs named the owners of housing projects within the DLA’s housing program 28 as defendants for purposes of relief.

- 56 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 60 of 122 Page ID #:2824

1 a supplemental production but has failed to produce additional documents. (Allen

2 Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10 & Ex. 3.)

3

Fair Housing Council seeks an order requiring that the City produce

4 documents responsive to the requests or a certification that a search has been

5 conducted and that all responsive documents have been produced.

6

Because of the difficulty in determining whether responsive documents have

7 been produced, Fair Housing Council further requests that the City be ordered to

8 produce to Plaintiff an index of the documents produced, revealing the custodian,

9 location and a general description of the filing system under which each document

10 was maintained in the ordinary course of the City’s business, further including an

11 indication of whether the document is kept in digital format, hard copy, or both. See

12 Pass & Seymour, Inc., 255 F.R.D. at 338 (ordering the production of a similar index

13 in case where defendant claimed it was producing documents in the manner in which

14 it kept the documents but refused to provide any context for the production).

15

2. The City’s Argument

16

Plaintiff’s heading for this section suggests that it will address the City’s

17 alleged failure to produce responsive documents or certify that it has produced all

18 responsive documents. However, the section addresses four distinct issues: 1) the

19 City’s purported generalized objections, 2) the City’s compliance with Rule

20 34(b)(2)(E), 3) Plaintiff’s claims the City has not produced responsive documents

21 with respect to Request Nos. 7, 9, 12, 19, 23-26, 27, 29, 30, and 32, and 4) Plaintiff’s

22 allegation that the City has not produced all responsive documents for Request Nos.

23 4, 8, 10, 11, 13-17, 21 and 46. The City has already addressed Plaintiff’s incorrect

24 claim that the City’s detailed objections were “generalized” and “boilerplate,”

25 despite Plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer with the City regarding this issue. The

26 City will address the remaining three issues below.

27

a. The City Complied with Rule 34(b)(2)(E)

28

As Plaintiff states, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E) allows a

- 57 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 61 of 122 Page ID #:2825

1 party to provide the documents “as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or

2 must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request.” The

3 City has provided Plaintiff with documents as they are kept in the ordinary course of 4 business. Further, the City provided an index of the documents it produced.4 Based

5 upon a lengthy discussion during the parties teleconference on January 16, 2013, the

6 City believed that the issue regarding the manner of the City’s production had been

7 resolved and that Plaintiff understood that the City had produced documents in the

8 manner they were kept in the ordinary course of business as reflected in the City’s 9 January 24th letter to Plaintiff. (Ex. 3, p. 2). Plaintiff did not raise the issue of the

10 manner of the City’s production again until the Plaintiff’s February 13, 2013 letter,

11 which the City did not receive until February 20, 2013. When the City attempted to

12 address the letter, Plaintiff told the City to just wait until the Draft Joint Stipulation

13 arrived. (Byrne Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. 11.) The City again attempted to discuss the issue

14 with Plaintiff on March 12, 2013, after it had a chance to fully review the joint

15 stipulation, and again was rebuffed by the Plaintiff. (Byrne Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. 14.)

16

In its letter of February 13, 2013, Plaintiff cites for the first time Pass &

17 Seymour, Inc. v. Hubbell, 255 F.R.D. 331, 337 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) and Synventive

18 Molding Solutions, Inc. v. Husky Injection Molding Sys., Inc., 262 F.R.D. 365, 370

19 (D. Vt. 2009) in support of the proposition that when documents are provided as

20 maintained in the ordinary course of business, the City must also provide additional

21 information regarding the manner in which the City maintains documents. However,

22 Hubbell, a patent infringement suit, is clearly distinguishable from the case at hand.

23 In response to 72 separate document discovery requests, the plaintiff produced over

24 400,000 pages of digital documents, in 202 electronic, unlabeled folders. The court

25 held that in such a case the documents should be organized and labeled. In contrast,

26 the City provided a list of the documents produced in response to the Document

27 4 Plaintiff provided screenshots of the contents of the CDs. Attached hereto as Ex. 9 28 are the indexes that the City provided to Plaintiff. (Byrne Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 9.)

- 58 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 62 of 122 Page ID #:2826

1 Requests along with cds containing responsive documents. Imposing a further 2 burden on the City would go against the very precedent cited by the Plaintiff in City 3 of Colton v. Am. Promotional Events, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 578 (C.D. Cal. 2011). City of

4 Colton clearly states, “Rule 34 does not obligate a party to per se organize and label

5 usable documents for the requesting party’s convenience…” Id. at 585.

6

The City requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s request for an order requiring

7 that the City produce documents responsive to the requests or a certification that a 8 search has been conducted and that all responsive documents have been produced, on 9 the basis that the City is still searching for responsive documents, as Plaintiff is 10 aware.

11

The City also requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s request for an order

12 requiring the City to produce an index of the documents produced, revealing the

13 custodian, location and a general description of the filing system under which each

14 document was maintained in the ordinary course of the City’s business, including an 15 indication of whether the document is kept in digital format, hard copy, or both. 16 Plaintiff failed to properly meet and confer as required by Local Rule 37-1 and 17 rebuffed the City’s attempt to do so to narrow the issue before the Court. (Byrne

18 Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. 14.) Plaintiff argues that their request is necessary due to the

19 difficulty of determining whether responsive documents have been produced. The

20 difficulty lies not with the City’s production, but with the overlapping, ambiguous, 21 and broad scope of the requests themselves.

22

b. The City Produced Documents in Response to Request

23

Nos. 7, 9, 12, 19. 23-25, 27 29, 30 and 32

24

The City is bewildered by Plaintiff’s statement that not a single document has

25 been produced by the City in response to Request Nos. 7, 9, 12, 19. 23-25, 27 29, 30

26 and 32. The City has provided specific documents in response to these Requests, as

27 illustrated by the examples below.

28

Request No. 19 seeks over thirty types of documents regarding accessibility

- 59 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 63 of 122 Page ID #:2827

1 with respect to the “Redevelopment Housing Program,” including but not limited to

2 Annual Action Plans, Consolidated Plans, Housing Elements, and Annual Grantee

3 Certifications. The City has repeatedly denied the existence of the “Redevelopment

4 Housing Program.” However, in a good faith effort to respond to the Requests, the

5 City interpreted the request broadly and produced responsive documents specifically

6 requested such as the Consolidated Plans, Consolidated Annual Performance and

7 Evaluation Reports (CAPERS), Annual Action Plans and Housing Elements. These

8 documents contained annual grantee certifications of compliance with civil rights,

9 fair housing, and accessibility obligations made by the City to HUD, which were also

10 responsive to these requests.

11

Request Nos. 23 and 24 seek any and all documents reflecting

12 communications between the City and any private advocacy group concerning the 13 need for accessible housing. 5 Request No. 25 seeks any and all documents reflecting

14 communications between the City and any private advocacy group concerning

15 accessibility obligations in housing imposed by various statutes. The City objected to

16 the requests on the grounds, among others, they were vague and ambiguous. The

17 City’s initial production contained documents responsive to these requests. For

18 example, the Consolidated Plans contains information regarding public meetings

19 where members of private advocacy groups were present at which the need for

20 accessible housing was discussed. These meetings are also responsive to Request

21 No. 29, 30 and 32, which seek documents relating to meetings where accessibility

22 and/or the accessibility obligations of the various statutes Plaintiff has sued under

23 where discussed. The City has represented to Plaintiff that its document production is

24 not yet complete and it continues to seek responsive documents to Plaintiff’s

25 requests. (Byrne Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 3, p. 7.)

26
27 5 Request No. 24 is identical to Request No. 23 except that it seeks information regarding the Redevelopment Housing Program. As stated
28 above, the City denies the existence of such a program.

- 60 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 64 of 122 Page ID #:2828

c. The City Produced Responsive Documents for Request

1

Nos. 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21 and 46 and

Continues to Search for Responsive Documents

2

3

Despite the Plaintiff’s characterization of the City’s production as

4 “tangentially responsive,” the City has produced responsive documents to Request

5 Nos. 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21 and 46, including but not limited to specific

6 documents requested such as CAPERs and contracts with the Owner Defendants and

7 the CRA/LA. The City has informed Plaintiff that it is continuing to search for

8 responsive documents. (Byrne Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 3, p. 7.) The City has produced

9 approximately 25,000 pages of responsive documents and is in the process of making

10 construction and finance files for each of the properties identified in the Second 11 Amended Complaint available for review.6

12

Plaintiff’s request that the Court order the City to certify that all responsive

13 documents have been produced in response to these requests comes more than five

14 months prior to the close of discovery. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not even reviewed

15 all the documents that the City has agreed to make available for inspection.

16 Accordingly, the request is premature at best and should be denied.

17

D. DOCUMENT REQUEST NOS. 3, 5 & 6

18 Request No. 3: Any and all documents reflecting the City’s policies and procedures

19 regarding the use of federal funds by CRA/LA and/or any Subrecipient who is part

20 of the Redevelopment Housing Program.

21 Response to Request No. 3:

22

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

23 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

24
25 6 The construction and finance files contain confidential information of the developers and tenants. Accordingly, the City has asked counsel for
26 the Owner Defendants to review the files so that the Owner Defendants can state their position with respect to the City’s production of the files.
27 The City anticipates a Protective Order may be necessary. If Plaintiff seeks to review the tenant information, the parties must address that
28 issue as well. (Byrne Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. 13.)

- 61 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 65 of 122 Page ID #:2829

1 period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

2 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

3 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

4 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

5 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

6 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

7 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

8 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

9 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

10 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information pertaining to third-

11 parties, including personnel records, and financial records, the disclosure of which

12 would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional,

13 statutory and/or common law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The City

14 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from

15 disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine,

16 deliberative process and government information privilege, or any other applicable

17 privilege, and the City declines to produce such information. The City objects to

18 Plaintiff’s definition of “Redevelopment Housing Program” as overbroad, vague and

19 ambiguous and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided

20 federal funds to CRA/LA for the development multi-family housing projects on a

21 project-by-project basis. In a good faith attempt to respond to the Request, the City

22 will interpret the phrase as referring to those multi-family housing projects for which

23 the City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for the development of the project.

24

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

25 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

26 Attachment A.

27 Request No. 5: Any and all documents reflecting the City’s oversight, enforcement,

28 and/or monitoring of the CRA/LA and/or Subrecipients.

- 62 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 66 of 122 Page ID #:2830

1 Response to Request No. 5:

2

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous as

3 to “oversight, enforcements and/or monitoring.” The City objects to this request on

4 the ground that it seeks documents from a time period of more than twenty (20)

5 years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would require the City to conduct an

6 unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and seeks documents that are not

7 relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

8 admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to the extent that it is overbroad

9 and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require the City to make an

10 unreasonable & unduly burdensome investigation to identify all responsive

11 documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the City, including

12 email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years during which

13 time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City objects to this

14 request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the possession, custody or

15 control of the City. The City objects to this request to the extent it seeks information

16 from the CRA/LA. On February 1, 2012, the CRA was dissolved pursuant to

17 California Assembly Bill 1X 26 and the CRA/LA Designated Local Authority (not

18 the City) became successor to the CRA/LA. The City objects to this request to the

19 extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

20 privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process and

21 government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

22 declines to produce such information.

23

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

24 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

25 Attachment A.

26 Request No. 6: Any and all documents, including, but not limited to statutes,

27 ordinances, regulations, policies, procedures, guidelines, forms, and/or certifications,

28 concerning the distribution of Federal housing and community development funds to

- 63 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 67 of 122 Page ID #:2831

1 any entity.

2 Response to Request No. 6:

3

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous as

4 to “policies procedures, guidelines, forms, and/or certifications.” The City objects to

5 this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time period of more than

6 twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would require the City to

7 conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and seeks documents

8 that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the

9 discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to the extent that it

10 is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require the City to make an

11 unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify all responsive

12 documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the City, including

13 email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years during which

14 time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City objects to this

15 request to the extent that it seeks information pertaining to third-parties, including

16 personnel records, and financial records, the disclosure of which would constitute an

17 unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional, statutory and/or common

18 law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The City objects to this request to

19 the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

20 privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process and

21 government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

22 declines to produce such information. The City objects to this request to the extent

23 that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, are publically

24 available or are obtainable from other sources that are more convenient and less

25 burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff.

26

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

27 follows: In response to the Requests the City will produce the documents listed on

28 Attachment A. Furthermore, additional information responsive to this request is

- 64 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 68 of 122 Page ID #:2832

1 publically available through the City Clerk’s website at 2 http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm.

3

1. Plaintiff’s Argument

4

a. The City Should Be Required to Conduct a Further

5

Search for Responsive Documents

6

Requests for Production Nos. 3, 5 & 6 relate to policies and practices

7 regarding the use of federal funds and the oversight and monitoring of recipients and 8 subrecipients of federal funds. The parties do not appear to dispute that documents 9 responsive to these requests are discoverable. In its initial response, the City asserted 10 a litany of improper general objections and failed to support its objections (see supra

11 Part II.B at 5-8) but agreed to produce documents responsive to these requests.

12

In the meet and confer process, Fair Housing Council noted that additional

13 responsive documents may exist and provided the City with a list of other categories

14 of documents that are responsive to these requests. Fair Housing Council explained:

15

Plaintiff’s requests encompass both policies and procedures used to

monitor recipients and subrecipients and specific documents reflecting

16

monitoring the CRA/LA and other subrecipients in the Redevelopment

Housing Program. Examples of the documents (referred to in the reports

17

produced to Plaintiff) that are responsive to Plaintiff’s requests but have

not been produced include: (1) ESI in native format from the Integrated

18

Services and Information System database and the Integrated

Disbursement Information Systems (lDIS) database; (2) the

19

Subrecipient HOME Monitoring Manual for the Community

Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles; and (3) Greensheets and

20

Transmittal Sheets related to funding for any of developments in the

Redevelopment Housing Program. Plaintiff notes that a HOME

21

monitoring checklist was produced by the City, but similar checklists

for monitoring of HOPWA and CDBG recipients and subrecipients

22

have not been produced. Similarly, an LAHD Disbursement Manual for

the HOPW A program has been produced but similar manuals have not

23

been produced for the HOME or CDBG programs.

24 (See Ex. 1 to Allen Decl.)

25

The City agreed to conduct a further search for documents responsive to these

26 requests but has not produced any additional responsive documents or certified that

27 all responsive documents to Request Nos. 3, 5, and 6 have been produced as 28 requested by Plaintiff.

- 65 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 69 of 122 Page ID #:2833

1

Fair Housing Council requests that the Court require the City to produce all

2 additional documents responsive to these requests or certify that all responsive

3 documents have been produced.

4

2. The City’s Argument

5

Despite the City’s objections to the broad nature of the Document Requests, it

6 has in good faith continued to search for responsive documents. The City has

7 produced approximately 25,000 pages of documents and is in the process of making

8 project files available for inspection. During the meet and confer process, the City

9 made it clear that its document production was not yet complete. (Byrne Decl. ¶ 7,

10 Ex. 3.) The City is currently working through confidentiality issues with respect to

11 project files and will make the files available as soon as they are resolved. The City

12 continues to search for additional documents and has informed Plaintiff of its intent

13 to produce additional documents.

14

E. DOCUMENT REQUEST NOS. 36-40

15 Request No. 36: Any and all documents, including, but not limited to, building and

16 occupancy permits, construction contracts, all change orders, correspondence, and

17 communications between or among the architects, engineers, builders, owners,

18 permitting authorities, contractors, subcontractors, zoning officials, and any other

19 entity or individual with control or design approval authority, constituting the

20 complete construction files for units within the Redevelopment Housing Program.

21 Response to Request No. 36:

22

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

23 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

24 period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

25 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

26 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

27 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

28 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

- 66 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 70 of 122 Page ID #:2834

1 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

2 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

3 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

4 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

5 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

6 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to Plaintiff’s definition

7 of “Redevelopment Housing Program” as overbroad, vague and ambiguous and

8 seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to

9 CRA/LA for the development multi-family housing projects on a project-by-project

10 basis. In a good faith attempt to respond to the Requests, the City will interpret the

11 phrase as referring to those multi-family housing projects for which the City

12 provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for the development of the project. The City

13 objects to the request to the extent that they seek documents pertaining to third-

14 parties, including personnel records and financial records, the disclosure of which

15 would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional,

16 statutory and/or common law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The City

17 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from

18 disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine,

19 deliberative process and government information privilege, or any other applicable

20 privilege, and the City declines to produce such information. The City objects to this

21 request to the extent that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession,

22 are publically available or are obtainable from other sources that are more

23 convenient and less burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff.

24

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

25 follows: The occupancy permits can be viewed at the Los Angeles Department of

26 Building and Safety during regular business hours.

27 Request No. 37: Any and all documents, including, but not limited to, building plans

28 and building specifications, site plans, and apartment layouts, constituting the final

- 67 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 71 of 122 Page ID #:2835

1 blueprints or final architectural drawings for multifamily housing projects within the

2 Redevelopment Housing Program.

3 Response to Request No. 37:

4

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

5 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

6 period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

7 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

8 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

9 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

10 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

11 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

12 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

13 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

14 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

15 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

16 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to this request to the

17 extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

18 privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process and

19 government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

20 declines to produce such information. The City objects to this request to the extent

21 that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, are publically

22 available or are obtainable from other sources that are more convenient and less

23 burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff. The City objects to Plaintiff’s

24 definition of “Redevelopment Housing Program” as overbroad, vague and

25 ambiguous and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided

26 federal funds to CRA/LA for the development multi-family housing projects on a

27 project-by-project basis. In a good faith attempt to respond to the Requests, the City

28 will interpret the phrase as referring to those multi-family housing projects for which

- 68 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 72 of 122 Page ID #:2836

1 the City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for the development of the project.

2

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

3 follows: The final building plans can be viewed at the Los Angeles Department of

4 Building and Safety during regular business hours.

5 Request No. 38: Any and all documents, including, but not limited to contracts,

6 correspondences, plans, specifications, notice of meetings, invoices, as well as, all

7 drafts of building plans and building specifications, site plans, apartment layouts, and

8 shop drawings, given to or received from any architect, civil engineer, or other

9 design professional involved in designing multifamily housing projects within the

10 Redevelopment Housing Program.

11 Response to Request No. 38:

12

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

13 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

14 period of almost twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

15 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

16 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

17 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

18 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

19 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

20 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

21 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

22 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

23 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

24 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to the request to the

25 extent that they seek documents pertaining to third-parties, including personnel

26 records and financial records, the disclosure of which would constitute an

27 unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional, statutory and/or common

28 law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The City objects to this request to

- 69 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 73 of 122 Page ID #:2837

1 the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

2 privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process and

3 government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

4 declines to produce such information. The City objects to this request to the extent

5 that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, are publically

6 available or are obtainable from other sources that are more convenient and less

7 burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff. The City objects to Plaintiff’s

8 definition of “Redevelopment Housing Program” as overbroad, vague and

9 ambiguous and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided

10 federal funds to CRA/LA for the development multi-family housing projects on a

11 project-by-project basis. In a good faith attempt to respond to the Requests, the City

12 will interpret the phrase as referring to those multi-family housing projects for which

13 the City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for the development of the project.

14

Subject to and not waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

15 follows: The final building plans can be viewed at the Los Angeles Department of

16 Building and Safety.

17 Request No. 39: Any and all documents, including, but not limited to, documents

18 relating to visits to the construction site by the architect, any determination whether

19 or not construction is proceeding in accordance with the plans, approvals of payment

20 to contractors, and/or any determination of amounts owed to contractors;

21 constituting, referring, or relating to the administration of any construction contract

22 for any multifamily housing project within the Redevelopment Housing Program by

23 any architect.

24 Response to Request No. 39:

25

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

26 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

27 period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

28 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

- 70 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 74 of 122 Page ID #:2838

1 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

2 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

3 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

4 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

5 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

6 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

7 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

8 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

9 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to the request to the

10 extent that they seek documents pertaining to third-parties, including personnel

11 records and financial records, the disclosure of which would constitute an

12 unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional, statutory and/or common

13 law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The City objects to this request to

14 the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

15 privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process and

16 government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City

17 declines to produce such information. The City objects to this request to the extent

18 that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, are publically

19 available or are obtainable from other sources that are more convenient and less

20 burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff. The City objects to Plaintiff’s

21 definition of “Redevelopment Housing Program” as overbroad, vague and

22 ambiguous and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided

23 federal funds to CRA/LA for the development multi-family housing projects on a

24 project-by-project basis. In a good faith attempt to respond to the Requests, the City

25 will interpret the phrase as referring to those multi-family housing projects for which

26 the City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for the development of the project.

27

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

28 follows: The final building plans can be viewed at the Los Angeles Department of

- 71 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 75 of 122 Page ID #:2839

1 Building and Safety.

2 Request No. 40: Any and all documents, including, but not limited to,

3 correspondence with the building department, building permits, temporary

4 certificates of occupancy, permanent certificates of occupancy, certificates of

5 compliance, and other correspondence or documents given to or received from any

6 reviewing or approving state or local governmental agency, relating to permission to

7 build or to project approval for each multifamily housing project within the

8 Redevelopment Housing Program.

9 Response to Request No. 40:

10

The City objects to this request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.

11 The City objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents from a time

12 period of more than twenty (20) years, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would

13 require the City to conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and

14 seeks documents that are not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated

15 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this request to

16 the extent that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require

17 the City to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify

18 all responsive documents in the possession of any employee or representative of the

19 City, including email correspondence, over a period of more than twenty (20) years

20 during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees. The City

21 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the

22 possession, custody or control of the City. The City objects to the request to the

23 extent that they seek documents pertaining to third-parties, including personnel

24 records and financial records, the disclosure of which would constitute an

25 unwarranted invasion of the affected parties’ constitutional, statutory and/or common

26 law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality. The City objects to this request to

27 the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

28 privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, deliberative process and

- 72 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 76 of 122 Page ID #:2840

1 government information privilege, or any other applicable privilege, and the City 2 declines to produce such information. The City objects to this request to the extent 3 that it seeks documents that are already in Plaintiff’s possession, are publically

4 available or are obtainable from other sources that are more convenient and less

5 burdensome or equally available to Plaintiff. The City objects to Plaintiff’s

6 definition of “Redevelopment Housing Program” as overbroad, vague and

7 ambiguous and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided 8 federal funds to CRA/LA for the development multi-family housing projects on a 9 project-by-project basis. In a good faith attempt to respond to the Requests, the City 10 will interpret the phrase as referring to those multi-family housing projects for which

11 the City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for the development of the project.

12

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

13 follows: The final building plans can be viewed at the Los Angeles Department of

14 Building and Safety.

15

1. Plaintiff’s Argument

16

a. The City Should Be Required to Search for Responsive

17

Documents in Specific Departments of the City

18

Request Nos. 36-40 seek construction-related documents and plans.

19 Construction-related plans and documents are plainly relevant in this case claiming

20 that the City and the DLA failed to ensure that housing projects in the DLA’s 21 housing program are meaningfully accessible to people with disabilities. The City 22 asserted improper general objections and failed to support its objections in response 23 to Fair Housing Council’s requests (see supra Part II.B at 5-8.) but noted that

24 documents responsive to Request Nos. 36-40 are equally available through the Los

25 Angeles Department of Building and Safety. Courts generally overrule the objection

26 that information and documents are equally available to a party. See Nat’l Acad. of

27 Recording Arts & Sci. v. On Point Events, LP, 256 F.R.D. 678, 682 (C.D. Cal. 2009) 28 (citing St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Commercial Fin. Co., 198 F.R.D. 508, 514

- 73 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 77 of 122 Page ID #:2841

1 (N.D. Iowa 2000)).

2

In this case, Fair Housing Council seeks the specific construction-related plans

3 and documents in the possession of the Los Angeles Housing Department (“LAHD”)

4 and the Community Development Department (“CDD”). Construction related plans

5 within the possession of LAHD and CDD may be relevant to whether the City knew

6 or should have known that housing projects within the DLA’s housing program were

7 not meaningfully accessible. For example, if plans for a specific housing project in

8 the possession of LAHD show that a housing project is not accessible under UFAS,

9 the trier of fact may draw an inference that the City knew or should have known that

10 housing projects were not meaningfully accessible to people with disabilities.

11

In the meet and confer process, the City offered to search for documents

12 responsive to Request Nos. 36-40 in particular departments of the City. Fair

13 Housing Council requested that the City search LAHD and CDD for responsive

14 documents, but the City has failed or refused to produce responsive documents or

15 certify that no responsive documents exist other than those in the possession or the

16 Department of Building and Safety. (See Ex. 5 to Allen Decl. at 1-2.)

17

Fair Housing Council requests that the City be required to search for

18 documents responsive to Request Nos. 36-40 and produce responsive documents or

19 certify that no responsive documents exist other than those in the possession of the

20 Department of Building and Safety.

21

1. The City’s Argument

22

Notwithstanding its objection to Plaintiff’s use of the term “Redevelopment

23 Housing Program,” the City has agreed to produce documents related to the sixty-

24 one multi-family housing projects identified in the Second Amended Complaint and

25 identified additional documents that are available for Plaintiff’s inspection.

26 The City is perplexed by Plaintiff’s assertion that the City responded to Request Nos.

27 36-40 by stating that documents responsive to Request Nos. 36-40 are equally

28 available through the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety. This grossly

- 74 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 78 of 122 Page ID #:2842

1 misstates the City’s response. The City responded that the final building plans,

2 which are responsive to these requests, could be accessed at the Los Angeles

3 Department of Building and Safety, where they are kept in the ordinary course of

4 business. Plaintiff now asserts that it is seeking the specific construction-related

5 plans and documents in the possession of the Los Angeles Housing Department

6 (“LAHD”) and the Community Development Department (“CDD”). However, 7 Plaintiff’s overbroad requests do not so state. During the parties’ January 16th

8 teleconference, the City explained to Plaintiff’s counsel that some of the responsive

9 information they sought in Requests Nos. 36-40 were available for Plaintiff’s review

10 at the Department of Building and Safety, where they are normally kept. (Byrne

11 Decl. ¶ 7.) By making documents available for inspection, the City has met its

12 obligation by creating a reasonable place for inspection of documents responsive to

13 these requests. See Superior Communications v. Earhugger, Inc. 257 FRD 215, 220

14 (CD CA 2009) (business records should be examined “at the place where they are

15 kept at least where the documents requested are large in number and their production 16 poses some inconvenience.”). In its January 24th letter, the City informed the Plaintiff

17 that the final building plans were available for Plaintiff’s at the place where they are

18 kept in the ordinary course of business and that the City was continuing to search for

19 responsive documents. (Ex. 3.)

20

On February 14, 2013, the City informed Plaintiff that additional documents

21 responsive to its requests would be available at LAHD for review and asked the

22 Plaintiff to provide dates when it would be available to review the documents.

23 Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond until March 6, 2013. (Byrne Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 7.)

24 The City informed Plaintiff that construction and finance files that would be

25 responsive to Request Nos. 36-40 were available, but that the City is working

26 through confidentiality issues with respect to the files and anticipates that the

27 documents will be available soon. (Byrne Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. 13.)

28

Plaintiff is aware that the City continues to search for responsive documents,

- 75 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 79 of 122 Page ID #:2843

1 responsive documents are currently available for inspection at the Department of 2 Building and Safety and additional documents will be available for inspection at 3 LAHD. Nevertheless, Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court compelling the City to 4 search for documents responsive to Request Nos. 36-40 and produce responsive 5 documents or certify that no responsive documents exist other than those in the 6 possession of the Department of Building and Safety. The request is premature and 7 the City requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s request.

8

9 III. INTERROGATORIES AT ISSUE

10

A. INTERROGATORY NOS. 2-8

11 INTERROGATORY NO. 1:7 Identify any and all policies and/or procedures you

12 have implemented, to ensure compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

13 HUD’s regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 8, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the

14 Federal Fair Housing Act, and California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and/or

15 California Government Code § 11135 by the CRA/LA, any Owner Defendant, or any

16 other developer(s) and/or Subrecipient(s) that is involved in the Redevelopment

17 Housing Program.

18 CITY’S RESPONSE:

19

The City objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is vague and

20 ambiguous. The City objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overbroad as to

21 scope due to the inclusion of the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair

22 Employment and Housing Act, these causes of action were dismissed in accordance

23 with the Court’s November 30, 2012 order. The City objects to this interrogatory on

24 the grounds that it seeks information from a time period of more than twenty (20)

25 years, therefore, it is overbroad as to time and scope, would require the City to

26 7 The Fair Housing Council is not moving to compel additional information with 27 respect to Interrogatory No. 1; however, Interrogatory No. 1, and the City’s response
to the interrogatory is included in this joint stipulation because it is referenced in the 28 City’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8.

- 76 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 80 of 122 Page ID #:2844

1 conduct an unduly burdensome and oppressive investigation and seeks information

2 that is not relevant to this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the

3 discovery of admissible evidence. The City objects to this interrogatory to the extent

4 it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require the City to make

5 an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation to identify all responsive

6 information in the possession of any employee or representative of the City over

7 more than twenty (20) years during which time the City has employed tens of

8 thousands of employees. The City objects to the phrase “identify any and all policies

9 and/or procedures” on the grounds that as defined by Plaintiff, it is compound and

10 includes four subparts causing this interrogatory to be counted as four separate

11 interrogatories and the total number of interrogatories to exceed those allowed by the

12 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The City objects to Plaintiff’s definition of “Owner

13 Defendants” as overbroad, vague, and ambiguous and seeking information not

14 relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for the

15 development of multi-family housing projects on a project-by-project basis. The

16 City at this time is still investigating whether the multifamily projects that have been

17 named as parties to this action were the recipients of direct or indirect funding from

18 the City. The City objects to Plaintiff’s definition of “Redevelopment Housing

19 Program” as overbroad, vague and ambiguous and seeking information not relevant

20 to this lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to CRA/LA for the development

21 multi-family housing projects on a project-by-project basis. The City denies that it

22 ever gave funding to the CRA/LA for a Redevelopment Housing Program, or that

23 such a program ever existed. In order to respond to this interrogatory, the City will

24 provide the requested information in terms of the City’s policies and procedures for

25 all subrecipients/developers.

26

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as

27 follows: The City has a long standing commitment to expanding equal opportunities

28 and providing the full extent of services to all of its residents, including those who

- 77 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 81 of 122 Page ID #:2845

1 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)

2 and California Government Code § 11135 seek to protect. As a large municipal

3 entity with numerous programs, the City is able to effectuate this commitment on

4 both a citywide level and within specific departments by implementing policies and

5 procedures, including but not limited to those discussed below.

6

On August 2, 1990, the City established the Affordable Housing Commission

7 to serve as an advisory body to the Mayor, the City Council, and the General

8 Manager of the Los Angeles Housing Department (“LAHD”) on housing matters.

9 The Commission is charged with specific tasks that include:

10

• Advise the Mayor and the City Council with respect to the City's

11

housing needs;

12

• Make recommendations to the Mayor and the City Council regarding

13

City housing policy and specific goals to be set to meet the City's

14

housing needs;

15

• Coordinate the City's various housing programs;

16

• Annually review the housing plans and budgets of City agencies and

17

departments to ensure conformance with City housing policy;

18

• Evaluate proposed policy and legislation for their impact on the

19

preservation and production of housing and if necessary make

20

recommendations to the Mayor and the City Council regarding

21

modifications that may be necessary to achieve the City's housing goals;

22

• Collaborate with City agencies and departments to initiate policies

23

and/or programs that favorably impact housing development; and

24

• Encourage public and private partnerships that promote housing

25

preservation and production.

26

In 2002, the City of Los Angeles commissioned Mental Health Advocacy

27 Services, Inc. to conduct a fair housing impediments study, review the City’s Zoning

28 Code, and identify land use and zoning regulations, practices, and procedures that

- 78 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 82 of 122 Page ID #:2846

1 serve to impede the development and use of housing for persons with disabilities. To

2 address the constraints identified by the Fair Housing Impediment Study, the City

3 proposed and adopted a Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance. Adopted on March

4 18, 2006, the Ordinance achieved the following:

5

• Established a standard procedure for requesting reasonable

6

accommodation.

7

• Revised the definition of “family” in the Zoning Code to read “one or

8

more persons living together in a dwelling unit, with common access to,

9

and common use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas within the

10

dwelling unit.”

11

The City’s commitment to expanding equal opportunities and providing the

12 full extent of services to those who Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA

13 and California Government Code § 11135 seek to protect is apparent at the

14 departmental level as well.

15

The City and its departments have implemented policies and/or procedures to

16 ensure compliance with the applicable requirements of Housing and Urban

17 Development Department (“HUD”) funding, which includes compliance with

18 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The

19 provisions of these acts overlap with the requirement of California Government Code

20 § 11135 that “No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of …disability,

21 be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully

22 subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that is conducted,

23 operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by

24 the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state.”

25

LAHD and the City’s Community Development Department (“CDD”), as the

26 primary departments that implement the Consolidated Plan Grants (HOME,

27 HOPWA, ADDI, CDBG, and ESG), conduct annual financial and programmatic

28 monitoring in addition to the annual OMB A-133 (Single Audit) and periodic

- 79 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 83 of 122 Page ID #:2847

1 Controller audits. The monitoring process used by the two departments varies based

2 on the type of grant program; each of the Consolidated Plan grants has separate and

3 distinct regulations and requirements. The systems however are designed to

4 incorporate a variety of monitoring techniques and approaches in a coordinated effort

5 to assure that all funded activities receive an appropriate level of review, and that

6 regulations specific to the grants received are followed.

7

CDD is responsible for the administration of Community Development Block

8 Grants (“CDBG”) and Section 108 allocated by Community Planning and

9 Development (“CPD”). LAHD is the administer of the Consolidated Plan grant funds

10 for housing and homeless purposes, including HOME, HOPWA, ADDI, and ESG, as

11 well as CDBG allocated to LAHD and Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority

12 (“LAHSA”) programs. LAHD and CDD have had a policy (since prior to January 1,

13 2003) of including provisions in the contracts with those receiving such funds to

14 comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The City previously produced

15 copies of the applicable contracts for the housing projects at issue in this action. The

16 individuals who prepared and executed the contracts ensured that this policy was

17 followed. The recipient of the funds was aware of this policy by virtue of the

18 contracts that included the provisions. In 2009, LAHD also adopted a HOME

19 Subrecipient Manual regarding the use of HOME funds by any Subrecipient.

20

In 2005, CDD began utilizing an online tool called the Consolidated Plan

21 Application System (“CPAS”) in connection with its administration of CDBG funds.

22 CPAS included information regarding copies of training materials and guidebooks

23 provided by HUD and copies of all Code of Federal Regulations which pertain to the

24 grants. The CRA/LA was invited to attend training provided by CDD at least twice a

25 year on how to access and use CPAS to apply for funding and/or report CDBG

26 project results. During this training, CDD staff reviewed CDBG requirements and

27 demonstrated navigation of the CPAS website, including the information available

28 therein.

- 80 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 84 of 122 Page ID #:2848

1

CDD Administrative Services Division (ASD) Grants Unit reviews all

2 applications for CDBG funding for adherence to the CDBG regulatory requirements.

3 The Staff frequently consults with City departments and agencies on eligibility and

4 national objective issues, and provides technical assistance to City departments and

5 related City agencies and non-profit organizations in assuring that approved project

6 activities continue to meet HUD and CDBG statutory and regulatory requirements.

7 Funding and eligibility recommendations are provided by CDD’s Grants Section to

8 the Mayor upon review of all proposed projects.

9

The CDD engages in many other activities to ensure compliance with the

10 applicable requirements of HUD funding, which includes compliance with Section

11 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. For example,

12 during the period of March 2011 to April 2012, CDD prepared written Grantee

13 Performance Report (GPR) guidance, provided two training presentations to City

14 staff and offered a “hands-on” data entry training to increase the number and quality

15 of the data reported for the activities.

16

LAHD monitors housing developments assisted by the City with Consolidated

17 Plan Grant funds in two phases: during construction and afterwards. Before the City

18 releases funds, loan agreements and related documents must be signed by the

19 borrower and approved by the City. These documents contain repayment terms, a

20 promissory note, loan agreement and additional terms including requirements related

21 to habitability standards, owner residency, tenant eligibility, nondiscrimination

22 provisions, requirements tied to funding type used in the project and if applicable

23 rent affordability guidelines.

24

Low-income tenancy, affordable rents, and other requirements are further

25 effectuated through a covenant, which is signed by the owner and recorded against

26 the property title. Covenants have provisions that require annual tenant re-

27 certification and periodic physical inspections when required by the grant. A

28 material breach of these provisions may result in acceleration of the loan and/or

- 81 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 85 of 122 Page ID #:2849

1 foreclosure action against the collateral property.

2

Following the completion of construction, the Occupancy

3 Monitoring/Compliance Unit of LAHD is responsible for the second phase of

4 monitoring property owner compliance with federal, state, and local regulations,

5 recorded regulatory agreements, and land use covenants associated with the project.

6 The Occupancy Monitoring/Compliance Unit checks for the required occupancy

7 ratios, and also determines if residents meet the necessary requirements to reside in

8 the units. Monitoring activities include reviews ensuring adherence to any

9 underlying federal regulations, such as HUD Housing Quality Standards, as well as a

10 review of owner compliance with tenant income and rent ceiling. Compliance

11 monitoring is accomplished through the regular monitoring of a borrower-provided

12 management plan. Owners are required to provide LAHD with reports on the

13 current tenants and the rent schedule. These are reviewed for compliance by LAHD

14 staff. Monitoring consists of collecting and reviewing documentation and

15 conducting on-site visits to review project files and conduct habitability inspections.

16 LAHD has utilized a competitive process to select an experienced contractor to

17 manage a significant portion of the ongoing monitoring function.

18

The Occupancy Monitoring/Compliance Unit requires developers complete

19 and submit for approval a Property Management Plan, affirmative marketing efforts,

20 tenant selection, and other information designed to comply with the fair housing

21 requirements. This policy has been in place for more than ten years. Since 2012, the

22 Management Plan must include the percentage and unit numbers of the accessible

23 units and type of accessibility, tenant applications that request information as to

24 whether the tenant requires an accessible unit and/or needs a reasonable

25 accommodation, and information regarding how the waiting list will ensure

26 accessible units are available to those applicants who need them. The Management

27 Plan must also include a description of how developers will affirmatively market to

28 persons with disabilities. The Management Plan must be submitted to the Housing

- 82 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 86 of 122 Page ID #:2850

1 Department at least two months before the property begins leasing units

2

The Occupancy Monitoring/Compliance Unit also has instituted a training

3 curriculum and orientation sessions to specifically inform developers and property

4 managers of the monitoring and management requirements. The orientation sessions

5 are scheduled when a project is 50-75% complete. Participants are provided with

6 reference materials related to the subjects covered during the training sessions. Since

7 December 2011, six orientation sessions have been held and 75 individuals have

8 received training.

9

LAHD’s Occupancy Monitoring/Compliance Unit has grown over time and

10 processes approximately 200 new land use covenants per year and is responsible for

11 monitoring some 18,000 units annually. A contractor is now chosen via a

12 competitive process to manage a significant portion of the on-going monitoring

13 function.

14

LAHD requires its Loan Agreements and Notice of Funding Availabilities to

15 contain language that requires UFAS and/or ADA Standards for Accessible Design

16 to be complied with for any project receiving federal funding. This policy has been

17 in place for over ten years. Since 2012, in order to ensure design and final

18 installations compliance with respect to UFAS and/or ADA Standards for Accessible

19 Design, developers who receive federal funding from the City have been required to

20 submit project information to the City and hire an independent architecture or

21 engineering firm to act as an accessibility consultant. These consultants must be

22 certified by the state of California under the Certified Accessibility Specialist

23 Program (“CASP”). The developer for each federally funded project must provide a

24 written accessibility report of UFAS and/or ADA compliance prepared by a certified

25 CASP consultant prior to construction completion. Final disbursement of funds is

26 contingent upon receipt of the final accessibility report.

27

LAHD also actively markets low- and moderate-income housing opportunities

28 citywide. As part of its policies, LAHD requires owners and developers of

- 83 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 87 of 122 Page ID #:2851

1 multifamily housing who receive financial assistance from the City to develop an

2 affirmative marketing plan consistent with the department’s requirements. The

3 marketing plan, subject to approval by LAHD, must contain specific procedures to

4 inform and solicit applications from persons in a specific housing market area who

5 are not likely to apply without special outreach. Overall, the goal of the plan is to

6 promote equal housing choices for prospective purchasers or tenants.

7

LAHD also uses the following affirmative marketing procedures to advertise

8 its programs, funding availability, and to solicit bids and requests for proposals:

9 advertisements in Los Angeles newspapers with citywide circulation, newspapers

10 with a target audience (i.e. newspapers that reach Spanish or Korean speakers),

11 community meetings, newsletters, special workshops, notices on the City’s and

12 LAHD’s websites, and special mailings. This is not a comprehensive list of the

13 affirmative marketing procedures used by LAHD.

14

From March 2011 to April 2012, LAHD initiated the update of the Analysis of

15 Impediments to Fair Housing Choice completed in 2006. An informal advisory

16 group of local fair housing experts and others was formed to guide the new analysis.

17 Various public meetings were conducted throughout the City to promote public

18 participation including the City’s Consolidated Planning process in October 2011. A

19 fair housing survey was available to the public in several languages including

20 English, Spanish, Korean, and Armenian.

21

LAHD also operates the Home Secure Program, designed to increase the

22 independence of elderly and disabled residents within the City by modifying (as

23 needed) their living environments with the installation of such features as locks, peep

24 holes, grab bars and tub attachments to enhance the safety and security of their

25 homes. Most home installations are made to the bathroom, bedroom, and kitchen.

26 From March 2011 to April 2012, over 1,334 households were assisted, exceeding the

27 goal of 1,222.

28

LAHD contracts annually with Housing Right Center (“HRC”) for citywide

- 84 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 88 of 122 Page ID #:2852
1 fair housing enforcement and services. The HRC was contracted with the City 2 through a competitive Request for Proposal system which occurs every three years. 3 The HRC Investigations Department conducts an independent fact-finding 4 investigation of any complaint of housing discrimination it receives. A housing 5 discrimination complaint can be investigated through testing, the gathering of 6 witness statements, or through research surveys. Case resolution can include 7 mediation, conciliation, referral to state and federal administrative agencies, referral 8 to outside fair housing attorneys, or representation by litigation attorneys of the 9 respective fair housing service providers. HRC, and its subcontractors, offer 10 telephone and in-person counseling to both tenants and landlords regarding their 11 respective rights and responsibilities. Assistance may also include mediation and 12 assistance with unlawful detainers. When a client’s matter is outside the agencies’ 13 scope of services, appropriate referral information is provided. These referrals 14 include, but are not limited to local housing authorities, health and building and 15 safety departments, legal assistance agencies, and other social service providers. The 16 funds provided by the City allow the HRC to offer a comprehensive fair housing 17 program that is staffed by several attorneys. From March 2011 to April 2012, HRC 18 provided a large variety of services to City residents. They received 7,956 general 19 housing calls; handled 1,279 fair housing discrimination inquiries; and of those 20 inquiries, opened 481 cases for investigation. Additionally, HRC leads fair housing 21 law workshops and programs for a variety of audiences such as residential property 22 personnel (e.g., landlords, property managers, and real estate agents), tenants, 23 prospective homebuyers, code enforcement personnel, police officers, City 24 employees, and other non-profit organizations. Depending upon the audience, the 25 written materials and presentations were translated by staff into Armenian, Korean, 26 Mandarin, Spanish, or Russian. For example, the Fair Housing Certification 27 Training for housing industry professionals is available in English, Spanish, and 28 Korean.
- 85 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW) Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 89 of 122 Page ID #:2853

1

The LAHD and the HRC continue to participate in the Southern California

2 Fair Housing Advertising Task Force, convened by the Los Angeles Times. Both

3 LAHD and HRC play important roles in this collaboration.

4

The HRC also sponsors the Housing Rights Summit, a daylong conference

5 held annually since 2000 that brings interested parties together and raises public

6 awareness of fair housing issues and services. The event attracts civil rights

7 advocates, social service providers, housing industry and community members, and

8 government entities and addresses fair housing and other related issues, such as

9 housing accessibility for persons with disabilities and how housing conditions affect

10 resident’s health.

11

The City’s commitment to expanding equal opportunities and providing the

12 full extent of services goes beyond LAHD and CDD. Various other departments

13 have also implemented policies and procedures that seek to ensure compliance with

14 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA and California Government Code §

15 11135.

16

The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (“HACLA”) works to

17 support and implement reasonable accommodations for participants in its programs,

18 and users of its facilities and housing. HACLA policies have been designed to be

19 responsive to individual needs for physical modifications and works on broader

20 physical modifications. Section 504 staff coordinates staff training and provides

21 guidance and assistance to staff and clients. During the course of March 2011 to

22 April 2012, HACLA began the process of updating its 504 policy and procedures

23 and training staff. Prior to policies being finalized and adopted, the HACLA reached

24 out to stakeholders to gain their input on the policy.

25

As part of the City’s department wide commitment to affirmatively further fair

26 housing, HACLA has implemented a “504 hotline.” The service is provided so that

27 individuals can report difficulty accessing staff or program benefits due to disability.

28 HACLA and disability advocates also collaborate on developing informative

- 86 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 90 of 122 Page ID #:2854

1 presentations and documents to explain Section 8/Housing Choice Voucher program

2 rights and responsibilities for participants with disabilities. HACLA also provides

3 resources, brochures, posts rental listings with modifications for individuals with

4 disabilities on its website and has designated five ombudspersons to assist

5 individuals with difficulty accessing HACLA programs and services. Any individual

6 with a disability may also file a formal written grievance that will be investigated by

7 the Section 504/ADA coordinator.

8

All multi-family housing projects built within the City of Los Angeles are

9 inspected by the Department of Building and Safety for compliance with the building

10 code. Cities and counties in California are required to adopt the California Building

11 Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). The Code is a set

12 of uniform health and safety codes covering building, electrical, mechanical,

13 plumbing, fire safety, disability access, and other issues. State law allows cities and

14 counties to add local, more restrictive, amendments to the California Building

15 Standards Code. These, and other, local code amendments are intended to improve

16 safety for building occupants and would not likely result in significant cost increases

17 for the production of housing or create discriminatory results in the availability of

18 housing.

19

The Disabled Access Appeals Commission at the Department of Building and

20 Safety hears appeals of actions taken by the Department of Building and Safety in

21 the enforcement of the requirements of state law dealing with access to public

22 accommodations and housing by physically disabled persons. The Commission is

23 composed of five members, and two members of the Commission are required to be

24 physically disabled persons. The Commission may uphold, modify, or overturn the

25 Department’s decision.

26

The City has a Department on Disability (“DoD”), which consists of sixteen

27 (16) fulltime staff, charged with facilitating City-wide ADA and Section 504

28 compliance. In April 2012, the DoD hired a new ADA/Section 504 Coordinator.

- 87 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 91 of 122 Page ID #:2855

1 Further, in an effort to strengthen its compliance efforts, the City allocated additional

2 funding to DoD for three new ADA compliance staff positions, which were filled in

3 October 2012. One of those positions is an ADA Housing Coordinator, who is

4 exclusively dedicated to accessible housing matters. This position has been filled by

5 an attorney with both housing and disability expertise.

6

The policies and /or procedures implemented by the City are embodied and/or

7 referenced in documents previously produced by the City in response to the

8 Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents and the City continues to search

9 for additional responsive documents.

10 INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify any and all policies and/or procedures you

11 have implemented, to ensure compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

12 HUD’s regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 8, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the 13 Federal Fair Housing Act8, and California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and/or

14 California Government Code § 11135 by any other developer(s) and/or

15 Subrecipient(s) outside the Redevelopment Housing Program.

16 CITY’S RESPONSE:

17

The City objects to the phrase “identify any and all policies and/or

18 procedures” on the grounds that as defined by Plaintiff, it is compound and includes

19 four subparts causing this interrogatory to be counted as four separate interrogatories

20 and the total number of interrogatories to exceed those allowed by the Federal Rules

21 of Civil Procedure. The City objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks

22 information from a time period of more than twenty (20) years, therefore, it is

23 overbroad as to time and scope, would require the City to conduct an unduly

24 burdensome and oppressive investigation and seeks information that is not relevant

25 to this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

26
27 8 There is no longer a Federal Fair Housing Act claim in this case. (See Doc. 209.) Fair Housing Council is not moving to compel the City to provide or produce
28 information relating to the Federal Fair Housing Act.

- 88 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 92 of 122 Page ID #:2856

1 evidence. The City objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overbroad and

2 unduly burdensome in that it purports to require the City to make an unreasonable

3 and unduly burdensome investigation to identify all responsive information in the

4 possession of any employee or representative of the City over of more than twenty

5 (20) years during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees.

6 The City objects to Plaintiff's definition of "Redevelopment Housing Program" as

7 overbroad, vague and ambiguous and seeking information not relevant to this

8 lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to CRA/LA for the development multi-

9 family housing projects on a project-by-project basis. In a good faith attempt to

10 respond to the Requests, the City will interpret the phrase as referring to those multi-

11 family housing projects for which the City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for

12 the development of the project. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing

13 objections, the City responds as follows: See response to Interrogatory No.1.

14 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify any and all actions that you have

15 implemented, to ensure compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

16 HUD’s regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 8, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the

17 Federal Fair Housing Act, and California Fair Employment and Housing Act,

18 and/or California Government Code § 11135 by the CRA/LA, any Owner Defendant,

19 or any other developer(s) and/or Subrecipient(s) that is involved in the

20 Redevelopment Housing Program.

21 CITY’S RESPONSE:

22

The City objects to this interrogatory to the extent that the term “actions” it is

23 vague and ambiguous. The City objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it

24 seeks information from a time period of more than twenty (20) years, therefore, it is

25 overbroad as to time and scope, would require the City to conduct an unduly

26 burdensome and oppressive investigation and seeks information that is not relevant

27 to this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

28 evidence. The City objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overbroad and

- 89 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 93 of 122 Page ID #:2857

1 unduly burdensome in that it purports to require the City to make an unreasonable

2 and unduly burdensome investigation to identify all responsive information in the

3 possession of any employee or representative of the City over of more than twenty

4 (20) years during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees.

5 The City objects to Plaintiff's definition of "Redevelopment Housing Program" as

6 overbroad, vague and ambiguous and seeking information not relevant to this

7 lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to CRA/LA for the development multi-

8 family housing projects on a project-by-project basis. In a good faith attempt to

9 respond to the Requests, the City will interpret the phrase as referring to those multi-

10 family housing projects for which the City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for

11 the development of the project. The City objects to Plaintiffs definition of “Nominal

12 Defendants” or “Owner Defendants” as overbroad, vague, and ambiguous and

13 seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to

14 the CRA/LA for the development multi-family housing projects on a project-by-

15 project basis. The City at this time is still investigating whether the multifamily

16 projects who have been named as parties to this action in Plaintiffs' First Amended

17 Complaint were the recipients of direct or indirect funding from the City. Subject to

18 and without waiving the foregoing objections, the City responds as follows: See

19 response to Interrogatory No.1.

20 INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify any and all actions that you have

21 implemented, to ensure compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

22 HUD’s regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 8, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the

23 Federal Fair Housing Act, and California Fair Employment and Housing Act,

24 and/or California Government Code § 11135 by any other developer(s) and/or

25 Subrecipient(s) outside the Redevelopment Housing Program.

26 CITY’S RESPONSE:

27

The City objects to this interrogatory to the extent that the term “actions” it is

28 vague and ambiguous. The City objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it

- 90 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 94 of 122 Page ID #:2858

1 seeks information from a time period of more than twenty (20) years, therefore, it is

2 overbroad as to time and scope, would require the City to conduct an unduly

3 burdensome and oppressive investigation and seeks information that is not relevant

4 to this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

5 evidence. The City objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overbroad and

6 unduly burdensome in that it purports to require the City to make an unreasonable

7 and unduly burdensome investigation to identify all responsive information in the

8 possession of any employee or representative of the City over of more than twenty

9 (20) years during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees.

10 The City objects to Plaintiff's definition of "Redevelopment Housing Program" as

11 overbroad, vague and ambiguous and seeking information not relevant to this

12 lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to CRA/LA for the development multi-

13 family housing projects on a project-by-project basis. In a good faith attempt to

14 respond to the Requests, the City will interpret the phrase as referring to those multi-

15 family housing projects for which the City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for

16 the development of the project. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing

17 objections, the City responds as follows: See response to Interrogatory No.1.

18 INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify any and all policies and/or procedures that

19 you have implemented to ensure that the Redevelopment Housing Program contains

20 units accessible to people with disabilities.

21 CITY’S RESPONSE:

22

The City objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is vague and

23 ambiguous. The City objects to the phrase “identify any and all policies and/or

24 procedures” on the grounds that as defined by Plaintiff, it is compound and includes

25 four subparts causing this interrogatory to be counted as four separate interrogatories

26 and the total number of interrogatories to exceed those allowed by the Federal Rules

27 of Civil Procedure. The City objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks

28 information from a time period of more than twenty (20) years, therefore, it is

- 91 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 95 of 122 Page ID #:2859

1 overbroad as to time and scope, would require the City to conduct an unduly

2 burdensome and oppressive investigation and seeks information that is not relevant

3 to this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

4 evidence. The City objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overbroad and

5 unduly burdensome in that it purports to require the City to make an unreasonable

6 and unduly burdensome investigation to identify all responsive information in the

7 possession of any employee or representative of the City over of more than twenty

8 (20) years during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees.

9 The City objects to the phrase “identify any and all policies and/or procedures” on

10 the grounds that as defined by Plaintiff, it is compound and includes four subparts

11 causing this interrogatory to be counted as four separate interrogatories and the total

12 number of interrogatories to exceed those allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil

13 Procedure. The City objects to Plaintiff's definition of "Redevelopment Housing

14 Program" as overbroad, vague and ambiguous and seeking information not relevant

15 to this lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to CRA/LA for the development

16 multi-family housing projects on a project-by-project basis. In a good faith attempt to

17 respond to the Requests, the City will interpret the phrase as referring to those multi-

18 family housing projects for which the City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for

19 the development of the project. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing

20 objections, the City responds as follows: See response to Interrogatory No.1.

21 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify any and all policies and/or procedures that

22 you have implemented to ensure that housing units supported with Federal housing

23 and community development funds outside the Redevelopment Housing Program

24 contain units accessible to people with disabilities.

25 CITY’S RESPONSE:

26

The City objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is vague and

27 ambiguous. The City objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks

28 information from a time period of more than twenty (20) years, therefore, it is

- 92 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 96 of 122 Page ID #:2860

1 overbroad as to time and scope, would require the City to conduct an unduly

2 burdensome and oppressive investigation and seeks information that is not relevant

3 to this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

4 evidence. The City objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overbroad and

5 unduly burdensome in that it purports to require the City to make an unreasonable

6 and unduly burdensome investigation to identify all responsive information in the

7 possession of any employee or representative of the City over of more than twenty

8 (20) years during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees.

9 The City objects to the phrase “identify any and all policies and/or procedures” on

10 the grounds that as defined by Plaintiff, it is compound and includes four subparts

11 causing this interrogatory to be counted as four separate interrogatories and the total

12 number of interrogatories to exceed those allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil

13 Procedure. The City objects to Plaintiff's definition of "Redevelopment Housing

14 Program" as overbroad, vague and ambiguous and seeking information not relevant

15 to this lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to CRA/LA for the development

16 multi-family housing projects on a project-by-project basis. In a good faith attempt to

17 respond to the Requests, the City will interpret the phrase as referring to those multi-

18 family housing projects for which the City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for

19 the development of the project. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing

20 objections, the City responds as follows: See response to Interrogatory No.1.

21 INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify any and all policies and/or procedures that

22 you have implemented to ensure that accessible units in the Redevelopment Housing

23 Program are made available to, and utilized by, people with mobility, visual or

24 auditory impairments.

25 CITY’S RESPONSE:

26

The City objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is vague and

27 ambiguous. The City objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks

28 information from a time period of more than twenty (20) years, therefore, it is

- 93 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 97 of 122 Page ID #:2861

1 overbroad as to time and scope, would require the City to conduct an unduly

2 burdensome and oppressive investigation and seeks information that is not relevant

3 to this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

4 evidence. The City objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overbroad and

5 unduly burdensome in that it purports to require the City to make an unreasonable

6 and unduly burdensome investigation to identify all responsive information in the

7 possession of any employee or representative of the City over of more than twenty

8 (20) years during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees.

9 The City objects to the phrase “identify any and all policies and/or procedures” on

10 the grounds that as defined by Plaintiff, it is compound and includes four subparts

11 causing this interrogatory to be counted as four separate interrogatories and the total

12 number of interrogatories to exceed those allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil

13 Procedure. The City objects to Plaintiff's definition of "Redevelopment Housing

14 Program" as overbroad, vague and ambiguous and seeking information not relevant

15 to this lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to CRA/LA for the development

16 multi-family housing projects on a project-by-project basis. In a good faith attempt to

17 respond to the Requests, the City will interpret the phrase as referring to those multi-

18 family housing projects for which the City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for

19 the development of the project. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing

20 objections, the City responds as follows: See response to Interrogatory No.1.

21 INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify any and all policies and/or procedures that

22 you have implemented to ensure that accessible units supported with Federal housing

23 and community development funds outside the Redevelopment Housing Program are

24 made available to, and utilized by, people with mobility, visual or auditory

25 impairments.

26 CITY’S RESPONSE:

27

The City objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is vague and

28 ambiguous. The City objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks

- 94 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 98 of 122 Page ID #:2862

1 information from a time period of more than twenty (20) years, therefore, it is

2 overbroad as to time and scope, would require the City to conduct an unduly

3 burdensome and oppressive investigation and seeks information that is not relevant

4 to this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

5 evidence. The City objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overbroad and

6 unduly burdensome in that it purports to require the City to make an unreasonable

7 and unduly burdensome investigation to identify all responsive information in the

8 possession of any employee or representative of the City over of more than twenty

9 (20) years during which time the City has employed tens of thousands of employees.

10 The City objects to the phrase “identify any and all policies and/or procedures” on

11 the grounds that as defined by Plaintiff, it is compound and includes four subparts

12 causing this interrogatory to be counted as four separate interrogatories and the total

13 number of interrogatories to exceed those allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil

14 Procedure. The City objects to Plaintiff's definition of "Redevelopment Housing

15 Program" as overbroad, vague and ambiguous and seeking information not relevant

16 to this lawsuit. The City provided federal funds to CRA/LA for the development

17 multi-family housing projects on a project-by-project basis. In a good faith attempt to

18 respond to the Requests, the City will interpret the phrase as referring to those multi-

19 family housing projects for which the City provided federal funds to the CRA/LA for

20 the development of the project. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing

21 objections, the City responds as follows: See response to Interrogatory No.1.

22

1. Plaintiff’s Argument

23

a. The City Should be Required to Provide Complete,

Written Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8

24

25

The City has provided only one substantive response to the Fair Housing

26 Council’s Interrogatories—a response to Interrogatory No. 1. Rather than provide a

27 complete, written response to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8, the City directs the Fair

28 Housing Council to its response to Interrogatory No. 1. Specifically, in lieu of

- 95 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 99 of 122 Page ID #:2863

1 providing narrative answers, the City writes “See response to Interrogatory No. 1” as

2 its answer to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8.

3

On January 16, 2013, the parties participated in a meet and confer by

4 telephone during which the parties discussed discovery issues, including the City’s 5 responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8.9 During the meet and confer, the City

6 represented that it would supplement its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8.

7 Additionally, on January 24, 2013, the City sent a letter to the Fair Housing Council

8 memorializing its understanding of the issues discussed during the January 16, 2013

9 telephone conference. With respect to its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8, the

10 City asserted that its answers were appropriate because the Fair Housing Council’s

11 Interrogatory Nos. 2-8, in its opinion, were duplicative and sought the same

12 information. Nevertheless, the City reiterated the representation that it made during

13 the January 16, 2013 telephone conference, specifically writing in its letter that

14 “[n]otwithstanding [its] objections . . . the City in good faith will also amend its

15 responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8 so that the Plaintiff does not have to reference

16 Interrogatory No. 1, and will further supplement its responses.” (See Ex. 3 to Allen

17 Decl., 1/24/13 Ltr. from City to Pl. at 9.) The City reaffirmed its agreement to

18 supplement its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8, “notwithstanding its objections,”

19 in another letter that it sent to the Fair Housing Council on February 14, 2013. (See

20 Ex. 7 to Allen Decl., 2/14/13 Ltr. from City to Pl.)

21

However, the “supplemental” responses that the City provided to the Fair

22 Housing Council on February 22, 2013 (over one month after it initially agreed to

23 supplement its interrogatory answers) were virtually identical to its initial

24 responses—the City’s purportedly supplemental answers similarly directed the Fair

25 Housing Council to Interrogatory No. 1 in response to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8. The

26 9 Prior to the meet and confer, the Fair Housing Council sent the City a letter 27 detailing the discovery responses that the Fair Housing Council believed to be
deficient, as well as the authority upon which the Fair Housing Council relied in 28 support of its position. (See Ex. 1 to Allen Decl., 1/8/13 Ltr. from Pl. to City.)

- 96 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 100 of 122 Page ID #:2864

1 City’s reference to Interrogatory No. 1 in response to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8 is

2 improper. The Court should compel the City to provide full, written responses to the

3 Fair Housing Council’s Interrogatory Nos. 2-8.

4

Rule 33 clearly requires that the responding party answer each interrogatory

5 “separately and fully.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). Courts have specifically held that

6 providing an answer to an interrogatory that merely references other interrogatories,

7 as the City has done in the instant case, runs afoul of the Rule. For example, in U.S.

8 ex rel. O’Connell v. Chapman Univ., 245 F.R.D. 646 (C.D. Cal. 2007), instead of

9 providing separate and complete answers, the plaintiff responded to a number of

10 interrogatories by referring the defendant to her response to one specific

11 interrogatory. Id. at 650. The court found plaintiff’s method of responding to these

12 interrogatories to be “improper” and compelled plaintiff to provide supplemental

13 responses to the interrogatories at issue. Id. In doing so, the court specifically

14 recognized the “well established” principle that an answer to an interrogatory

15 “should be complete in itself and should not refer to the pleadings, or to depositions

16 or other documents, or to other interrogatories . . . .” Id. (quoting Smith v.

17 Logansport Cmty. School Corp., 139 F.R.D 637, 650 (N.D. Ind. 1991); see also

18 Pacific Lumber Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, C 02-4799SBA(JL),

19 2005 WL 318811, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2005) (“Responding to an interrogatory

20 with a reference to another interrogatory or to a document or pleading is improper.”).

21 As such, the City’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8 are clearly deficient in

22 violation of Rule 33.

23

As noted, Defendant previously agreed to supplement its responses to

24 Interrogatory Nos. 2-8 (on three separate occasions), but has since decided to

25 maintain its objections and withhold responsive information. In its January 24, 2013

26 letter, in which it describes the bases for its objections, Defendant cites no case law

27 in support of its position that its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8 are proper—

28 despite the Fair Housing Council’s invitation to do so. (See Ex. 3 to Allen Decl.,

- 97 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 101 of 122 Page ID #:2865

1 1/24/13 Ltr. from City to Pl. at 7-9; Ex. 1 to Allen Decl., 1/8/13 Ltr. from Pl. to City

2 at 1.) Rather, the City has taken the position that it is not required to answer the Fair

3 Housing Council’s interrogatories “separately and fully” because the interrogatories

4 at issue seek the same information. The City’s contention is incorrect.

5

The Fair Housing Council’s Interrogatory Nos. 2-8 do not seek the same

6 information. For example, Interrogatory No. 5 seeks information about the policies

7 and/or procedures that the City has implemented to ensure that the Redevelopment

8 Housing Program contains units accessible to persons with disabilities; Interrogatory

9 No. 8, on the other hand, seeks information about the policies and procedures

10 implemented to ensure that any such accessible units are made available and actually

11 used by persons with disabilities. The Fair Housing Council has no way of

12 determining which part, if any, of the City’s sole response to Interrogatory No. 1

13 contains information responsive to either interrogatory. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel.

14 O’Connell, 245 F.R.D. at 650 (finding responses improper where it is “impossible to

15 determine whether an adequate answer has been given without an elaborate

16 comparison of answers.”). As the case law is clear that it is inappropriate for the

17 City to refer to Interrogatory No. 1, as opposed to providing separate and complete

18 answers; the Court should compel the City’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8.

19

2. The City’s Argument

20

In response to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8, the City referred Plaintiff to the City’s

21 detailed response to Interrogatory No. 1 because of the duplicative and overbroad

22 nature of the interrogatories – the City’s response to Interrogatory No. 1 was also

23 responsive to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8 because they sought the same information.

24 Interrogatory Nos. 1 through 8 are actually four pairs of interrogatories seeking

25 information regarding developments within, and outside of, the “Redevelopment

26 Housing Program,” which the City denies existed. The City provided federal funds

27 for the development of multi-family housing projects on a project-by-project basis.

28 The City objects to Plaintiffs’ attempt to create a “Redevelopment Housing

- 98 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 102 of 122 Page ID #:2866

1 Program” because it specifically relates to the Plaintiffs’ burden of proof at trial and

2 the scope of the discovery requests. Interrogatory No. 1 requests that the City

3 identify any and all policies and/or procedures it has implemented to ensure

4 compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, HUD’s regulations at 24

5 C.F.R. Part 8, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Federal Fair Housing Act,

6 and/or California Government Code § 11135 by any Owner Defendant, or any other

7 developer(s) and/or Subrecipient(s) that is involved in the Redevelopment Housing

8 Program. Interrogatory No. 2 requests the same information, but for entities outside

9 of the Redevelopment Housing Program. Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4 request the

10 same information as Interrogatory No. 1 and 2, only they substitute the undefined

11 term “action” for “policies and/or procedures.” Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 6 ask the

12 City to identify any and all policies and/or procedures implemented to ensure that the

13 developments within, and outside of, the Redevelopment Housing Program contain

14 units accessible to those with disabilities. Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 8 ask the City to

15 identify any and all policies and/or procedures implemented to ensure that units

16 within, and outside of, the Redevelopment Housing Program are made available to,

17 and utilized by, people with mobility, visual or auditory impairments.

18

During the parties’ telephonic conference on January 16, 2013, Plaintiff

19 acknowledged that the interrogatories came in pairs, asking about action inside and

20 outside of the Redevelopment Housing Program. (Byrne Decl. ¶ 8.) Prior to

21 propounding discovery, Plaintiff knew that both the City and the CRA/LA denied the

22 existence of the “Redevelopment Housing Program” as Plaintiff defined that term.

23 Nevertheless, Plaintiff insisted on using the term to propound interrogatories that

24 were duplicative.

25

The Plaintiff’s requests are not just duplicative due to the use of the term

26 Redevelopment Housing Program, they are also duplicative due to the broad nature

27 of Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, HUD’s

28 regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 8, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Federal Fair

- 99 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 103 of 122 Page ID #:2867

1 Housing Act, and/or California Government Code § 11135 each carry specific anti-

2 discrimination requirements for a variety of protected classes, including disability.

3 Plaintiff’s initial request is so overbroad that it covers the scope of anything and

4 everything the City may have done to ensure compliance with the statutes even

5 beyond the scope of this case.

6

Although the City initially indicated that it would provide supplemental

7 responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8 that did not refer to its response to Interrogatory

8 No. 1, as the City continued to compile responsive information, the duplicative and

9 overlapping nature of Plaintiff’s overbroad requests became even more apparent.

10 The City could have done one of two things - repeat its answer to Interrogatory No. 1

11 in response to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8 creating a voluminous and unwieldy document,

12 or simply direct Plaintiff to Interrogatory No. 1. The City chose to due the latter.

13

Plaintiff cites O’Connell v. Champan University, 245 F.R.D. 646 (C.D. Cal.

14 2007), for the proposition that under no circumstances is it proper for an

15 interrogatory response to refer back to an earlier response. This is a clear

16 misstatement of the Court’s ruling in O’Connell. The Court in O’Connell found that

17 Respondent’s reference to her answer to Interrogatory No. 8 in responding to the

18 other interrogatories was improper because the interrogatories did “not seek

19 information identical” to Interrogatory No. 8. Id. at 650.

20

In addition, Plaintiff relies upon a partial quote from O’Connell. The

21 complete quote reveals a very different standard than the one Plaintiff asserts. The

22 O’Connell Court actually stated that a response “should be complete in itself and

23 should not refer to the pleadings, or to depositions, or other documents or to other

24 interrogatories, at least where such references make it impossible to determine

25 whether an adequate answer has been given without an elaborate comparison of

26 answers.” Id. at 650. (Emphasis added indicating the text omitted by Plaintiff). It is

27 clear that the O’Connell decision does not stand for a blanket ban on references, but

28 was meant to ensure that a party does not have to engage in an elaborate comparison

- 100 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 104 of 122 Page ID #:2868

1 of answers to non-duplicative interrogatories.

2

The Court should deny the Plaintiff’s request to compel the City to amend it’s

3 responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2-8 because, due to the overbroad nature of

4 Interrogatory No. 1, any responsive information for Interrogatory Nos. 2-8 is

5 subsumed in the City’s response to Interrogatory No. 1.

6

B. INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9-25

7

1. Plaintiff’s Argument

8

a. Plaintiff Has Not Exceeded the Permissible Number of

9

Interrogatories

10

The City has refused to respond to the Fair Housing Council’s Interrogatory

11 Nos. 9-25 because it contends that the preceding interrogatories are compound and,

12 therefore, the Fair Housing Council’s interrogatories exceed the permissible number

13 of interrogatories allotted. Specifically, the City has taken the position that the Fair

14 Housing Council’s definition of the term “Identify” (when used in reference to a

15 policy or procedure) contains four discrete subparts. As a result, the City has

16 counted each interrogatory that contains the term “Identify” as four, separate

17 interrogatories (namely, the Fair Housing Council’s Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7

18 and 8).

19

The Fair Housing Council’s First Set of Interrogatories included a list of

20 definitions for various terms that the Fair Housing Council used in the

21 interrogatories. The Fair Housing Council provided the following definition of the

22 term “Identify” when used in reference to a policy or procedure:

23

Identify when used in reference to a policy or procedure means to state a

detailed description of the relevant policy and/or procedure, the date upon

24

which the policy and/or procedure was implemented, the name of any person

or entity charged with monitoring and/or oversight with respect to the policy

25

and/or procedure, the method by which Subrecipients were made aware of the

policy and/or procedure, and to identify any documents that contain the policy

26

and/or procedure.”

27 In an attempt to narrow the discovery issues in dispute before the Court, the Fair

28 Housing Council agreed, in an e-mail correspondence dated February 25, 2013, to

- 101 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 105 of 122 Page ID #:2869

1 modify its definition of the term “Identify” (when used in reference to a policy or

2 procedure) to withdraw the portion of the definition that asked the City to identify

3 documents that contain the policy and/or procedure at issue as part of its response.

4 (See Ex. 8 to Allen Decl., 2/25/13 E-mail from Pl. to City.) The City did not respond

5 to the Fair Housing Council’s e-mail and has not agreed to provide responses to

6 Interrogatory Nos. 9-25 in light of the Fair Housing Council’s offer to modify its

7 definition of the term “Identify.” The City’s objection that Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 5,

8 6, 7, and 8 are compound is without merit. The Court should overrule the City’s

9 objection and compel the City to respond to the Fair Housing Council’s Interrogatory

10 Nos. 9-25.

11

That an interrogatory contains “subparts” does not in and of itself make the

12 interrogatory impermissibly compound. See Safeco of Am. v. Rawstron, 181 F.R.D

13 441, 443 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (noting that “if all subparts count as separate

14 interrogatories, the use of interrogatories might be unduly restricted or requests for

15 increases in the numerical limit might become automatic.”). Specifically, if

16 interrogatory subparts are aimed toward eliciting details about a common theme and

17 are “logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary

18 question,” the subparts should not be treated as separate questions. Id. at 444-45

19 (internal quotation marks, citation omitted); see also Herndon v. Logan’s Roadhouse,

20 Inc., CV 11-1906, 2012 WL 3042982, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 25, 2012); Paananen v.

21 Cellco P’ship, C08-1042 RSM, 2009 WL 3327227, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 8, 2009).

22 For example, in Paananen v. Cellco Partnership, the plaintiff served an interrogatory

23 that asked the defendant the following:

24

25

For each owner, director, officer, employee, former employee, independent contractor, and agent of any Defendant since 2005, inclusive, who has worked

26

as a co-worker, direct or second level superior, or direct or second level

27

subordinate to Plaintiff, state his or her full name, present or (if present information is unavailable) last known address and telephone number, dates of

28

employment (including dates of application, hire, promotion, demotion, and

- 102 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 106 of 122 Page ID #:2870

1

separation from the position, if applicable), job titles of positions held, and duties and responsibilities of positions held.

2

3

2009 WL 3327227 *3. In overruling the defendant’s objection that this

4 interrogatory was compound, the Court found that the subparts (specifically, the

5 names of employee, dates of employment, job titles, and duties and responsibilities

6 for each position) all related to the “common theme” of employment history and

7 therefore should be treated as a single interrogatory. Id. Similarly, in the instant

8 case, the information that the Fair Housing Council has asked the City to provide,

9 which includes a detailed description of the policy and/or procedure, the date that the

10 policy and/or procedure was implemented, and specific information related to the

11 enforcement of the policy and/or procedure, relates to a single common theme

12 (namely, the specific policies and/or procedures requested for each interrogatory).

13 As such, the Fair Housing Council’s Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 should

14 each be treated as a single question.

15

During the course of the parties’ communications about discovery issues, the

16 City has cited to one case in support of its position: Superior Communications v.

17 Earhugger, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 215 (C.D. Cal. 2009). Superior Communications is not

18 at all analogous to this case. In Superior Communications, the plaintiff issued an

19 interrogatory that asked the defendant to “state all of the facts that support or

20 undermine the allegations in [defendant’s] answer to the [c]omplaint,” as well as to

21 “identify all persons who have knowledge of those facts” and “all documents and

22 things that relate or refer to those facts.” Id. at 218. The court ultimately found that

23 the interrogatory consisted of discrete subparts—requesting facts, persons, and

24 documents for each fact related to allegations in the defendant’s answer. Id. The

25 case does not stand for the proposition that a subpart that requests information about

26 a person is automatically counted as a separate question, as the City appears to

27 suggest. For example, in Kendall v. GES Exposition Services, Inc., 174 F.R.D. 684

28 (D. Nev. 1997), the court found an interrogatory that requested the defendant to

- 103 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 107 of 122 Page ID #:2871
1 describe each warning/reprimand that the plaintiff was given during her employment, 2 to provide the date upon which the warning/reprimand was given, and to provide the 3 name of the person who issued the warning/reprimand (including the person’s name, 4 gender, position, and address) to be a single interrogatory—even though it requested 5 information about the identity of a person, in addition to other factual information. 6 Id. at 686. In so holding, the court found that each of the supposed subparts were 7 “secondary” to the primary question that sought information about the 8 warning/reprimands that plaintiff received during the course of employment. Id. 9 Notably, the Rule 33 Advisory Committee Note specifically provides that “a 10 question asking about communications of a particular type should be treated as a 11 single interrogatory even though it requests the time, place, persons present, and 12 contents be stated separately for each such communication.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) 13 1993 Advisory Committee’s Note (emphasis added); see also Dang v. Cross, CV 00 14 13001 GAF(RZX), 2002 WL 432197, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2002) (requesting 15 party’s definition of the term “Identify” did not impermissibly divide 16 interrogatories).10 As such, whether the interrogatory asks the responding party to 17 provide information about a person does not necessarily mean it is compound; as 18 noted above, the question is whether the interrogatory subparts are aimed at a 19 common theme. As each “subpart” of the Fair Housing Council’s definition of the 20 term “Identify” when used in reference to a policy and/or procedure is aimed at 21 eliciting specific information about the policies and/or procedures the City 22 implemented, each interrogatory at issue should be treated as a single question and
23 10 The Fair Housing Council provided a similar definition of the term “Identify” 24 when used in reference to communications. Specifically, the Fair Housing Council’s
definition of the term “Identify” when used in reference to communications means to 25 “state the method of communication (i.e., in person, by telephone, or in writing), the
address of the place of the communication if it was in person, the names of all people 26 who were present and their titles and places of employment, the general purpose of
the communication, and the substance of what was communicated.” In its general 27 objections, the City similarly objected that the Fair Housing Council’s definition of
the term “Identify” when used in reference to a communication on the grounds that it 28 is compound and contains five subparts.
- 104 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW) Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 108 of 122 Page ID #:2872

1 the City should be ordered to provide responses to Interrogatory Nos. 9-25.

2

2. The City’s Argument

3

Rule 33 limits the number of interrogatories that a party can serve to twenty-

4 five. The numerical limit was imposed in recognition that, although interrogatories

5 may be a valuable discovery tool, “the device can be costly and may be used as a

6 means of harassment . . .” See 1993 Advisory Committee Note to Fed. Rule Civ.

7 Proc. Rule 33. The 1993 Advisory Committee Note on Rule 33 also states “Parties

8 cannot evade this presumptive limitation through the device of joining as “subparts”

9 questions that seek information about discrete separate subjects.”

10

In the Interrogatories, Plaintiff provided five different definitions of

11 “Identify.” When used in reference to a policy or procedure, Plaintiff defined

12 “Identify” as follows:

13

Identify when used in reference to a policy or procedure means to state a

detailed description of the relevant policy and/or procedure, the date upon

14

which the policy and/or procedure was implemented, the name of any person

or entity charged with monitoring and/or oversight with respect to the policy

15

and/or procedure, the method by which Subrecipients were made aware of the

policy and/or procedure, and to identify any documents that contain the policy

16

and/or procedure.”

17 The City contends that this definition of “Identify” requests four distinct pieces of

18 information: 1) a detailed description of the relevant policy and/or procedure and the

19 date upon which the policy and/or procedure was implemented, 2) the person or

20 entity charged with monitoring and/or oversight with respect to the policy and

21 procedure, 3) the method by which Subrecipients were made aware of the policy 22 and/or procedure, and 4) any documents that contain the policy and/or procedure. 11

23 As a result, each interrogatory asking the City to “identify all policies and/or

24
25 11 On February 25, 2013, Plaintiff offered to modify the definition of Identify by withdrawing the portion of the definition asking the City to
26 identify documents that contain the policy or procedure. (See Ex. 8.) However, Plaintiff’s offer to withdraw one of the four subparts did not
27 resolve the City’s objection to the term “Identify.” Counsel for Plaintiff stated that if the City maintained its objections, it should
28 provide its response in the draft stipulation. (Id.)

- 105 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 109 of 122 Page ID #:2873

1 procedures,” at a minimum, count as four separate interrogatories.12

2

The courts generally agree that “interrogatory subparts are to be counted as

3 one interrogatory . . . if they are logically or factually subsumed within and

4 necessarily related to the primary question.” Safeco of America v. Rawstorm, 181

5 F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (citing Kendall v. GES Exposition Services, Inc.,

6 174 F.R.D. 684, 685 (D.Nev. 1997)). It is clearly established within the Circuit,

7 however, that interrogatories that seek information regarding separate subjects are

8 considered compound and count as separate interrogatories for each discrete subpart

9 contained within the interrogatory. See Hasan v. Johnson 2012 WL 569370 *4 (E.D.

10 Cal. Feb. 21, 2012); Kendall v. GES Exposition Services Inc., 174 F.R.D 684, 686

11 (D. Nev. 1997); Collaboration Properties, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 473, 475

12 (N.D. Cal. 2004); Superior Communications v. Earhugger, Inc. 257 F.R.D. 215, 218

13 (C.D. Cal. 2009).

14

In Hasan, the Court found that an interrogatory seeking the entity where the

15 defendant worked, the defendant’s duties, and defendant’s supervisor, contained

16 three distinct subparts with different themes. The Court also determined that

17 interrogatories that sought the facts upon which a denial was based, the identity of

18 each person who had knowledge of those facts, the documents upon which the denial

19 was based and the identity of each person who had possession or control of those

20 documents contained four distinct subparts with different themes. Hasan v. Johnson

21 2012 WL 569370 *4-5.

22

In Superior Communications, the Court considered an interrogatory that asked

23 the defendant to:

24
25 12 Interrogatory Nos. 1-4 ask the City to identify policies and procedures implemented, or actions taken, to ensure compliance with respect to six
26 enumerated statutes or regulations. The City could reasonably take the position that each of the interrogatories contained six subparts on that
27 basis. However, the City conservatively counted Interrogatory Nos. 1,2 and 5-8 as each containing four separate interrogatories based upon the
28 Plaintiff’s use of the term “Identify.”

- 106 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 110 of 122 Page ID #:2874

1

State all of the facts that support or undermine the allegation in YOUR answer

2

to the Complaint. Identify all PERSONS who have knowledge of these facts.

3

Identify all DOCUMENTS and things that RELATE or refer to those facts. (id

4

218)

5 The Court held that the interrogatory had at least three distinct subparts - facts,

6 persons and documents – and along with the other interrogatories that were

7 propounded, caused the total to exceed the number allowed by Rule 33. In reaching

8 its decision, the Court cited Trevino v. ACB Am., Inc., 232 F.R.D. 612, 614 (N.D.Cal.

9 2006). In Trevino, the court held that an interrogatory asking defendant to identify

10 each person they expected to call as expert witness at trial, state the subject matter on

11 which the expert was expected to testify and the substance of the facts and opinions

12 to which the expert was expected to testify, and provide a summary of the grounds

13 for each opinion and the expert’s qualifications constituted three separate

14 interrogatories. Trevino, 232 F.R.D. at 614. The Court also cited The Banks v.

15 Office of the Senate Sergeant-At-Arms, 222 F.R.D. 7, 10 (D.D.C.2004), which found

16 that an “obvious example” of a discrete subpart

17

is the combining in a single interrogatory of a demand for information

18

and a demand for the documents that pertain to that event. Clearly, these

19

are two distinct demands because knowing that an event occurred is

20

entirely different from learning about the documents that evidence it

21

occurred. Thus, a demand for information about a certain event and for

22

the documents about it should be counted as two separate

23

interrogatories.

24

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the City does not attempt to suggest that

25 Superior Communications stands for the proposition that requesting information

26 regarding a person is automatically counted as a subpart, but it certainly can. Unlike

27 an interrogatory that asks a party to identify those individuals present as part of

28 describing a communication that took place, here, Plaintiff asks the City to identify

- 107 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 111 of 122 Page ID #:2875

1 the person responsible for oversight or monitoring of each policy or procedure

2 identified by the City, which is a separate inquiry from a description of the policy or

3 procedure. Accordingly, it should be counted as a separate interrogatory.

4

In an attempt to further distinguish Superior Communications, Plaintiff cites

5 Kendall v. GES Exposition Services, Inc., 174 F.R.D. 684 (D. Nev. 1997). However,

6 the court in Kendall also found examples of “independent questions being

7 improperly combined into one interrogatory (sometimes by using “and” or “also” to

8 join the questions)” Id. at 686. In Kendall, one of the interrogatories at issue asked

9 the responding party to “Identify fully the minimum qualifications for an employee

10 to be hired onto ‘freight,’ including, but not limited to, the ability to drive heavy

11 machinery, experience in the industry, and all other criteria used by Defendants.

12 Also, identify any document in which these qualifications are articulated.” Id at 686.

13 The court determined that the first question sought a description of qualifications and

14 the second question asked for a description of documents. The court stated that

15 because the first question could be answered fully and completely without answering

16 the second question, the second question was independent and not “factually

17 subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question.” Id at 685. Kendall

18 is part of the progeny of cases preceding Superior Communications finding that if a

19 question can be answered fully and completely without answering the second

20 question the second question is totally independent and is a discrete subpart. See

21 also Dang v. Cross, 2002 WL 432197, *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2002) (noting that

22 to determine if the subpart was necessarily related to the primary question, courts ask

23 whether “the subsequent question [could] stand alone[,]” quoting Safeco, 181 F.R.D.

24 at 455 (quoting Kendall 174 F.R.D. at 685).)

25

In support of its’ position that the interrogatories are related to the primary

26 question and should not be determined to be discrete subparts, the Plaintiff discusses

27 Paananen v. Cellco Partnership, 2009 WL 3327227 *2 (W.D. Wash. October 8,

28 2009). Paananen, however, stands for the proposition that even when subparts relate

- 108 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 112 of 122 Page ID #:2876

1 to a common theme they could be found to be compound and not treated as a single

2 interrogatory. In Paananen, the plaintiff served the following interrogatory:

3

For the first affirmative defense asserted in Defendant’s Answer, briefly

4

summarize the facts upon which it is based, state all facts in support of the

5

affirmative defense; identify (see definition) all person with knowledge you

6

contend supports that defense; and identify (see definition) any documents

7

directly relating to that defense. Id. *3.

8

The Court found the interrogatory contained two distinct subparts and that

9 “[e]ven though two inquires do relate to the same theme, neither is subsumed within

10 the other because the inquiry into the facts supporting a defense can be answered

11 fully and completely without identifying the documentary support for those facts.”

12 Id.*3. In this case, Plaintiff’s request for four distinct and separate pieces of

13 information that share a similar theme meet the standard set forth in Paananen that

14 the subparts with a common theme are considered to have discrete subparts when the

15 subparts can be answered fully alone.

16

The City requests that the Court deny the Plaintiff’s request to treat

17 interrogatory numbers 1, 2 and 5 through 8 as single questions because the manner in

18 which Plaintiff defined “Identify” when used in relation to a policy and procedure

19 creates four distinct subparts, each of which can stand alone and count as separate

20 interrogatories. The City also requests the Court deny Plaintiff’s request that the 21 City be ordered to provide responses to Interrogatories nine through twenty-five 22 because they exceed the number allowed under Rule 33.

23

24

C. VERIFICATIONS

25

1. Plaintiff’s Argument

26

Additionally, the City has produced no verifications for its interrogatory

27 responses; the City’s interrogatory responses bear only the signature of counsel. 28 Rule 33(b) requires that each interrogatory be answered under oath and that the

- 109 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 113 of 122 Page ID #:2877

1 answers be signed by the person making them, in addition to being signed by

2 counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1), (5); see also, U.S. ex rel. O’Connell v. Chapman

3 Univ., 245 F.R.D. 646, 650 (C.D. Cal. 2007). Fair Housing Council requested that

4 the City provide the appropriate verifications in its initial discovery letter to the City

5 on January 8, 2013. (See Ex. 1 to Allen Decl.) To date, the City has not produced

6 the appropriate verifications. The Fair Housing Council seeks an order from the

7 Court ordering the City to produce the outstanding verifications that Plaintiff has

8 requested.

9

1. The City’s Argument

10

On February 22, 2013, the City provided Supplemental Objections and

11 Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories. On March 18, 2013, the City

12 provided Plaintiff with the requested verifications.

13 IV. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AT ISSUE

14 RFA 185: An Assistant City Attorney attended meetings of the DTF [defined as

15 “Disability Task Force to address, inter alia, issues of accessibility in the

16 Redevelopment Housing Program” in RFA 181].

17 CITY RESPONSE:

18

The City objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information from

19 the CRA/LA, not the City, and the City is not in a position to admit or deny the

20 request on behalf of the CRA/LA. On February 1, 2012, the CRA was dissolved

21 pursuant to California Assembly Bill 1X 26 and the CRA/LA Designated Local

22 Authority (not the City) became the successor to the CRA/LA.

23 RFA 190: Assistant City Attorney Curt Kidder responded to the aforementioned

24 requests for location of any and all UFAS-accessible units by suggesting that

25 CRA/LA did not have any obligation to ensure that UFAS-accessible units existed

26 within the Redevelopment Housing Program.

27
28 CITY RESPONSE:

- 110 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 114 of 122 Page ID #:2878

1

The City objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information from

2 the CRA/LA, not the City, and the City is not in a position to admit or deny the

3 request on behalf of the CRA/LA. On February 1, 2012, the CRA was dissolved

4 pursuant to California Assembly Bill 1X 26 and the CRA/LA Designated Local

5 Authority (not the City) became the successor to the CRA/LA.

6

1. Plaintiff’s Argument

7

a. The Court Should Order The City to Conduct the Required

Inquiry Necessary to Respond to Requests for Admission Nos.

8

185 and 190

9

Request No. 185 seeks an admission that a City employee, specifically, an

10 Assistant City Attorney, attended meetings of the Disability Task Force. Request

11 No. 190 seeks an admission that “Assistant City Attorney Curt Kidder responded to

12 the aforementioned requests for location of any and all UFAS-accessible units by

13 suggesting that DLA did not have any obligation to ensure that UFAS-accessible

14 units existed within the Redevelopment Housing Program.” The City has refused to 15 respond to these requests. In the course of the communications that the parties have 16 had regarding discovery issues, the City has informed the Fair Housing Council that 17 the Assistant City Attorney referenced in the Fair Housing Council’s Requests Nos.

18 185 and 190 sat by designation at the DLA and served as counsel to the DLA. As

19 such, the City has taken the position that the requests seek information from the

20 DLA, not the City, and that the City is not in a position to admit or deny on behalf of 21 the DLA. The Fair Housing Council’s Requests Nos. 185 and 190 were properly 22 directed to the City; the Court should compel the City to provide a response to these 23 requests.

24

As an initial matter, it is important for the Fair Housing Council to point out to

25 the Court that the Fair Housing Council has made significant compromises in an

26 effort to narrow the parties’ dispute over the Fair Housing Council’s Requests for

27 Admission as much as possible. In its initial responses to the Fair Housing Council’s 28 Requests for Admission, the City refused to provide responsive information to over

- 111 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 115 of 122 Page ID #:2879

1 120 of the Fair Housing Council’s requests. For purposes of this joint stipulation,

2 the Fair Housing Council decided to abandon its efforts to secure responses to the

3 overwhelming majority of these requests and re-phrased several of its requests to

4 address specific concerns raised by the City. As such, the Fair Housing Council

5 successfully reduced the number of requests for admission in dispute from well over

6 100 to the two requests at issue in this Motion. With respect to the two requests for

7 admission in dispute, it is the Fair Housing Council’s contention that the City has

8 taken an unreasonable position in refusing to respond to these requests—specifically

9 given that the requests seek information about an Assistant City Attorney.

10

The Fair Housing Council’s requests are properly directed to the City and do

11 not ask the City to admit or deny anything on behalf of the DLA. Rather, due to the

12 City’s relationship with the DLA, it is the Fair Housing Council’s position that they

13 City should possess or have access to information that would enable it to respond to

14 the Fair Housing Council’s requests—especially given that the requests specifically

15 seek information about City employees. As such, the Fair Housing Council’s

16 Requests Nos. 185 and 190 seek information that the Fair Housing Council believes

17 is both known and “readily obtainable” by the City. See Rule 36; see also A. Farber

18 & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 237 F.R.D. 250, 253-54 (C.D. Cal. 2006).

19

Further, Rule 36 “requires the responding party to make a reasonable inquiry,

20 a reasonable effort, to secure information that is readily obtainable from persons and

21 documents within the responding party’s relative control.” A. Farber & Partners,

22 Inc., 237 F.R.D. at 254 (internal citation omitted). This inquiry requires the

23 responding party to conduct “an investigation and inquiry of employees, agents, and

24 others, who conceivably, but in realistic terms, may have information which may

25 lead to or furnish the necessary and appropriate response.” Id. The Fair Housing

26 Council believes, and is concerned that, counsel for the City has not even conducted

27 the required inquiry of their client to determine whether the City has information that

28 would enable it to respond to this request. During the course of the communications

- 112 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 116 of 122 Page ID #:2880

1 the parties have had regarding these requests, the City has never represented that it

2 conducted a diligent search for the requested information and that it lacked the

3 information necessary for it to respond; rather, its objections have been aimed toward

4 the form of the question. In fact, in its February 14, 2013 letter, the City informed

5 the Fair Housing Council that if the Fair Housing Council had specific information

6 about a representative from the City (presumably other than the Assistant City

7 Attorney referenced in the requests), counsel for the City would conduct an inquiry

8 of its client. The Fair Housing Council is confused as to why such an inquiry has not

9 occurred. It is the City, and not the Fair Housing Council, that is in the best position

10 to identify whether representatives of the City were present for the meetings at issue.

11 Additionally, the City’s source of information regarding these requests, whether the

12 source is a City attorney or some other City employee or source, is immaterial. The

13 request seeks information about what the City knows. If the information is

14 obtainable to Defendant upon a reasonable inquiry, Defendant is required to provide

15 an answer; it cannot simply cannot refuse to conduct the required inquiry. See, e.g.,

16 Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1247 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that a

17 response that fails to admit or deny a request for admission does not comply with

18 Rule 36 if the responding party “has not, in fact, made ‘reasonable inquiry,’ or if

19 information ‘readily obtainable’ is sufficient to enable [the party] to admit or deny

20 the matter”). At the very least, the Fair Housing Council requests that the Court

21 order the City to conduct the required inquiry of its client to ascertain whether it has

22 the information necessary to respond to Plaintiff’s requests.

23

2. The City’s Argument

24

Plaintiff originally served 205 Requests for Admission on the City, of which

25 over 150 sought information from defendant CRA/LA. For example, Request No. 45

26 stated, “The CRA/LA has never conducted a Section 504 self-evaluation pursuant to

27 24 C.F.R. § 8.51” (Ex. 10.) The City objected to Request Nos. 45-46, 60-180, 185,

28 190, and 198 on the grounds that they sought information “from the CRA/LA, not

- 113 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 117 of 122 Page ID #:2881

1 the City, and the City is not in a position to admit or deny the request on behalf of

2 the CRA/LA. On February 1, 2012, the CRA was dissolved pursuant to California

3 Assembly Bill 1X 26 and the CRA/LA Designated Local Authority (not the City)

4 became the successor to the CRA/LA.”

5

The function of Requests for Admission is to narrow the scope of the case by

6 removing issues from the case once and for all. See Adv. Comm. Note to 1970

7 Amendment to FRCP 36 (“Rule 36 serves two vital purposes, both of which are

8 designed to reduce trial time. Admissions are sought, first to facilitate proof with

9 respect to issues that cannot be eliminated from the case, and secondly, to narrow the

10 issues by eliminating those that can be.”). Magistrate Judge Wistrich considered the

11 limited purpose of Requests for Admission in Safeco of America v. Rawstron:

12

Their goal “is to eliminate from the trial matters as to which there is no

13

genuine dispute.” People of State of California v. The Jules Fribourg,

14

19 F.R.D. 432, 436 (N.D.Cal.1955). Therefore, requests for admissions

15

are not principally discovery devices, see 8A Charles Alan Wright,

16

Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, § 2252, at 524–525 (“Strictly

17

speaking Rule 36 is not a discovery procedure at all, since it

18

presupposes that the party proceeding under it knows the facts or has the

19

document and merely wishes its opponent to concede their genuineness.

20

A party who desires to discover what the facts are should resort to other

21

discovery rules rather than Rule 36.”) (footnotes omitted), and they “are

22

not to be treated as substitutes for discovery processes to uncover

23

evidence....” The Jules Fribourg, 19 F.R.D. at 436.

24 Safeco of America v. Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D.Cal. 1998). In light of

25 their limited purpose and due to their binding nature, requests seeking admissions

26 regarding a party’s actions should be directed to that party.

27

Plaintiffs sought to meet and confer on Requests for Admission Nos. 45-46,

28 60-180, 185, 190, and 198. (See Ex. 1.) During the January 16th teleconference, the

- 114 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 118 of 122 Page ID #:2882

1 City explained that those requests clearly sought information regarding the actions of

2 the CRA/LA and should be directed to the CRA/LA, not the City. However, to the

3 extent that Plaintiff thought it was relevant that the City had knowledge of a

4 particular act by the CRA/LA, the City agreed to respond to amended requests

5 seeking that information from the City. (Byrne Decl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s counsel

6 appeared to agree to amend the requests for admission to seek information regarding

7 the City’s knowledge of the CRA’s actions and the City agreed to respond to the

8 amended requests provided it agreed with Plaintiff’s rewording of the requests. The

9 City confirmed this understanding in its letter dated January 24, 2013. (Ex. 3, p. 12.)

10 Plaintiff’s representation that Plaintiff has made “significant compromises” in an

11 effort to narrow the parties’ discovery dispute over the Requests for Admission it

12 propounded is misleading. The City did not flatly refuse without merit or proper

13 justification to respond to the requests as they were originally worded. Rather, it

14 raised an appropriate objection and attempted in good faith to reach an agreement

15 with the Plaintiff so that it could provide responses.

16

On February 6, 2013, Plaintiff amended Request Nos. 45, 46, and 198 to

17 reflect the City’s knowledge of actions by the CRA/LA. (See Ex. 4.) For example,

18 Plaintiff amended Request No. 45 that originally stated, “The CRA/LA has never

19 conducted a Section 504 self-evaluation pursuant to 24 C.F.R. § 8.51” to “The City

20 is aware that CRA/LA has never conducted a Section 504 self-evaluation pursuant to

21 24 C.F.R. § 8.51.” Plaintiff did not amend any of the remaining interrogatories that

22 sought information regarding the CRA/LA’s actions notwithstanding the City’s offer

23 to respond to the requests for admission if they were amended to seek information

24 regarding the City’s knowledge of the CRA/LA’s actions. On February 22, 2013,

25 the City responded to Amended Requests for Admission Nos. 45, 46 and 198. (See

26 Byrne Decl. ¶12, Ex. 12.)

27

Plaintiff now seeks to compel the City to respond to Requests for Admission

28 Nos. 185 and 190, which are directed at the actions of the CRA/LA. Request No.

- 115 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 119 of 122 Page ID #:2883

1 185 seeks an admission that an Assistant City Attorney attended meetings of the

2 Disability Task Force, referring to a task force convened by the CRA/LA to address

3 issues of accessibility. (See Ex. 10 (RFAs 181 & 185).) Pursuant to the Los Angeles

4 Administrative Code, a Deputy City Attorney served as General Counsel for the

5 CRA/LA and the CRA/LA was responsible for the full costs of the general counsel

6 services provided by the City Attorney’s Office. Los Angeles Admin. Code

7 §8.99.03. Request No. 190 seeks an admission regarding a statement purportedly

8 made by the Deputy City Attorney who served as the General Counsel to the

9 CRA/LA at a meeting of the Disability Task Force. (Ex. 2, p. 12.)

10

Plaintiff asserts that the mere fact counsel for the CRA/LA was an employee

11 of the City, the information becomes both known and “readily obtainable” by the

12 City. In support of this assertion, Plaintiff directs the Court to Rule 35 and A. Farber

13 & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 237 F.R.D. 250, 253-54 (C.D. Cal. 2006). Plaintiff

14 misses the point. Given the purpose that requests for admission are meant to serve,

15 requests seeking information regarding the CRA/LA’s action should be directed to

16 the CRA/LA, not the City.

17

Further, in Farber, the Court looked to the close personal and business

18 relationships between the defendants and the fact that they were represented by the

19 same counsel, to find that a reasonable “inquiry of the other defendants represented

20 by the same counsel, is a clear ‘evasion’ of that party’s obligations under Rule

21 36(a).” Id. at 256. Furthermore, Farber held that a party is required to make an

22 inquiry of a third party “when there is some identity of interest manifested, such as

23 by both being parties to the litigation . . . and when there is no manifest or potential

24 conflict between the party and the third party.” Id. at 254 (emphasis added) (quoting

25 Uniden America Corp. v. Ericsson, Inc., 181 F.R.D. 302, 304 (M.D. NC 1998).

26

Unlike the parties in Farber, there is a conflict between the CRA/LA and the

27 City in this case as manifested by the City’s crossclaim against the CRA/LA and

28 even more prominently by the fact that the City Attorney’s Office withdrew as

- 116 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 120 of 122 Page ID #:2884

1 counsel in this matter due the conflict, and the City and the CRA/LA are now

2 represented by separate counsel. Although Plaintiff is aware of this conflict, Plaintiff

3 has persisted in insisting that the City answer the Requests for Admission in their

4 current form. The City offered to respond to Request Nos. 185 and 190 if they were

5 amended to reflect the knowledge of the City, a suggestion that has been ignored by

6 Plaintiff for these requests, but was deemed appropriate for Request Nos. 45, 46 and

7 198.

8

In support of its request, Plaintiff cites Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669

9 F.2d 1242, 1247 for the proposition that a response that fails to admit or deny a

10 request for admission does not comply with Rule 36 if the responding party has not

11 made a reasonable inquiry, or if they have information “readily obtainable” that

12 would enable them to admit or deny the matter. Asea, however, is clearly

13 distinguishable as it dealt with a situation where the party upon which the admissions

14 were served refused to supplement its responses after coming into more information

15 that would have enabled it to supply more appropriate responses.

16

The City requests that the Court deny the Plaintiff’s motion to compel

17 responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 185 and 190 because they are directed to

18 the CRA/LA.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 117 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 121 of 122 Page ID #:2885

1 Dated: March 22, 2013
2 3 4 5 6 7

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael G. Allen MICHAEL G. ALLEN* D. SCOTT CHANG #146403 RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC 1225 19th St. NW, Suite 600 Washington D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 728-1888 Facsimile: (202) 728-0848 schang@relmanlaw.com

8

* Application for admission pro hac vice

approved by court order Doc. No. 15

9

/s/ Mark A. Byrne

10

Mark A. Byrne

Jennifer L. Derwin

11

BYRNE & NIXON LLP

888 West Sixth Street, Suite 1100

12

Los Angeles, CA 90017

markbyrne@byrnenixon.com

13

jenniferderwin@byrnenixon.com

14

Attorneys for Defendant City of Los Angeles

15

16
Filing counsel for Plaintiffs certifies that counsel for all parties listed above concur
17
in the content of this document, and have authorized counsel for Plaintiffs to file this
18
document using the Court’s CM/ECF system.
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 118 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 261 Filed 03/22/13 Page 122 of 122 Page ID #:2886

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2

3

I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of March, 2013, I filed the foregoing

Joint Stipulation by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and

4 Defendant City of Los Angeles, California Re: Discovery via the Court’s CM/ECF

filing system, which shall serve as notice of such filing on all counsel of record.

5

6

7

/s/ Michael G. Allen

Michael G. Allen

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 119 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJW)
Joint Stip. by Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley & City of Los Angeles Re: Discovery

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 1 of 44 Page ID #:1803

1 MICHAEL G. ALLEN*

D. SCOTT CHANG #146403

2 JAMIE L. CROOK #245757

RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX

3

PLLC 1225 19th St. NW, Suite 600

4 Washington D.C. 20036

Telephone: (202) 728-1888

5 Facsimile: (202) 728-0848

schang@relmanlaw.com

6

* Application for admission pro

7 hac vice approved by Court order

Doc. No. 15

8

PAULA D. PEARLMAN #109038

9 MARIA MICHELLE UZETA

#164402

10 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL

CENTER

11 Loyola Public Interest Law Center

800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120

12 Los Angeles, CA 90017

Telephone: (213) 736-1496

13 Facsimile: (213) 736-1428

Michelle.Uzeta@lls.edu

14

15

DAVID GEFFEN #129342 DAVID GEFFEN LAW FIRM 530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 434-1111 Facsimile: (310) 434-1115 Geffenlaw@aol.com DARA SCHUR #98638 DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 1330 Broadway, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 267-1200 Facsimile: (510)267-1201 Dara.Schur@disabilityrightsca .org AUTUMN ELLIOTT #230043 KEVIN BAYLEY #218070 DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 350 S. Bixel Ave., Suite 290 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 213-8000 Facsimile: (213) 213-8001 Autumn.Elliott@disability rightsca.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

(WESTERN DIVISION)

18 INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF

) CASE NO. CV 12-0551 SJO

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California non- ) (PJW)

19 profit corporation, et al.

)

) JOINT CONFERENCE OF

20

Plaintiffs,

) PARTIES REPORT

)

21 vs.

) Judge: Hon. S. James Otero

) Date: November 26, 2013

22 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, a ) Time: 8:30 a.m.

California municipal corporation, et al.,

) Courtroom: Room 1, 2nd Floor

23

)

Defendants.

)

24 __________________________________

)

25

26

27

28

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 2 of 44 Page ID #:1804

1

Pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 26-

2 1 and the Court’s Standing Order, Plaintiffs Independent Living Center of Southern

3 California, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and Communities Actively

4 Living Independent and Free and Defendant/Cross-Claimant City of Los Angeles

5 (“City”), Defendant/Cross-Defendant CRA/LA, a Designated Local Authority,

6 Successor to Community Redevelopment Agency for the City of the Los Angeles

7 (“CRA/LA”) Defendant Oversight Board for the CRA/LA Designated Local

8 Authority (“Oversight Board”), and Defendants 4651 Huntington, LP, New Tierra

9 Del Sol LP, Amistad Plaza Limited Partnership, Imani Fe, LP, Menlo Park, Penny

10 Lane Centers, 105 East I St. LP, 12129 El Dorado Avenue, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae

11 Partners, Adams 935, L.P, AMCAL Montecito Fund, L.P, Andalucia Senior

12 Apartments, L.P, Ardmore 959 Partners, Asturias Senior Apartments, L.P., B.S.

13 Broadway Village II, L.P., Behringer Harvard NoHo, LLC, Buckingham Senior

14 Apartments, L.P., Cantabria Senior Apartments, L.P., Carondelet Court Partners

15 L.P., Central Village apartments, L.P., Decro Orion Apartments L.P., Decro Osborne

16 Apartments L.P., East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P.,

17 Esperanza Community Housing Corp., Eugene Hotel, L.P. , FAME West 25th

18 Street, L.P., Far East Building, L.P. , Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village, L.P., Las

19 Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc., Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P.,

20 Morgan Place, L.P., New Genesis Apartments L.P., NoHo Senior Villas LP, P G

21 Housing Partners, L.P., Palm Village Senior Housing Corp., Palomar Apartments,

22 L.P., Redrock Noho Residential, LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse

23 Limited Partnership, Selma-Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples,

24 L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P.,

25 WA Court, L.P., Watts/Athens Preservation XVII, L.P., West Angeles Villas, LP,

26 Western / Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments L.P by and through their

27 respective counsel, submit the following Conference of Parties’ Report.

28

On April 19, 2012, Plaintiffs, the City, and the CRA/LA submitted a previous

- 2 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 3 of 44 Page ID #:1805

1 Joint Report of Early Meeting of Counsel. The Court did not issue a scheduling

2 order because Plaintiffs sought to amend the complaint. Relevant portions of the

3 April 19, 2012 Joint Report are repeated here and updated for the convenience of the

4 Court.

5 I. CONFERENCE OF PARTIES

6

The second conference of parties was held on November 5, 2012.

7 II. PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL WHO ATTENDED CONFERENCE

8

OF PARTIES

9

Plaintiffs Independent Living Center of Southern California, Fair Housing

10 Council of San Fernando Valley, and Communities Actively Living Independent

11 and Free were represented by Autumn M. Elliott, Dara L. Schur, Michael G. Allen,

12 and Scott Chang.

13

Defendant/Cross-Claimant City of Los Angeles was represented by Mark

14 Byrne.

15

Defendant/Cross-Defendant CRA/LA was represented by Melissa Daugherty.

16

Defendant Oversight Board for the CRA/LA, a Designated Local Authority,

17 was represented by Andrew Ross.

18

Owner Defendant s 4651 Huntington, LP and New Tierra Del Sol LP were

19 represented by Roberto Lara. Owner Defendant Amistad Plaza Limited Partnership

20 was represented by Scott Moore. Owner Defendant Imani Fe, LP was represented by

21 Mark Austin of Rutan & Tucker, LLP. Owner Defendant Menlo Park was

22 represented by Mark Hurwitz. Owner Defendant Penny Lane Centers was

23 represented by Jeff Neer and Derrick Lowe of Baker, Keener & Nahra. Owner

24 Defendant 105 East I St., LP was represented by Christopher Warne.

25

Owner Defendants 12129 El Dorado Avenue, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae Partners,

26 Adams 935, L.P, AMCAL Montecito Fund, L.P, Andalucia Senior Apartments,

27 L.P, Ardmore 959 Partners, Asturias Senior Apartments, L.P., B.S. Broadway

28 Village II, L.P., Behringer Harvard NoHo, LLC, Buckingham Senior Apartments,

- 3 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 4 of 44 Page ID #:1806

1 L.P., Cantabria Senior Apartments, L.P., Carondelet Court Partners L.P., Central

2 Village apartments, L.P., Decro Orion Apartments L.P., Decro Osborne Apartments

3 L.P., East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza

4 Community Housing Corp., Eugene Hotel, L.P. , FAME West 25th Street, L.P., Far

5 East Building, L.P. , Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village, L.P., Las Margaritas, L.P.,

6 Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc., Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Morgan Place,

7 L.P., New Genesis Apartments L.P., NoHo Senior Villas LP, P G Housing Partners,

8 L.P., Palm Village Senior Housing Corp., Palomar Apartments, L.P., Renato

9 Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, Selma-Hudson Community

10 Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P.,

11 Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., WA Court, L.P., Watts/Athens

12 Preservation XVII, L.P., West Angeles Villas, LP, Western / Carlton II, L.P., Yale

13 Terrace Apartments L.P were represented by Theresa Kitay (“the Group of 44 Owner

14 Defendants”).

15

For purposes of the Rule 26 conference of the parties, Owner Defendant

16 Redrock Noho Residential, LLC was also represented by Ms. Kitay. A substitution

17 of counsel for Redrock Noho Residential, LLC (substituting William J. Goines for

18 Ms. Kitay) was granted by the Court on November 8, 2012 (Dkt. 199).

19 III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

20

A. PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT OF THE CASE

21

Plaintiffs Independent Living Center of Southern California (“ILCSC”), a

22 non-profit independent living center for people with disabilities; Fair Housing

23 Council of San Fernando Valley (“FHC/SFV”), a non-profit, fair housing

24 organization; and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (“CALIF”),

25 a non-profit independent living center, allege that the City of Los Angeles (the

26 “City”) the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles

27 (“Agency”) and its successors, including the CRA/LA, and the Oversight Board for

28 the CRA/LA Designated Local Authority (“Oversight Board”) (collectively referred

- 4 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 5 of 44 Page ID #:1807

1 to as the “Government Defendants”), have failed to ensure that housing funded,

2 developed, or regulated by the Agency is accessible to people with disabilities as

3 required under federal and state disability rights laws, including Section 504 of the

4 Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and

5 California Government Code § 11135. Plaintiffs allege that as a result of this failure,

6 dwelling units in those housing developments have been rendered unavailable to

7 people with disabilities.

8

By the City’s own accounting, people with physical limitations (including

9 two-thirds of seniors who have disabilities) need accessible housing, and there is a

10 large, unmet need for affordable, accessible housing in Los Angeles. In fact, the

11 City estimates that there are hundreds of thousands of individuals and families in Los

12 Angeles who require accessible, affordable housing but do not have it.

13

Plaintiffs allege the Agency received hundreds of millions of dollars in

14 public funding via the City and directly from the state and federal governments for

15 the purpose of developing affordable housing and for other purposes. The City

16 received direct funding from the state and federal governments. As a result of their

17 receipt of federal dollars, the City, and Agency and its successors, have an

18 obligation pursuant to federal law to ensure that the Agency’s housing program, as a

19 whole, is accessible to people with disabilities.

20

In addition, Plaintiffs allege the Government Defendants have allocated these

21 and other funds to build or substantially alter hundreds of apartment complexes

22 containing thousands of units. Under federal and state law, apartments and

23 condominium developments funded by public funds must be accessible to people in

24 wheelchairs and those who are vision or hearing impaired. The Government

25 Defendants have failed to take appropriate action to ensure that apartment complexes

26 built with state and federal funds actually comply with the accessibility requirements

27 of federal and state civil rights laws or that meaningful access to such housing is

28 otherwise provided.

- 5 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 6 of 44 Page ID #:1808

1

Plaintiffs learned that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

2 Development had issued a Letter of Findings of Non-Compliance (“HUD

3 Letter”) to the City and the Agency that provides additional information

4 about the nature and extent of the accessibility violations at housing

5 developments that received federal financial assistance through the

6 Agency

7

Plaintiffs allege these violations of federal and state civil rights deny people

8 with disabilities severely needed accessible housing.

9

Plaintiffs have joined the Owner Defendants as parties for purposes of relief.

10

B. GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF THE CASE

11

The Agency had public funding via the City and directly from the state and

12 federal governments for the purpose of developing affordable housing. It is unknown

13 whether the apartments alleged in the pleading were recipients of Agency funding.

14 Defendants allege that the Agency’s housing program, as a whole, is accessible to

15 people with disabilities. The CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles allege they were

16 in compliance with all legal obligations during the times alleged; that they never

17 received notice of any need for accommodation; that Plaintiffs do not have a private

18 cause of action under the Rehabilitation Act; and that Plaintiffs’ claims are without

19 merit, or are the fault of entities/individuals other than the Agency and the City of

20 Los Angeles

21

The City has given funding to the Agency on a project-by-project basis. The

22 source of funding given to the Agency by the City varied. It is unknown whether the

23 properties alleged in the pleading were among the projects the City gave funding to

24 the CRA for; the City is in the process of investigating this. The City denies that it

25 gave funding to the CRA for a Redevelopment Housing Program at the Agency, or

26 that such a program even existed. The City of Los Angeles alleges they were in

27 compliance with all legal obligations during the times alleged; that they never

28 received notice of any need for accommodation; and that Plaintiffs’ claims are

- 6 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 7 of 44 Page ID #:1809

1 without merit, or are the fault of entities/individuals other than the City of Los

2 Angeles.

3

Plaintiffs have failed to allege any act by the City establishing that Plaintiffs or

4 their clients were denied benefits solely because of their disability. Indeed, a fair

5 reading of the SAC necessarily leads to the conclusion that the primary reason some,

6 if not many, of Plaintiffs’ clients cannot find the housing they desire is a matter of

7 arithmetic. Hence, as undesirable and regrettable as this situation is, the reality is

8 that there is not enough accessible housing in Los Angeles through no fault of the

9 CRA/LA or the City. This fact is simply not actionable in the manner that Plaintiffs

10 would like.

11

Moreover, Plaintiffs fail to allege that they ever sought a reasonable

12 accommodation from the City or that the Plaintiffs ever lodged complaints with the

13 City. Additionally, Plaintiffs sue the City because the defendants have allegedly

14 failed “to take steps to ensure that the Redevelopment Housing Program is accessible

15 to people with disabilities or that any accessible units that exist are made available to

16 people with disabilities. The City denies the existence of a Redevelopment Housing

17 Program that it funded or that any such program exists at the Agency.

18

Plaintiffs further assert, without providing any supportive facts, that the City

19 has denied meaningful access to accessible housing to people with disabilities, aided

20 or perpetuated discrimination against people with disabilities, and used methods of

21 administration that discriminated against people with disabilities and limits people

22 with disabilities from enjoying housing. In addition to this claim being factually

23 void, Plaintiffs cannot assert a claim against CRA/LA or the City as a non-owner of

24 any of the buildings at issue. Both the federal and state statutes are aimed at those

25 who own, manage or control the subject properties. (See, e.g., Cal. Gov. Code §

26 12955(a) (2012) (unlawful for any “owner of any housing accommodation” to

27 discriminate because of disability), Id. at § 12927(e) (2012).) The City is not an

28 owner and/or property manager of the properties in which Plaintiffs allege that the

- 7 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 8 of 44 Page ID #:1810
1 City failed to ensure were accessible to disabled individuals. Even under agency 2 principles, the City, as non-owner and non-managers that do not exercise active 3 control over the buildings, fall outside the ambit of these laws. This fact is virtually 4 conceded by Plaintiffs by virtue of their Rule 19 inclusion of the owner defendants. 5 Put another way, if the City could remedy any proven deficiencies at the subject 6 properties, the owner defendants would need not be named at all. Notably, no 7 binding authority exists to hold a redevelopment agency, or similar entity, liable 8 under section 504 for the acts of the developers. 9 Plaintiffs’ SAC complains of the failure to enforce certain HUD regulations. 10 Thus, Plaintiffs imply that the City is duty-bound to Plaintiffs to ensure that the 11 housing developments they fund comply with applicable law, including the HUD 12 regulations. At least two circuits have found that there is no private right to enforce 13 HUD regulations. 14 In Three Rivers Ctr. for Indep. Living, Inc. v. Hous. Auth., 382 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 15 2004), an individual and a non-profit corporation that reported that “many of its 16 clients have a hard time finding accessible and affordable housing” sued a housing 17 authority for declaratory and injunctive relief compelling the authority to comply 18 with HUD regulations. The Third Circuit held that “the Rehabilitation Act does not 19 provide a private right of action to enforce ... HUD regulations.” (Id. at 425.) The 20 court noted that the HUD regulations that the plaintiffs sought to enforce “relate to 21 ‘institutional policy and practice, not individual instances of discrimination.” (Id. at 22 429) Thus the court concluded that “[s]ection 504’s implied right of action only 23 allows plaintiffs to enforce personal rights that the statute creates and not systemic 24 obligations.” (Id. at 431.) Likewise, in Taylor v. Housing Authority of New Haven, 25 645 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2011), in which reference is made to Three Rivers, the Second 26 Circuit upheld the district court’s determination that the HUD regulations at issue 27 could not be privately enforced.
28 - 8 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 9 of 44 Page ID #:1811

1

The CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles allege they were in compliance

2 with all legal obligations during the times alleged; that they never received notice of

3 any need for accommodation; and that Plaintiffs’ claims are without merit, or are the

4 fault of entities/individuals other than the Agency and the City of Los Angeles.” ]

5

The City has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended

6 Complaint, and if it is not granted plans to pursue all defenses that are available to it

7 as well as counterclaims for equitable and contractual indemnity against both the

8 governmental and owner defendants.

9

Should the CRA/LA’s Motion to Dismiss not be granted, CRA/LA plans to

10 pursue all defenses that are available to it as well as counterclaims for equitable and

11 contractual indemnity against the owner defendants.

12

Defendant Oversight Board contends it has no liability regarding Plaintiff’s

13 allegations as it did not exist during the relevant time periods, has no successor or

14 independent liability for the acts of the Agency and lacks the statutory authority to

15 provide the relief sought by Plaintiffs in this matter.

16 IV. PROCEDURAL STATUS

17

The Complaint was filed on January 13, 2012. Defendants City of Los

18 Angeles and the Agency were served with the Complaint on January 13, 2012. The

19 City answered the Complaint and filed a Cross-Complaint against the Agency on

20 February 29, 2012. The CRA answered Plaintiffs’ Complaint on April 3, 2012.

21

As of February 1, 2012, the Agency was dissolved as part of a fundamental

22 restructuring of redevelopment agencies in California created by ABx1 26 (2011),

23 and certain of the Agency’s functions, obligations, liabilities, and assets were

24 transferred to successor agencies, specifically, a Designated Local Authority called

25 the “CRA/LA, a Designated Local Authority,” operating under the supervision and

26 direction of a newly constituted Oversight Board. See California Redevelopment

27 Association v. Matosantos, 53 Cal.4th 231, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 (December 29,

28 2011) (holding that ABx1 26 (‘The Dissolution Act’) is constitutional and

- 9 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 10 of 44 Page ID #:1812

1 establishing a dissolution date of February 1, 2012 for all agencies.) ABx1 26 set up

2 a timetable and structure for dissolving redevelopment agencies and transferring

3 their remaining obligations to successor agencies. The Designated Local Authority

4 was established on or about February 1, 2012. California Assembly Bill AB 1484

5 (2012) further clarified the obligations of the various successor entities. See, revised

6 redevelopment statutes at Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 34161, et seq. Specifically,

7 Health & Safety Code § 34179 specifically requires that an oversight board

8 consisting of seven members be established to approve and/or direct specified

9 activities of the successor agency( in this case the successor agency is Defendant

10 CRA/LA). On or about May 2, 2012, Defendant Oversight Board for the CRA/LA, a

11 Designated Local Authority, was officially constituted to assume the statutorily

12 specified functions.

13

On June 1, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint that named the

14 CRA/LA and the Oversight Board as Defendants and added additional nominal

15 defendants.

16

On August 20, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint that

17 correctly named Behringer Harvard NoHo LLC as the current owner of one of the

18 housing projects in the Redevelopment Housing Program. The Court deemed

19 responses to the First Amended Complaint to be responses to the Second Amended

20 Complaint.

21

On September 20, 2012, the City, CRA/LA and the Oversight Board filed

22 motions to dismiss, which are currently pending before the Court.

23

The following Owner Defendants have answered the complaint: 105 East I St,

24 LP, Menlo Park, Imani Fe LP, Penny Lane Centers, 4651 Huntington, LP, New

25 Tierra Del Sol, LP, Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, Redrock NoHo

26 Residential, 12129 El Dorado Avenue, LP, 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, LP, Adams

27 935, LP, AMCAL Montecito Fund, LP, Andalucia Senior Apartments, LP, Ardmore

28 959 Partners, LP, Asturias Senior Apartments, LP, B S Broadway Village II, LP,

- 10 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 11 of 44 Page ID #:1813

1 Behringer Harvard NoHo, LLC, Buckingham Senior Apartments, LP, Cantabria

2 Senior Apartments, LP, Carondelet Court Partners, LP, Central Village Apartments,

3 LP, Decro Orion Apartments, LP, Decro Osborne Apartments, LP, East LA

4 Community Corporation, Eastside Village, LP, Esperanza Community Housing

5 Corporation, Eugene Hotel, LP, FAME West 25th Street, LP, Far East Building, LP,

6 Grandview Nine, LP, Hart Village, LP, Hobart Heights Partners, LP, Las Margaritas,

7 LP, Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc., Los Cuatro Vientos, LP, Morgan Place,

8 LP, New Genesis Apartments, LP, NoHo Senior Villas, LP, P G Housing Partners,

9 LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp., Palomar apartments, LP, Redrock Noho

10 Residential, LLC, Renato Apartments, LP, Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, Selma-

11 Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, LP, Sherman Village

12 Apartments, LP, Sherman Way Community Housing, LP, WA Court, LP,

13 Watts/Athens Preservation XVII, LP, West Angeles Villas, LP, Western/Carlton II,

14 LP, Yale Terrace, LP.

15 The following Owner Defendants have not answered or otherwise appeared in the 16 case: Alexandria House Apartments, LP, CFLT-2618 West 7th St, LLC, Hoover

17 Seniors, LP, SF NoHo LLC, Vermont Seniors, Views at 270, LP

18 V. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

19

A. PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

20

Plaintiffs allege the Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

21 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are

22 authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 and 1343, and by Rules 37 and 65 of the

23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs’ claims for violations of California

24 state law concern the same actions and omissions that form the basis of Plaintiffs’

25 claims under federal law such that they are all part of the same case or controversy.

26 This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over those state law claims pursuant to 28

27 U.S.C. § 1367. This action for declaratory and injunctive relief arises in part under

28 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 and Title II of the

- 11 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 12 of 44 Page ID #:1814

1 ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

2

B. DEFENDANT CRA/LA’S STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

3

To the extent Plaintiffs have alleged any claims under 29 U.S.C. section 794,

4 42 U.S.C. section 12131and 42 U.S.C. section 3601, CRA/LA agrees the Court

5 would have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1131 and 1434.

6 CRA/LA denies that supplemental jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. section 1367 exists

7 over the claims alleged under California Government Code section 11135 due to the

8 absence of any allegations raising an inference that the prerequisites for the

9 California Government Tort Claims Act have been satisfied. CRA/LA denies that 42

10 U.S.C. section 12131 states a right to declaratory relief as this is a definitional

11 statute.

12 VI. LEGAL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

13

A. PLAINTIFFS

14

Plaintiffs claim that they have been injured by the following:

15

1. The Government Defendants have violated Section 504 of the

16 Rehabilitation Act by denying people with disabilities meaningful access to

17 Defendants’ housing programs; aiding or perpetuating discrimination against people

18 with disabilities by providing significant assistance to developers of housing projects

19 that discriminate on the basis of disability by failing to provide accessible housing;

20 using methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating against people

21 with disabilities; and otherwise limiting people with disabilities from enjoying

22 housing built or developed by Defendants or the opportunity to obtain such housing.

23

2. The Government Defendants have violated Title II of the ADA by denying

24 people with disabilities meaningful access to Defendants’ housing programs; aiding

25 or perpetuating discrimination against people with disabilities by providing

26 significant assistance to developers of housing projects that discriminate on the basis

27 of disability by failing to provide accessible housing; using methods of

28 administration that have the effect of discriminating against people with disabilities;

- 12 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 13 of 44 Page ID #:1815

1 and otherwise limiting people with disabilities from enjoying housing built or

2 developed by Defendants or the opportunity to obtain such housing.

3

3. The Government Defendants have violated Section 11135 of the California

4 Government Code by denying people with disabilities meaningful access to

5 Defendants’ housing programs; aiding or perpetuating discrimination against people

6 with disabilities by providing significant assistance to developers of housing projects

7 that discriminate on the basis of disability by failing to provide accessible housing;

8 using methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating against people

9 with disabilities; and otherwise limiting people with disabilities from enjoying

10 housing built or developed by defendants or the opportunity to obtain such housing.

11

4. The Government Defendants have violated the Fair Housing Act by their

12 policy or practice of failing to act to ensure that housing projects within the

13 Redevelopment Housing Program are physically accessible, which has a disparate

14 impact on people with disabilities and resulted in otherwise making housing

15 unavailable because of disability; discriminating in the terms, conditions and

16 privileges of the rental of a dwelling because of disability; discouraging people with

17 disabilities from inspecting, purchasing or renting a dwelling because of disability;

18 and limiting the use of privileges, services or facilities associated with a dwelling

19 because of disability.

20

B. DEFENSES

21

i. The City of Los Angeles: The City has filled a Motion to Dismiss the

22 Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and if it is not granted plans to pursue all

23 defenses that are available to it as well as counterclaims for equitable and contractual

24 indemnity against both the governmental and owner defendants.

25

If the City is not dismissed as a Party to this action it will include, among the

26 legal claims it is considering pursuing are: that the no Federal Housing Funds were

27 transferred to by the City to the Agencyfor the properties at issue, the City did not

28 owe the Plaintiffs a duty to monitor, and the Plaintiffs have not suffered an injury.

- 13 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 14 of 44 Page ID #:1816

1 This is not an exhaustive list of defenses. This list is not exhaustive and the City

2 reserves the right to supplement this list after a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss that

3 is currently pending.

4

ii. The CRA/LA: The CRA/LA has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’

5 Second Amended Complaint, and if it is not granted plans to pursue all defenses that

6 are available to it as well as counterclaims for indemnification against the owner

7 defendants.

8

If this CRA/LA is not dismissed as a Party to this action, it will include, but

9 will not be limited to, the following defenses:

10

1. Failure to State a Claim;

11

2. The Agency’s services, programs and activities in question in this

12 action, when viewed in their entirety, are accessible to persons with disabilities;

13

3. The Agency has provided reasonable access to its services, programs

14 and activities;

15

4. Plaintiff’s requested modifications of policies, practices or procedures

16 are unreasonable and/or unnecessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of

17 disability;

18

5. The Agency has completely or substantially complied with all

19 applicable requirements;

20

6. The Agency is not obligated to remove the barriers alleged in the

21 complaint to the extent that the facilities at issue were constructed and/or modified

22 before the effective date of any law of regulation prohibiting the existence of any

23 such alleged barrier;

24

7. The relief sought by the complaint would result in an undue financial or

25 administrative burden;

26

8. Plaintiffs’ injury or injuries, if any, was/were caused by third parties

27 acting outside the scope of agency, employment or control of the Agency, including

28 without limitation third parties who own or control the property on which Plaintiffs

- 14 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 15 of 44 Page ID #:1817

1 seek remediation or third parties who own or control adjoining property;

2

9. Plaintiffs are not entitled to the injunctive relief sought against CRA/LA

3 as they failed to join necessary parties to the action to effect such relief, including

4 without limitation third parties who own or control the property on which Plaintiffs

5 seeks remediation or third parties who own or control adjoining property;

6

10. Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the damages sought in the

7 complaint because their use and enjoyment of the facilities and services, programs

8 and activities in question were not denied or interfered with by the Agency or by any

9 other party;

10

11. Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred on the ground and to the extent

11 that the Agency has not violated any applicable federal, state or municipal disability

12 access laws;

13

12. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies;

14

13. With respect to each and every allegation in the SAC , as they relate to

15 the request for a preliminary injunction, such an injunction is not appropriate

16 because: (a) there is no imminent threat or irreparable injury; (b) there is no

17 likelihood of prevailing on the merits; and (c) the balancing of competing interests

18 weigh in CRA/LA’s favor;

19

14. Plaintiffs’ prayer for injunctive relief is moot and/or will be by the time

20 this matter is adjudicated;

21

15. Failure to mitigate;

22

16. CRA/LA claims all defenses afforded to it under the Fair Employment

23 and Housing Act, California Government Code Section 12940, et seq., and

24 specifically seeks attorneys’ fees herein as provided by Government Code Section

25 12965;

26

17. Plaintiffs lacks standing to seek some or all of the injunctive relief

27 sought in the complaint;

28

18. The complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged in the

- 15 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 16 of 44 Page ID #:1818

1 complaint, are barred to the extent that they rely on events that occurred before the

2 period captured by the running of the applicable statute of limitations;

3

19. The complaint is barred to the extent the alleged violations of law are

4 excused or justified under the statutes under which Plaintiffs have sued;

5

20. Plaintiffs have waived any right to recovery by taking actions that are

6 inconsistent with the ownership and exercise of the rights claimed in the complaint;

7

21. Plaintiffs have suffered no injury in fact with respect to the facts alleged

8 in the complaint;

9

22. Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover attorneys’ fees;

10

23. The relief sought by Plaintiffs would constitute or result in a

11 fundamental alteration in the nature of the programs, services or activities offered by

12 the Agency;

13

24. The complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged in the

14 complaint, are barred to the extent that they rely on any alleged failure of the Agency

15 to comply with the self-evaluation and/or transition plan requirements in 28 C.F.R.

16 Sections 35.105 and 35.150(d) because such regulations exceed the scope of the

17 rulemaking authority granted to the regulators by Congress under the enabling

18 legislations. (42 U.S.C. § 12134(a));

19

25. The relief sought by Plaintiffs would purport to vest the judiciary with

20 the power, right or ability to expend public funds and/or deprive the Agency’s

21 legislative branch of the right to exercise its discretion to expend public funds;

22

26. The complaint seeks a gift of public funds for a private purpose in

23 violation of the California Constitution;

24

27. The Agency is immune from liability under California Government

25 Code section 815 and 820 et seq;

26

28. Plaintiffs’ prayer for damages above and beyond actual, compensatory

27 damages is barred on the ground that any such award would violate Section 818 of

28 the California Government Code;

- 16 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 17 of 44 Page ID #:1819

1

29. The relief sought by Plaintiffs is barred as violative of the Tenth

2 Amendment to the United States Constitution as an unfunded mandate of Congress

3 that unlawfully and improperly usurps legislative, taxing and fiscal powers left to the

4 States and their instrumentalities, including without limitation the Agency and its

5 duly-elected and duly-appointed officers;

6

30. The relief sought by Plaintiffs is barred on the ground and to the extent

7 that it exceeds the powers vested in Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the United

8 States Constitution to regulate interstate commerce;

9

31. Plaintiffs are barred from maintaining this action by the principals of

10 estoppel and/or res judicata;

11

32. The equitable action is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands;

12

33. Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a claim

13 for punitive damages or exemplary damages in any amount or amounts whatsoever

14 or at all;

15

34. All actions of the Agency, or its employees, agents or representatives

16 were undertaken in good faith and with the reasonable belief that said actions were

17 valid, necessary and constitutionally proper;

18

35. The Agency’s acts were privileged under applicable statutes and case

19 law;

20

36. Plaintiffs’ claims herein are precluded due to Plaintiffs’ impermissibly

21 splitting their claims and causes of action into multiple litigations;

22

37. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in their entirety as Plaintiffs failed to

23 comply with all the requirements under the lease agreement at the subject rental

24 premises;

25

38. There exists legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the alleged acts

26 of which Plaintiffs complain.

27

iii. The Oversight Board: As Plaintiff’s damages and injuries have not been

28 articulated, it is difficult for Defendant Oversight Board to fully respond to

- 17 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 18 of 44 Page ID #:1820

1 Plaintiffs’ claims at this time. Separate and apart from the arguments and defenses

2 raised by defendants DLA and the City of Los Angeles, Defendant Oversight Board

3 contends that it has no liability for the acts alleged in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended

4 Complaint on several grounds. First, it did not exist during the period Plaintiffs

5 allege the “Government Defendants” failed to act. Second, to whatever extent

6 liability exists for any actions or inactions on the part of the Agency, by statute those

7 liabilities were assumed by Defendant DLA only, not by the Oversight Board. Third,

8 by statute, Oversight Board’s duties and responsibilities are strictly limited.

9 Plaintiffs do not fall into the class of persons or entities to whom the Oversight

10 Board has a fiduciary duty, nor are the Plaintiffs’ alleged claims in this matter

11 liabilities or obligations which the Oversight Board is required by statute to consider.

12 Finally, the Oversight Board lacks the statutory authority to order the DLA to

13 provide Plaintiffs with the relief sought in this matter.

14

iv. The Owner Defendants: The Owner Defendants have been included in

15 this action as Rule 19 necessary parties only; the Second Amended Complaint makes

16 no claim for relief against any of the Owner Defendants, and the Owner Defendants

17 have denied any liability.

18

v. Group of 44 Owner Defendants: The Group of 44 Owner Defendants has

19 asserted the following defenses: statute of limitations, lack of standing, alleged injury

20 or damage caused by third parties, laches, waiver and estoppel, undue financial or

21 administrative burden, and compliance with applicable laws

22

vi. Amistad Plaza Partners: Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership

23 (“Amistad”) asserts the following defenses:

24

a. Failure to State a Claim for Relief;

25

b. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies;

26

c. Amistad is not a Recipient of Federal Financial Assistance;

27

d. Amistad is not a “Public Entity” for purposes of Title II of the

28

Americans with Disabilities Act;

- 18 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 19 of 44 Page ID #:1821

1

e. Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute

2

of limitations;

3

f. Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims

4

g. There is no private right of action for Plaintiffs to pursue the claims

5

asserted against Amistad;

6

h. Plaintiffs have failed to properly mitigate their damages, if any;

7

i. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of laches because

8

of the unreasonable and prejudicial delay of Plaintiffs in filing this

9

action;

10

j. Plaintiffs claims are barred because any harm or damages they sustained

11

were caused by their own actions and decisions;

12

k. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and/or

13

unclean hands;

14

l. The remedies requested by Plaintiffs are more burdensome than

15

necessary to provide relief to Plaintiffs.

16

m. The remedies requested by Plaintiffs would result in economic waste;

17

n. Amistad at all times acted in good faith to comply with the laws

18

pursuant to which Plaintiffs bring their claims and acted with reasonable

19

grounds to believe that its actions did not violate these laws, and

20

Amistad asserts a lack of willfulness or intent to violate those statutes as

21

a defense of any claim by Plaintiffs for punitive damages; and

22

o. Amistad is not a person required to be joined to this action pursuant to

23

Fed. R. Civ. P.

24

vii. 4651 Huntington LP and New Tierra del Sol LP: Defendants 4651

25 Huntington LP and New Tierra del Sol LP assert the following defenses: Failure to

26 State a Claim for Relief; Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies; Outside Scope

27 of Administrative Complaint; Statute of Limitations; Lack of Standing; Goof Faith

28 Belief, Conduct, and Cause; Waiver; Estoppel; Laches; Loss Attributable to Others;

- 19 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 20 of 44 Page ID #:1822

1 Unclean Hands; Immunity; Adequate Remedy at Law; Lack of Irreparable Injury;

2 Business Necessity; Lack of Disparate Impact/Lack of Disparate Treatment;

3 Reasonable Accommodations Made; Unreasonableness of the Requested

4 Accommodations; Indemnity; Unconscionability; Uncertain and Indefinite

5 Allegations; Relief Not Required by Laws; Lack of Injury; and No Right to

6 Attorneys’ Fees

7

viii. Imani Fe LP: Owner Defendant Imani Fe, LP has asserted the following

8 affirmative defenses: (1) failure to state a claim; (2) relief not required by law; (3)

9 laches; (4) statute of limitations; (5) waiver and estoppel; (6) undue burden; (7)

10 adequate remedy at law; (8) comparative negligence/fault; (9) lack of injury to

11 plaintiff; (10) lack of standing; (11) no right to attorneys’ fees; and (12) failure to

12 exhaust administrative remedies.

13

ix. 105 East I St. LP: Owner Defendant 105 East I St., LP has asserted the

14 following affirmative defenses: (1) failure to state a claim; (2) statute of limitations;

15 (3) estoppel or waiver; (4) laches; (5) unclean hands; (6) conditions precedent; (7)

16 indemnity; (8) unconscionability; (9) frustration of purpose; (10) prevention of

17 performance; (11) undue burden; (12) uncertain and indefinite allegations; (13)

18 reservation of defenses

19

x. Menlo Park: Owner Defendant Menlo Park has asserted the following

20 affirmative defenses: (1) failure to state a claim; (2) relief not required by law; (3)

21 laches; (4) statute of limitations; (5) waiver and estoppel; (6) undue burden; (7)

22 adequate remedy at law; (8) injury caused by third parties; (9) lack of injury to

23 plaintiff; (10) lack of standing; (11) no right to attorneys’ fees; (12) exhaustion of

24 administrative remedies; (13) uncertain and indefinite allegations

25

xi. Redrock Noho Residential, LLC: Owner Defendant Redrock Noho

26 Residential, LLC has asserted the following affirmative defenses: (1) Failure to State

27 a Claim for Relief; (2) Relief Not Required by Law; (3) Laches; (4) Statute of

28 Limitations; (5) Waiver and Estoppel; (6) Undue Burden; (7) Adequate Remedy at

- 20 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 21 of 44 Page ID #:1823

1 Law; (8) Injury Cause by Third Parties; (9) Lack of Injury; (10) Lack of Standing;

2 (11) No Right to Attorneys’ Fees; (12) Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies; (13)

3 Uncertain and Indefinite Allegations; and (14) Reservation of Additional Defenses.

4 VII. RULE 26(a) DISCLOSURES

5

Plaintiffs and the CRA/LA have served their initial disclosures. Plaintiffs

6 suggest that Plaintiffs and the remaining Government Defendants will serve either

7 initial disclosures or supplemental disclosures thirty (30) days after either (1) the

8 scheduling conference or (2) the Court’s decision on the motions to dismiss,

9 whichever is sooner. TheOwner Defendants suggest that initial disclosures must be

10 served by Owner Defendants by April 11, 2013 and that Plaintiffs and Government

11 Defendants will serve initial or supplemental disclosures on Owner Defendants by

12 that date. The City proposes that the deadline for all parties to serve and receive

13 initial disclosures be the same date.

14

Defendants City and the Oversight Board proposes initial or supplemental

15 disclosures of all parties, the Government Defendants and the Owner Defendants,

16 occur on the latter of the scheduling conference or the Court’s decision on the

17 motions to dismiss.

18 VIII. DISCOVERY PLAN

19

A. PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY TOPICS

20

Plaintiffs plan to propound written discovery upon Defendants, including

21 requests for production of documents, interrogatories and requests for admission,

22 followed by depositions, including Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and depositions of

23 other party-affiliated deponents and third party witnesses. Plaintiffs have

24 propounded initial requests for production of documents, interrogatories and requests

25 for admissions upon the City and CRA/LA. Plaintiffs also intend to conduct site

26 inspections with qualified consultants, as needed, of properties that are the subject of

27 this litigation, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(2).

28

Plaintiffs’ discovery will include the following categories and topics:

- 21 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 22 of 44 Page ID #:1824

1

1. Funding levels and sources;

2

2. Contractual relationships;

3

3. Construction history;

4

4. Policies and procedures concerning accessible units and access to such

5 units;

6

5. Policies and procedures concerning reasonable accommodations and

7 modifications;

8

6. Policies and procedures concerning advertising of accessible units;

9

7. Policies and procedures concerning rental and assignment of

10 accessible units;

11

8. Data and information regarding housing units and projects, including

12 location of units/projects, the total numbers of units/projects, the numbers of

13 units/projects receiving direct federal funds, and accessibility in the subject units;

14

9. Data and information on applicants requesting or applying for

15 accessible units;

16

10. Data and information on occupants of accessible units, including their

17 lease agreements;

18

11. Communications among defendants regarding federal requirements,

19 accessibility, and related topics;

20

12. Transition of the redevelopment agency and its obligations, liabilities,

21 assets and functions under ABx1 26 (2011);

22

13. Notice and communications regarding the Rehabilitation Act, the

23 Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act. Government Code Section

24 11135 and their implementing regulations;

25

14. Use of Federal and State financial assistance;

26

15. Certifications regarding compliance with disability rights laws;

27

16. The relationship between the City, the Agency and CRA/LA;

28

17. The relationship between the City, CRA/LA and the Oversight Board;

- 22 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 23 of 44 Page ID #:1825

1

18. Policies and procedures of the City, the Agency,, CRA/LA and the

2 Oversight Board;

3

19. The Disability Task Force of the Agency;

4

20. Training and monitoring of owners and managers of housing projects

5 within the Redevelopment Housing Program;

6

21. Complaints regarding accessibility and investigation of complaints; and

7

22. Accessibility of units and buildings within the Redevelopment Housing

8 Program.

9

Plaintiffs also intend to identify experts and engage in expert witness

10 discovery.

11

B. DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY TOPICS

12

i. Defendants CRA/LA, City, and Oversight Board

13

Defendants CRA/LA and City of Los Angeles intend to conduct written

14 discovery, including interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests

15 for admissions, and taking depositions of key party witnesses. Site inspections will

16 be warranted as discovery progresses. Expert discovery is also anticipated.

17 Defendants will conduct discovery in the following areas, which is not exhaustive,

18 including, but not limited to

19

1. Funding sources;

20

2. Contractual relationships;

21

3. Construction history at the alleged apartments and dwellings and property

22 ownership;

23

4. Policies and procedures concerning accessible units and access to such

24 units;

25

5. Policies and procedures concerning reasonable accommodations and

26 modifications, and demands related thereto;

27

6. Policies and procedures concerning Plaintiffs’ requests for

28 accommodated housing and qualifications for same;

- 23 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 24 of 44 Page ID #:1826

1

7. Policies and procedures concerning rental and assignment of

2 accessible units;

3

8. Data and information regarding housing units and projects, including

4 location of units/projects; the total numbers of units/projects; the

5 number of units/projects receiving direct federal funds; accessibility;

6 and Plaintiffs qualifications for same;

7

9. Data and information on applicants requesting or applying for

8 accessible units;

9

10. Information regarding oversight and enforcement of accessibility;

10 requirements from other Defendants;

11

11. Communications among other parties and Plaintiffs;

12

12. Discovery pertaining to Plaintiffs’ alleged representational standing;

13

13. Exhaustion of administrative remedies, if any;

14

14. Medical evidence supporting any claim of disability;

15

15. Damages;

16

16. Evidence supporting any claim for equitable relief;

17

17. Compliance with the California Government Tort Claims Act;

18

18. Discovery concerning the services, programs, and activities in question

19 in this action;

20

19. Discovery concerning the relief sought by Plaintiffs and the related

21 financial or administrative burdens on Defendants;

22

20. Discovery concerning responsible third parties who are wholly or in

23 part responsible for the harm alleged;

24

21. Discovery concerning implementation of required polices, procedures

25 and guidelines to ensure building accessibility to persons with

26 disabilities and implemented reporting and notification procedures;

27

22. Subsequent remedial measures; and

28

23. Discovery concerning building, safety, zoning, and other applicable

- 24 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 25 of 44 Page ID #:1827

1 statutes and concerns concerning residential premises.

2

24. Discovery concerning the specifics of Plaintiffs’ claims.

3

25. Discovery concerning the damages and injuries to Plaintiffs and the

4 Article III standing of the Plaintiffs

5

C. PHASING

6

Plaintiffs propose that discovery proceed in two phases, with the first phase

7 focused on discovery between the Plaintiffs and Government Defendants. The

8 second phase would provide, for all parties, that formal discovery by and against

9 Owner Defendants not commence until April 1, 2013 in light of the large number of

10 Owner Defendants in this case.

11

Defendants believe that discovery should be phased as follows:

12

The City, CRA/LA and the Oversight Board believe that discovery should be

13 phased as follows: Phase 1: Present till February 28, 2013 will be limited discovery

14 focused only on 1) the injury if any Plaintiffs suffered by each owner defendant, 2)

15 Plaintiffs’ standing to sue each owner defendant, and 3) whether or not the owner

16 defendant received funding from the City and/or the DLA. Following the end of

17 Phase 1, Motions to Dismiss any Owner Defendants must be filed by April 1, 2013.

18 Phase 2: March 1, 2013 till July 31, 2013 will be focused on discovery between the

19 Plaintiffs and the Governmental Defendants. Phase 3: August 1, 2013 till December

20 31, 2012 will be focused on discovery between all parties.

21

The Owner Defendants (who have participated in the Conference) agree that

22 discovery should be phased.

23

The Group of 44 Owner Defendants states that formal discovery by and

24 against the Owner Defendants would include physical inspections of the property by

25 Plaintiffs. Property inspections should not be automatic but should be requested

26 according to the normal rules.

27

D. DISCOVERY CUTOFF

28

Plaintiffs suggest a fact discovery cut-off of August 30, 2013 and an expert

- 25 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 26 of 44 Page ID #:1828

1 discovery cut-off of December 30, 2013 (see I, infra). August 30, 2013 is

2 appropriate here in light of the bifurcation of discovery proposed above, the larger

3 number of parties involved, and the time needed to meet and confer regarding

4 discovery responses and to seek the Court’s assistance through motions to compel if

5 necessary. In proposing this and other dates reflected in this document, Plaintiffs

6 have attempted to select dates that will keep the case actively moving forward, allow

7 the parties to conduct appropriate and adequate discovery, and provide the parties

8 adequate time to respond to and prepare discovery, motions, and other matters.

9 Plaintiffs have included additional detail in the chart appended to this Report to

10 better reflect their thinking on this issue and to better assist the Court.

11

The City and CRA/LA suggest a fact discovery cut-off of December 31,

12 2013 and an expert discovery cut-off of April 30, 2014. December 31, 2013 is an

13 appropriate date for a fact discovery cut-off because the phased discovery will allow

14 for any unnecessary parties to be dismissed out early on, and it manages the large

15 number of parties involved while still allowing for sufficient time to deal with any

16 discovery and scheduling issues that may arise. The City and CRA/LA feel that not

17 only will these Phases help the case move actively forward but will help clarify and

18 flesh out the vague allegations made by Plaintiffs in the SAC

19

The Oversight Board proposes a discovery cut-off pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

20 90 days before trial, January 9, 2015.

21

The Group of 44 Owner Defendants, Amistad, 4651 Huntington, Redrock

22 Noho Residential, LLC, Penny Lane and New Tierra del Sol propose October 31,

23 2013 but will defer to government defendants. Imani Fe is amenable to a discovery

24 cut-off of October 31, 2013 for fact-related discovery, and December 31, 2013 (or

25 later) for expert discovery.

26

105 East I Street and Menlo Park defer to the Government Defendants.

27

E. ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

28

Plaintiffs requested that the defendants produce emails and database

- 26 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 27 of 44 Page ID #:1829

1 information in native format and produce other documents in searchable PDF format.

2 Plaintiffs requested that the defendants produce documents in Word, Excel, or

3 comparable format where a searchable PDF format was not possible.

4

The City’s position is that it may be able to produce documents electronically,

5 most likely not in searchable PDF format, and with respect to other documents it will

6 allow Plaintiffs to come to its facility to review documents, and Plaintiffs are to bring

7 a mobile copying service of the reproduction of documents.

8

The CRA/LA’s position is that it will allow Plaintiffs to come to its facility to

9 review documents and that Plaintiffs are to bring a mobile copying service for

10 reproduction of documents.

11

The Oversight Board’s position is that any relevant documents are in the

12 possession of either the DLA or the City, and therefore defers to those entities on this

13 issue.

14

The Group of 44 Owner Defendants and Redrock Noho Residential, LLC will

15 produce documents in native format when possible, and in PDF when possible, but

16 reserves the right to grant Plaintiffs access for inspection and copying as necessary

17 and appropriate depending on the scope of discovery responses.

18

Amistad, 4651 Huntington LP , New Tierra del Sol LP and Menlo Park object

19 to requiring them to provide documents in native format. They will provide PDF

20 copies of documents responsive to discovery requests. They to extensive ESI search

21 as unduly burdensome on Rule 19 Defendants who are in this case for remedial

22 purposes only and reserve all rights as to the format of any production to be made.

23

Imani Fe will produce documents and ESI in their original formats. Imani Fe

24 will agree to translate their documents to other formats, such as searchable PDFs or

25 other usable electronic formats, if the cost of the translation is borne by the

26 requesting party.

27

105 East I St. joins in the positions of Menlo Park, Amistad and 4651

28 Huntington and New Tierra del Sol.

- 27 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 28 of 44 Page ID #:1830

1

The parties do not yet have consensus on these issues.

2

F. BATES STAMPING

3

The parties agree that documents will be Bates-stamped using the following

4 prefixes. Plaintiffs have proposed that the Bates-stamping be done by the disclosing

5 party prior to production:

Plaintiffs Prefix

Party

6 CALIF

Californian Actively Living Independent and Free

FHC

Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley

7 ILC

Independent Living Centers of Southern Cal.

8

Government Defendants Party 9 Prefix

LAC 10 DLA

City of Los Angeles Designated Local Authority aka CRA/LA

11 OB

Oversight Board

12 Owner Defendants 13 Prefix
EIS 14 EDA
15 HUN
16 BB SBS
17 ADM
18 AMF
19 APP AND
20 ARD 21 AST
22 BHN BSBV
23
BSA 24 CSA
25 CCP
26
CVA 27 DOR
28 DOS

Party
105 East I St. LP 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP 4651 Huntington LP 505 Bonnie Brae Partners LP 901 South Broadway Street LP Adams 935 Partners LP Amcal Montecito Fund, LP Amistad Plaza Partners LP Andalucia Senior Apartments LP Ardmore 959 Partners LP Asturias Senior Apartments LP Behringer Harvared NoHo LLC B S Broadway Village II LP Buckingham Senior Apartments, LP Cantabria Senior Apartments LP
Carondelet Court Partners LP
Central Village Apartments LP Decro Orion Apartments LP Decro Osborne Apartments LP

- 28 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 29 of 44 Page ID #:1831

ELAC
1
EV 2 ECHC
3 EH
4 FW FEB
5
GN
6
7 HV HVSH
8 HHP 9 HS
10 IFE

East LA Community Corporation Eastside Village LP Esperanza Community Housing Corp Eugene Hotel LP Fame West 25th Street LP Far East Building LP
Grandview Nine, LP
Hart Village LP Heavenly Vision Senior Housing LP Hobart Heights Partners LP Hoover Seniors LP Imani FE LP

11 KFHC

Korean Family Housing Corporation

12 LM 13 LAHP

Las Margaritas LP Los Angeles Housing Partnership

14 LCV
15
MEN
16
17 MOR NGA
18 NTDS
19
NHSV
20
OH
21
PVSH
22
PA
23
PLC
24
PGHP 25 RAM
26 RNHR

Los Cuatro Vientos LP
Menlo Park, a CA Limited Partnership
Morgan Place LP New Genesis Apartments LP New Tierra Del Sol
North Hollywood Senior Villas LP
Ol Hope LP Palm Village Senior Housing Corp
Palomar Apartments LP
Penny Lane Centers PG Housing Partners LP Rampart Apartments, a California LP Redrock Noho Residential, LLC

27 REN
28

Renato Apartments LP

- 29 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 30 of 44 Page ID #:1832

1 RIT

Rittenhouse Limited Partnership

2
SFNH
3

SF No Ho LLC

4 SEL

Selma-Hudson Community LP

5 SM
6 SVA
7 SWCH STO
8 VS 9 WAC

Seven Maples LP Sherman Village Apartments LP Sherman Way Community Housing LP Stovall Housing Corp Vermon Seniors, a California Corp WA Court LP

10 WAP
11
WAV 12 WC 13 YTA

Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP
West Angeles Villas, LP Western Carlton II LP Yale Terrace Apartments LP

14

G. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

15

To the extent discovery might disclose personal information about building

16 residents and program applicants or other confidential information, the parties will

17 work to develop a system to manage and protect individual privacy concerns.

18

H. LIMITATIONS

19

1. Plaintiffs

20

Plaintiffs propose that the Court allow Plaintiffs collectively to take 37

21 depositions of Government Defendants: Plaintiffs expect to need no more than 20

22 depositions for the CRA/LA (including former employees of the now-dissolved

23 Agency), no more than 15 for the City, and no more than two for the Oversight

24 Board. Plaintiffs propose that the Court allow Plaintiffs up to one deposition of each

25 Owner Defendant, subject to discovery phasing described above. Plaintiffs propose

26 that each plaintiff be permitted to propound up to 25 interrogatories to the City and

27 up to 25 interrogatories to the CRA/LA as permitted by the discovery rules. Plaintiffs

28 do not expect to collectively need more than 25 interrogatories per defendant for all

- 30 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 31 of 44 Page ID #:1833

1 other defendants, subject to discovery phasing described above.

2

2. Defendants

3

The City, CRA/LA and Oversight Board: Defendants City and Oversight

4 Board propose that insofar as the Plaintiff entities’ claims are similar if not identical,

5 there is no justification for why Plaintiffs collectively need to serve each defendant

6 with more than 25 interrogatories. Plaintiffs have not provided any explanation or

7 justification for why the excessive number of depositions they request is necessary,

8 nor have they identified the persons they believe need to be deposed.

9

The City disagrees with Plaintiffs’ request for 15 depositions of the City and

10 feels that the request is unduly burdensome.

11

In light of the number of parties involved in this matter, and the separate and

12 distinct issues as to the Government Defendants as opposed to the Owner

13 Defendants, Oversight Board requests the Court set guidelines regarding the time

14 each party may depose each deponent.

15

The CRA/LA joins the Oversight Board and the City of LA in finding that

16 the Plaintiff entities’ claims are similar if not identical, and thus do not warrant more

17 than the statutorily permitted 25 interrogatories collectively. The CRA/LA further

18 objects to Plaintiff’s request for 20 depositions of CRA/LA, as it would be

19 oppressive and unduly burdensome.

20

Owner Defendants: The Group of 44 Owner Defendants, Amistad, 4651

21 Huntington, Redrock Noho Residential, LLC and New Tierra del Sol defer to the

22 Government Defendants.

23

Menlo Park and 105 East I St. defer to the Government Defendants but at this

24 time, and reserving its rights, does not expect to seek discovery beyond that to which

25 it is entitled under the applicable rules

26

Imani Fe sees no need at this time to augment the standard discovery to which

27 they are entitled, in terms of the number and/or length of depositions, or the number

28 of interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admissions.]

- 31 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 32 of 44 Page ID #:1834

1

I. EXPERT WITNESSES

2

Plaintiffs suggest disclosure of expert witnesses on September 30, 2013 and

3 disclosure of rebuttal expert witnesses on October 31, 2013. Plaintiffs suggest an

4 expert discovery cut-off of December 30, 2013. Plaintiffs believe that much of the

5 case may be resolved on summary judgment and that it will therefore be important to

6 complete fact and expert discovery prior to the filing of any summary judgment

7 motions.

8

The City and CRA/LA suggest an expert discovery cut-off of April 30, 2014, a

9 disclosure of rebuttal expert witnesses on June 30, 2014, and an expert discovery cut-

10 off of November 30, 2014. The City and CRA/LA do not believe that it is necessary

11 to complete expert discovery prior to the filing of any summary judgment motions.

12

The Oversight Board suggests an expert discovery cut-off of March 31, 2014,

13 to allow time for the number of expert depositions that will be involved

14

The Group of 44 Owner Defendants , Amistad, 4651 Huntington, New Tierra

15 del Sol, Imani Fe, Menlo Park, Redrock Noho Residential, LLC, Penny Lane and

16 105 East I St. defer to the schedule for expert witness disclosure approved by the

17 Government Defendants, assuming it is consistent with the proposed discovery cut-

18 off schedule set forth above.

19

J. COMPLEXITY

20

A. Plaintiffs:

21

Plaintiffs believe that this case is complex given the number of parties with

22 common or similar interests but separate counsel and the issues surrounding the

23 redevelopment transition, and therefore it is necessary to employ the procedures set

24 forth in the Manual of Complex Litigation.

25

B. Defendants:

26

The City believes that the issue of complexity should be dealt with following

27 Phase 1 of discovery. The case is currently only complex due to the large number of

28 parties involved, and following the first phase of discovery this number could

- 32 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 33 of 44 Page ID #:1835

1 decrease.

2

The CRA/LA joins in the City of LA’s proposal that the issue of complexity

3 should be dealt with following Phase 1 of discovery, as the case is currently only

4 complex due to the large number of parties involved, and following the first phase of

5 discovery this number could decrease.

6

The Oversight Board agrees at this time that the matter is complex due to the

7 number of parties, but not due to the complexity of legal issues

8

The Group of 44 Owner Defendants, Amistad, 4651 Huntington , New Tierra

9 del Sol, Menlo Park, Redrock Noho Residential, LLC, Penny Lane and 105 East I St.

10 defer to the position of the Government Defendants on the issue of whether the

11 Manual of Complex Litigation should apply.

12

Imani Fe, LP believe that this case is complex given the number of separately

13 represented parties, the complex legal issues involved in the case, the discovery that

14 will be required (including multiple property inspections and voluminous

15 documents), and the issues surrounding the dissolution of redevelopment agencies.

16 Imani Fe therefore believes it is necessary to employ the procedures set forth in the

17 Manual of Complex Litigation

18 IX. DISPOSITIVE AND PARTIALLY DISPOSITIVE

19

MOTIONS AND SCHEDULE

20

Defendants City, CRA/LA and the Oversight Board have filed motions to

21 dismiss that are currently pending before the Court.

22

Plaintiffs anticipate filing motions for summary judgment or partial summary

23 judgment against some or all defendants.

24

Plaintiffs suggest a dispositive motion cut-off for filing motions of February 1,

25 2014 and a hearing date for dispositive motions of April 1, 2014. Because FRCP

26 56(b) provides that dispositive motions must be filed thirty days before the discovery

27 cutoff deadline unless the Court or local rule orders otherwise, Plaintiffs also propose

28 that the Court order that dispositive motions may be filed after the discovery cutoff

- 33 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 34 of 44 Page ID #:1836

1 deadline but no later than February 1, 2014.

2

The Government Defendants propose a dispositive motion cut-off for filing

3 motions of October 1, 2014 and a hearing date for dispositive motions of December

4 1, 2014.

5

The Group of 44 Owner Defendants, Amistad, 4651 Huntington and New

6 Tierra del Sol, Imani Fe, Menlo Park, Redrock Noho Residential, LLC and 105 East

7 I St. defer to the schedule approved by the Government Defendants.

8 X. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

9

Plaintiffs and the City have not had preliminary discussions regarding

10 settlement. Plaintiffs and the CRA/LA have had limited discussions regarding

11 potential mediation. Plaintiffs have created a framework for settling with Owner

12 Defendants and some of the Owner Defendants are engaging in discussions with

13 Plaintiffs regarding settlement.

14

The parties agree to ADR Procedure No. 3 – The parties shall participate in a

15 private dispute resolution proceeding prior to the deadline set in the Court’s standing

16 order.

17 XI. TRIAL ESTIMATE AND TRIAL DATE

18

Plaintiffs preliminarily estimate that trial will take 12-15 trial days. Plaintiffs

19 suggest a trial date of June 6, 2014. Plaintiffs requested a jury in their complaint.

20

Defendants : In light of the number of defendants and properties at issue in

21 this matter, the Government Defendants estimate trial will take 20-30 trial days.

22 Government Defendants suggest a trial date of April 10, 2015. The Government

23 Defendants reserve their right to request a jury.

24

Amistad, 4651 Huntington, New Tierra del Sol, Menlo Park, Redrock Noho

25 Residential, LLC and 105 East I St. defer to the Government Defendants

26 XII. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

27

Plaintiffs suggest a final pretrial conference date of May 29, 2014.

28

Defendants: The Government Defendants suggest a pretrial conference date

- 34 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 35 of 44 Page ID #:1837

1 of March 30, 2015.

2

Amistad, 4651 Huntington, New Tierra del Sol, Menlo Park, Redrock Noho

3 Residential, LLC and 105 East I St. defer to the Government Defendants.

4 XIII. ADDITIONAL PARTIES

5

The Court requested that all appropriate defendants be joined by August 2012

6 and all have been joined.

7 XIV. UNUSUAL LEGAL ISSUES

8

Some issues relating to the divisions of current responsibilities among the

9 CRA/LA, the City, and the Oversight Board are issues of first impression under a

10 brand new statutory scheme, which do not impact liability but may impact structure

11 of relief or settlement. The parties are not aware of any other unusual legal issues at

12 this time.

13

Oversight Board disputes that the issues of first impression in this matter do

14 not impact liability as Plaintiffs’ claims against Oversight Board are entirely based

15 on liability arising out of Plaintiff’s novel theories. The City joins in this. The City

16 also believes that the Plaintiffs seek to impose a novel duty on the City to monitor

17 the Owner Defendants and believe that this maybe an issue of first impression in the

18 Ninth Circuit. Furthermore Plaintiffs’ attempt to seek enforcement of HUD

19 regulations in a private right of action has been decided in other circuits – against

20 Plaintiffs’ position -- but appears to be an issue of first impression in the Ninth

21 Circuit.

22 XV. SEVERANCE AND BIFURCATION

23

Plaintiffs are not aware of the need for severance, bifurcation or other ordering

24 of proof at this time.

25

Defendants propose bifurcation as follows:

26

Oversight Board believes there are severance/bifurcation issues relating to the

27 Owner Defendants, but believe those issues may be resolved in the initial round of

28 discovery, or at least those issues will be clarified so that the Court may better

- 35 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 36 of 44 Page ID #:1838

1 determine to what extent severance/bifurcation is warranted.

2

Menlo Park, Redrock Noho Residential, LLC, and 105 East I St. defer to the

3 Government Defendants at this time but reserves its rights to seek severance or

4 bifurcation

5 Dated: November 13, 2012

6

Respectfully submitted,

7

/s/ Michael G. Allen

MICHAEL G. ALLEN*

8

D. SCOTT CHANG #146403

JAMIE L. CROOK #245757

9

RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC

1225 19th St. NW, Suite 600

10

Washington D.C. 20036

Telephone: (202) 728-1888

11

Facsimile: (202) 728-0848

schang@relmanlaw.com

12

* Application for admission pro hac vice

13

approved by court order Doc. No. 15

14

/s/ Maria Michelle Uzeta

PAULA D. PEARLMAN #109038

15

MARIA MICHELLE UZETA

#164402

16

DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER

Loyola Public Interest Law Center

17

800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120

Los Angeles, CA 90017

18

Telephone: (213) 736-1496

Facsimile: (213) 736-1428

19

Michelle.Uzeta@lls.edu

20
/s/ David Geffen

21

DAVID GEFFEN #129342

DAVID GEFFEN LAW FIRM

22

530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205

Santa Monica, CA 90401

23

Telephone: (310) 434-1111

Facsmilie: (310) 434-1115

24

Geffenlaw@aol.com

25
/s/ Dara Schur

26

DARA SCHUR #98638

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

27

1330 Broadway, Suite 500

Oakland, CA 94612

28

Telephone: (510) 267-1200

- 36 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 37 of 44 Page ID #:1839

Facsimile: (510)267-1201

1

Dara.Schur@disabilityrightsca

.org

2
/s/ Autumn Elliott

3

AUTUMN ELLIOTT #230043

KEVIN BAYLEY #218070

4

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

350 S. Bixel Ave., Suite 290

5

Los Angeles, CA 90010-2512

Telephone: (213) 213-8000

6

Facsimile: (213) 213-8001

Autumn.Elliott@disabilityrightsca.org

7

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8

/s/ Mark A. Byrne

9

Mark A. Byrne

Jennifer L. Derwin

10

BYRNE & NIXON LLP

800 West Sixth Street, Suite 430

11

Los Angeles, CA 90017

markbyrne@byrnenixon.com

12

jenniferderwin@byrnenixon.com

13

Attorneys for Defendant City of Los Angeles

14

/s/ Melissa T. Daugherty

Melissa T. Daugherty

15

Juliet Antoun

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH

16

LLP

221 N. Figueroa Street, Suite 1200

17

Los Angeles, CA 90012

daugherty@lbbslaw.com

18

jantount@lbbslaw.com

19

Attorneys for Defendant CRA/LA

20

/s/ Andrew Ross

Andrew Ross #205843

21

VARNER & BRANDT LLP

3750 University Avenue, Suite 610

22

Riverside, California 92501

Tel: (951) 274-7777

23

Fax: (951) 274-7770

24

Attorney for Defendant Oversight Board for

the CRA/LA, a Designated Local Authority

25

/s/ William B. Goines

26

William B. Goines

GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP

27

1900 University Ave, 5th Floor

East Palo Alto, CA 94303

28

Tel: (650) 289-7860

- 37 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 38 of 44 Page ID #:1840

goinesw@gtlaw.com

1

Attorney for Defendant Redrock NoHo

2

Residential, LLC

3

/s/ Theresa L. Kitay

Theresa L. Kitay

4

KITAY LAW OFFICES

578 Washington Blvd., Suite 836

5

Marina del Rey, CA 90292

Phone: (310) 578-9134

6

Facsimile: (770) 454-0126

tkitay@kitaylaw.net

7

Attorney for the Group of 44 Owner

8

Defendants

9

/s/ Mark J. Austin

Mark J. Austin

10

RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP

Rutan & Tucker

11

611 Anton Blvd, 14th Floor

Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1931

12

714-641-5100

maustin@rutan.com
13

Attorney for Defendant Imani Fe, LP
14

/s/ R. Jeffrey Neer

15

R. Jeffrey Neer

16

Derrick Lowe BAKER KEENER & NAHRA

17

Library Tower 633 W 5th St, Ste 5400

18

Los Angeles, CA 90071

213-241-0900

19

jneer@bknlawyers.com

20

Attorneys for Defendant Penny Lane Centers

21
Scott P. Moore

22

BAIRDHOLM ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1500 Woodmen Tower

23

1700 Farnam St.

Omaha, NE 68102

24

402-636-8268

spmoore@bairdholm.com

25

Attorney for Defendant Amistad Plaza Limited

26

Partnership

27

/s/ Roberto Lara

28

Roberto Lara

- 38 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 39 of 44 Page ID #:1841

Lara & Ibarra LLP

1

445 S. Figueroa St. Ste. 2700

Los Angeles, CA 90071

2

tel: 213-612-7740

fax: 213-623-2616

3

rlara@laraibarra.com

4

Attorney for Defendants 4651 Huntington, LP

and New Tierra Del Sol LP
5

6

/s/ Mark D. Hurwitz

Mark D. Hurwitz

7

LEVY, SMALLS & LALLAS

815 Moraga Drive

8

Los Angeles, California 90049

Tel: (310) 471-3000

9

Fax: (310) 471-7990

10

Attorney for Defendant Menlo Park

11

/s/ Christopher P. Warne

12

Christopher P. Warne

LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER P.

13

WARNE

15332 Antioch Street, Suite 64

14

Pacific Palisades, CA 90272

Tel: (818) 905-2430

15

cw@warnelaw.com

16

Attorney for Defendant 105 East I St., LP

17

18 Filing counsel for Plaintiffs certifies that counsel for all parties listed above concur

19 in the content of this document, and have authorized counsel for Plaintiffs to file this

20 document using the Court’s CM/ECF system.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 39 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 40 of 44 Page ID #:1842

1

SCHEDULE OF PRETRIAL DATES

2

Case No. CV-12-551-SJO (PJWx)

3 NOTE: For the Court’s convenience, we have included some proposed interim dates

selected with reference to the Court’s Initial Standing Order revised 6/1/12, the

4 Scheduling Order dated March 16, 2012 (Dkt. No. 21), the Local Rules, and the

FRCP. Dates that appear in the Court’s schedule form are highlighted in gray.

5

Matter

Time Day(s) or Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Court

6

Weeks

Request Request Order

Before

7

Trial

Trial Date 8 (Jury)

9:00 a.m.

6/6/14

4/10/15

Estimated 9 Length –

Plaintiffs: 1210 15 days

Defendants:
11

Final Pretrial 9:00 a.m. 8 days 12 Conference

5/29/14

3/20/15

Discuss 13 Previously-

Filed Motions 14 in Limine

Heard; File 15 Agreed-Upon

Set of Jury 16 Instructions and

Verdict Forms; 17 File Proposed

Voir Dire 18 Questions and

Agreed-To 19 Statement of

the Case; File 20 Witness,

Exhibit List and 21 Trial Brief

22 (at PTC parties also to submit
23 list of names and terms for
24 reporter. Court to discuss
25 means of streamlining the
26 trial, including: bifurcation;
27 presentation of foundational
28 and non-critical

- 40 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 41 of 44 Page ID #:1843

Matter
1

Time

2

testimony by

3 deposition

excerpts,

4 narrative

summaries and

5 stipulations as

to the content

6 of testimony;

and

7 qualification of

experts by

8 admitted

resumes. The

9 Court will also

discuss

10 settlement.)

(Standing Order

11 ¶ 24)

File Pretrial 12 Conference

ECF Filing

Order (PTCO) 13 (Joint

Statement of 14 Stipulated

Facts, List of 15 Facts in

Dispute, Issues 16 of Law In

Dispute; also 17 Deadline for

Objections to 18 Witnesses,

Exh., Depos. 19 (Standing Order

¶ 24(b); FRCP 20 26(a)(3))

Deliver 21 Motions in

COB

22

Limine Binders to Court

23

(Standing Order ¶ 24(b)(6)(a))

24

File Motions In Limine

ECF Filing

25

(Standing Order ¶ 24(b)(6)(a))

26

File Oppositions to

ECF Filing

27

Motions in Limine

28

(Standing Order ¶ 24(b)(6)(a))

Day(s) or Weeks Before Trial

Plaintiffs’ Request

7 days

5/22/14

before PTC

(Local Rule

provides for

11 days);

Objections

14 days

after discl.

5 Court

5/22/14

Days

Before PTC

35 Days 5/2/14 before Trial 7 days after 5/9/14 motions filed

Defendant’s Court Request Order

- 41 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 42 of 44 Page ID #:1844

Matter
1

Time

2

File Replies re: ECF

3 Motions in

Filing

Limine

4 (Standing Order

¶ 24(b)(6)(a))

5 File Memo of ECF

Contentions of Filing 6 Fact and Law,

Jt. Witness List, 7 Jt. Exh. List,

Pretrial Exh. 8 Stip; (Standing

Order 9 ¶¶ 24(b)(2), (3),

(4) and (5); 10 Local Rules 16-

1, 16-4, 16-5, 11 FRCP

26(a)(3)(A)(iii)) 12 Last Day for TBD

Hearing 13 Motions

14

15

Last Day to file ECF

16 Dispositive

Filing

Motions

17 (moving party

to provide more

18 than standard

28-day notice

19 per Standing

Order ¶ 19(a))

20 Deadline for ECF

Opposition to Filing

21 Dispositive

Motions

22 Deadline for ECF

Replies on 23 Dispositive

Filing

Motions 24 Deadline for

25

initial or supplemental

26 disclosures

27

28

Day(s) or Weeks Before Trial 7 days after opp. filed

Plaintiffs’ Request 5/16/14

Defendant’s Court Request Order

21 days 5/8/14 before PTC

45 days before trial

4/1/14 (Plaintiffs propose setting deadline earlier than 45 days) 2/1/14 (60 days before motion hearing)

12/1/14

2/28/14 (29

days before

motion

hearing)

3/14/14 (14

days before

Motion

Hearing)

For

Owner

Plaintiffs Defendants:

and

4/1/13

Government

Defendants:

30 days

from ruling

on MTD or

11/26/12

- 42 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 43 of 44 Page ID #:1845

Matter
1

Time

2

3

4

5

6 Formal discovery by
7 and against Owner
8 Defendants Expert
9 Disclosures (Expert Report
10 due 90 Days Before Trial per
11 FRCP 26(a)(2)(d))
12 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures
13 Discovery Cut- COB off
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Last Day to 21 Conduct

Settlement 22 Conference

23

Last Day to Amend

24

Pleadings or Add Parties

25

ECF Filing

Day(s) or Weeks Before Trial

Plaintiffs’ Defendant’s Court Request Request Order
Scheduling Conference, whichever is earlier; For Owner Defendants: 3/1/13 No earlier Owner than 3/15/13 Defendants:
No earlier than 4/1/13 9/31/13

90 days before trial
30 days before pretrial conference Within 30 days of scheduling conference

10/31/13

Fact:8/30/13 Imani Fe:

Expert:

Fact

12/31/13 Discovery

(Plaintiffs cutoff

propose

10/31/13

cutoff date

more than Expert

90 days

Discovery

prior to trial cutoff

and propose 12/31/13

fact

discovery Oversight

cutoff prior Board: 90

to expert days before

cutoff)

trial

4/29/2014

12/26/12

26

27

28

- 43 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 201 Filed 11/13/12 Page 44 of 44 Page ID #:1846

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2

I hereby certify that on this 13th day of November, 2012, I filed the foregoing

Joint Conference of Parties Report and accompanying documents via the Court’s

3 CM/ECF filing system, which shall serve as notice of such filing on all counsel of

record.

4

5

6

/s/ Michael G. Allen

Michael G. Allen

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 44 -
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Joint Conference of Parties Report

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 95 Filed 08/13/12 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:587

MICHAEL G. ALLEN, pro hac vice DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

1 D. SCOTT CHANG #146403

350 S. Bixel Ave., Suite 290

JAMIE L. CROOK #245757

Los Angeles, CA 90017

2 RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC Telephone: (213) 213-8000

1225 19th St. NW, Suite 600

Facsimile: (213) 213-8001

3 Washington D.C. 20036

Autumn.Elliott@disabilityrightsca.org

Telephone: (202) 728-1888

4 Facsimile: (202) 728-0848

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

mallen@relmanlaw.com

5

MARK BYRNE

PAULA D. PEARLMAN #109038

JENNIFER DERWIN

6 MARIA MICHELLE UZETA #164402 BYRNE AND NIXON

UMBREEN BHATTI RLSA # 801458 888 West Sixth Street, Suite 1100

7 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CTR Los Angeles, California 90017

Loyola Public Interest Law Center

markbyrne@byrnenixon.com

8 800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120

jenniferderwin@byrnenixon.com

Los Angeles, CA 90017 9 Telephone: (213) 736-1496

Attorneys for Defendant City of Los

Facsimile: (213) 736-1428

Angeles

10 michelle.uzeta@lls.edu

MELISSA T. DAUGHERTY

11 DAVID GEFFEN #129342

JULIET A. ANTOUN

DAVID GEFFEN LAW FIRM 12 530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Santa Monica, CA 90401

221 N. Figueroa Street, Suite 1200

13 Telephone: (310) 434-1111

Los Angeles, California 90012

Facsmilie: (310) 434-1115

daugherty@lbbslaw.com

14 Geffenlaw@aol.com

jantoun@lbbslaw.com

15 DARA SCHUR #98638

KAREN A. FELD

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &

16 1330 Broadway, Suite 500

SMITH LLP

Oakland, CA 94612 17 Telephone: (510) 267-1200

650 E. Hospitality Lane, Suite 600 San Bernardino, California 92408

Facsimile: (510)267-1201 18 Dara.Schur@disabilityrightsca.org

kfeld@lbbslaw.com

19 AUTUMN ELLIOTT #230043

Attorneys for Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency for the City of

KEVIN BAYLEY #218070 20

Los Angeles and CRA/LA, a Designated Local Agency

21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22

INDEPENDENT LIVING

23 CENTER OF SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

24

Plaintiffs;

25

v.

26 CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

27

Defendants.

Case No. CV 12-00551 SJO (PJWx) JOINT STATUS REPORT Status Conference: August 20, 2012 Time 8:30 A.M. Courtroom: 1
Complaint Filed: January 13, 2012

28

JOINT STATUS REPORT SUBMITTED AUGUST 13, 2012

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 95 Filed 08/13/12 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:588

1

Pursuant to the direction of the Court during the telephonic status hearing

2 held July 13, 2012, the Plaintiffs, the City of Los Angeles (“City”), the

3 Community Redevelopment Agency for the City of Los Angeles (“CRA”), and the

4 CRA/LA, a Designated Local Agency (“DLA”) submit this joint status report.

5 I. JOINDER OF PARTIES AND SERVICE OF PROCESS.

6

Plaintiffs previously served the City and the Community Redevelopment

7 Agency for the City of Los Angeles, and those parties have made appearances

8 through counsel. After being served, the CRA was dissolved pursuant to California

9 Assembly Bill ABx1 26 (2011) (“AB 26”) (“Dissolution Legislation”) and ceased

10 to exist as of February 1, 2012. Pursuant to the Dissolution Legislation, the CRA’s

11 authority, rights, powers, duties, and obligations were transferred to successor

12 agencies and entities. California Assembly Bill AB 1484 (2012) (“AB 1484”)

13 provided further clarification of the obligations of the successor agencies.

14

The DLA is one successor agency, established February 1, 2012. Pursuant to

15 AB 1484, “[a]ll litigation involving a redevelopment agency shall automatically be

16 transferred to the successor agency.” On August 2, 2012, by stipulation, DLA

17 voluntarily entered this litigation. (Doc. 83.)

18

Under the Dissolution Act, some actions of the DLA are subject to review

19 and approval by an oversight board. On or about May 2, 2012, Defendant

20 Oversight Board for the DLA (“Oversight Board”) was officially constituted to

21 assume the statutorily specified functions. By service of process on its custodian of

22 records and chairperson, on August 1, 2012, Oversight Board was served with the

23 First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), and proofs of service were filed with the Court

24 on August 3, 2012. (Docs. 87 and 88.)

25

Because the CRA has ceased to exist, counsel has asked Plaintiffs to dismiss

26 the CRA, particularly in light of the fact that the DLA is a named defendant.

27

Plaintiffs sued the City for its own purported actions and as a successor to the

28 CRA of certain housing assets. The City has been served.
-1JOINT STATUS REPORT SUBMITTED AUGUST 13, 2012

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 95 Filed 08/13/12 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:589

1

In their FAC, Plaintiffs named 60 “Owner Defendants” as parties pursuant to

2 Rule 19, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As evidenced by Exhibit #1, all of these

3 parties have been joined in this litigation, either by waivers or service of process.

4

On August 8, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ application for leave to

5 name and serve Behringer Harvard NoHo LLC as a defendant and gave Plaintiffs

6 until August 27, 2012 to do so. (Doc. 90.) Defendant L.A. Housing Partnership is

7 the general partner of Bronson Court Apartments, L.P., and has informally asked

8 Plaintiffs to substitute Bronson Court Apartments, L.P. Plaintiffs seek the Court’s

9 guidance.

10 II. CITY’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 12(b)(6) MOTION.

11

A. Plaintiffs’ Position

12

The Court convened the July 13, 2012 telephonic status conference in

13 response to the City’s application for leave to file a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs

14 stated their opposition to this application during the July 13, 2012 conference, and

15 the Court directed Plaintiffs to set out the grounds of that opposition in this joint

16 status report.

17

Plaintiffs oppose the City’s application for leave to file a motion to dismiss

18 because, given the detailed factual pleadings in this case and clear statutory,

19 regulatory, and other authorities establishing the City’s obligations under Section

20 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 (“§ 504”), the Americans with Disabilities

21 Act (“ADA”), the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), and state law, such a motion would

22 be futile and would unnecessarily consume judicial resources.

23

Plaintiffs contend that in the present litigation, no party disputes that, by

24 virtue of receiving federal funds and being subject to the requirements of § 504 and

25 the ADA, the City has a legal duty, with respect to its housing programs, not to

26 discriminate and to provide meaningful access to people with disabilities. The City

27 cannot shirk these non-discrimination and meaningful access obligations by

28 granting those funds to sub-recipients who were not bound by those same
-2JOINT STATUS REPORT SUBMITTED AUGUST 13, 2012

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 95 Filed 08/13/12 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:590

1 obligations. See 24 C.F.R. §§ 8.4 (b)(1)(v), (b)(4)(i) (prohibiting recipients,

2 “directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangement” from

3 discriminating in violation of the Rehabilitation Act or perpetuating discrimination

4 through provision of financial or other assistance). See also Lovell v. Chandler,

5 303 F.3d 1039, 1051 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that “Congress has a strong interest in

6 ensuring that federal funds are not used in a discriminatory manner and in holding

7 [recipients] responsible when they violate funding conditions.”); Koslow v.

8 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 302 F.3d 161, 175-76 (3d Cir. 2002) (“Through

9 the Rehabilitation Act, Congress has expressed a clear interest in eliminating

10 disability-based discrimination in state departments or agencies. That interest,

11 which is undeniably significant and clearly reflected in the legislative history, flows

12 with every dollar spent by a department or agency receiving federal funds.”

13 (internal citation omitted)); Indep. Hous. Servs. of San Francisco v. Fillmore Ctr.

14 Assocs., 840 F. Supp. 1328, 1344 (N. D. Cal.1993) (holding that a public agency

15 violates the ADA if it provides assistance to an organization that “discriminates

16 against disabled beneficiaries of the public agency’s program.”).

17

Plaintiffs contend that the dispute appears to be factual—that is whether the

18 City actually discriminated or denied meaningful access—and therefore not

19 susceptible to resolution through a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have alleged that

20 the City:

21

x Is a public entity within the meaning of the ADA (FAC ¶ 32);

22

x Is the recipient of federal housing funds (id. ¶¶ 33, 146-151, 156);

23

x Maintained substantial control over the CRA (id. ¶¶ 40-42);

24

x Elected, pursuant to the Dissolution Legislation, to become CRA’s

25

“successor housing agency” (id. ¶ 53);

26

x Gave federal housing funds to the CRA and other sub-recipients for purposes

27

of providing housing (id. ¶¶ 152-154, 158-164);

28

x Failed to ensure that the resulting housing program complied with § 504 (id.

-3-

JOINT STATUS REPORT SUBMITTED AUGUST 13, 2012

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 95 Filed 08/13/12 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:591

1

¶¶ 168, 169, 185, 190, 191);

2

x Failed to ensure that the highly accessible units required under § 504 (“UFAS

3

units”) are made available to and are used by people who need the

4

accessibility features of such units (id. ¶ 171);

5

x Failed to ensure people with disabilities had meaningful access to the

6

housing program (id. ¶ 172);

7

x Could not identify which housing projects received federal funds (id. ¶ 173),

8

failed to maintain or make available to the public a list of UFAS units (id. ¶¶

9

175-176), and could not identify where the UFAS units and accessible

10

common areas were located (id. ¶¶ 177-178); and

11

x Failed to include provisions concerning federal accessibility standards in

12

contracts and regulatory agreements with sub-recipients (id. ¶180).

13

Plaintiffs contend that it will be for the jury to determine whether Plaintiffs

14 have proven these allegations and whether the City’s conduct amounts to disability

15 discrimination and a failure to provide meaningful access to people with

16 disabilities.

17

During the July 13, 2012 conference, the City suggested that it may be

18 entitled to relief on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the July 6,

19 2012, Order (Doc. 109, attached as Exhibit #2) entered by the Hon. Stephen V.

20 Wilson in a different case, based on different pleadings and limited to the claims of

21 one individual with a disability. Ling v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 11-cv-

22 7774-SVW. Plaintiffs contend that Order has no preclusive effect. See Starbuck v.

23 City & County of San Francisco, 556 F.2d 450, 457 n. 13 (9th Cir. 1977) (holding

24 that “[t]he doctrine of stare decisis does not compel one district court judge to

25 follow the decision of another.”).

26

Plaintiffs contend that Judge Wilson’s decision involves different parties, so

27 claim preclusion cannot apply. A party cannot be bound by a judgment in

28 “litigation in which he is not designated as a party or which he has not been made a
-4JOINT STATUS REPORT SUBMITTED AUGUST 13, 2012

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 95 Filed 08/13/12 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:592

1 party by service of process.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 893 (2008). The

2 organizational plaintiffs in this litigation were not parties in the Ling litigation, so

3 res judicata and collateral estoppel cannot be applied to them. The interests of the

4 organizational plaintiffs and Ms. Ling are not aligned, neither party understood

5 itself to be acting in a representative capacity, and Judge Wilson did not take care to

6 protect the interests of the organizational plaintiffs. See id. at 900.

7

Plaintiffs contend that Judge Wilson’s Order is not persuasive, because it

8 cites just one unpublished, out-of-Circuit trial court case whose facts are entirely

9 different from those presented here. The single case cited by Judge Wilson is

10 simply inapplicable to the City’s proposed motion in this litigation. In Dinapoli,

11 the question was whether the Housing Authority had an obligation to prevent

12 discrimination against a tenant by a private landlord, whose only connection to the

13 Housing Authority was the acceptance of a rental voucher that subsidized the

14 tenant’s rent. Because a federal regulation defining a “recipient” of federal funds,

15 at 24 C.F.R. § 8.3, specifically excludes landlords under the rental voucher program 16 from obligations under § 504,1 the Court had no choice but to hold that the Housing

17 Authority had no obligation. Here, by contrast, Plaintiffs contend that the CRA and

18 the Owner Defendants are well within the regulation’s definition of “recipient,” and

19 therefore the City has the obligation to monitor their compliance with anti-

20 discrimination and accessibility requirements.

21

Plaintiffs contend that because there is ample legal authority concerning the

22 City’s obligations under § 504, and Plaintiffs have adequately pled facts supporting

23 the City’s liability for violation of § 504, the City’s 12(b)(6) motion would be

24 futile.

25

26

27 1 24 C.F.R. § 8.3 provides, in pertinent part, “An entity or person receiving . . .

28

payments . . . under a . . . voucher program is not a recipient or subrecipient merely by virtue of receipt of such payments.”

-5-

JOINT STATUS REPORT SUBMITTED AUGUST 13, 2012

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 95 Filed 08/13/12 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:593

1

B. City’s Position

2

The FAC is largely just a recitation of Section 504 and HUD’s implementing

3 regulations, along with citations to the FHA, ADA, and state laws. It also includes

4 several references to a notice that HUD issued after conducting a limited

5 compliance review of CRA assisted properties, which is not binding on the Court.

6 See Plummer v. Western Int’l Hotels Co., Inc., 656 F.2d 502, 504 (9th Cir. 1981).

7 Plaintiffs are three non-profit organizations who allege they have devoted resources

8 to assisting disabled persons find accessible housing. The FAC identifies

9 approximately sixty housing developments that allegedly fail to comply with the

10 accessibility laws. The developments are owned by private parties that allegedly

11 received federal funds through the CRA. The City does not own or manage any of

12 the developments. Plaintiffs have not identified any act by the City whereby the

13 City denied housing to a disabled person because of the person’s disability.

14 Instead, Plaintiffs’ allegation is that the City failed to ensure and monitor the

15 property owners’ compliance with the accessibility laws.

16

The plaintiff in the Mei Ling case made the same allegations against the City

17 and the CRA and the CRA moved to dismiss. After the parties fully briefed the

18 issue, Judge Wilson granted CRA’s motion and ruled that the plaintiff did not state

19 a claim against the CRA for housing discrimination based on its failure to monitor

20 other defendants. Plaintiff, who is represented by the same counsel in both cases,

21 did not file a motion for reconsideration. The City has filed a motion for judgment

22 on the pleadings on the grounds that the Court’s ruling applies equally to the City.

23 The City noticed the motion for August 20, 2012, at 1:30 p.m., but the Court

24 continued the hearing to August 27, 2012.

25

Judge Wilson’s ruling in the Mei Ling case is instructive. Although there are

26 factual differences between the respective injury that each plaintiff alleges in the

27 Mei Ling and the instant case, the fundamental basis for their claims against the

28 City are the same. In both cases, the plaintiffs allege that the City is liable for
-6JOINT STATUS REPORT SUBMITTED AUGUST 13, 2012

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 95 Filed 08/13/12 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:594

1 housing discrimination based upon the City’s alleged failure to ensure that other

2 defendants complied with the fair housing laws.

3

The City intends to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the FAC.

4 Although a complete summary of the motion is beyond the scope of this status

5 report, the City will argue, among other things, that Plaintiffs’ allegations are

6 insufficient to state a claim against the City for the same reasons they were

7 insufficient to state a claim against the CRA in the Mei Ling case. In addition, the

8 courts have held that a private plaintiff cannot sue to enforce the HUD regulations

9 upon which Plaintiffs attempt to rely in this action. See Three Rivers Ctr. for

10 Indep. Living, Inc. v. Hous. Auth. of Pittsburgh, 382 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2004).

11 Three Rivers included a thorough analysis of recent Supreme Court precedent

12 regarding whether a private right of action exists to enforce a given statute or

13 regulation. Notably, the court specifically addressed a private plaintiff’s ability to

14 enforce the same HUD regulations that Plaintiffs attempt to rely upon in this case

15 and ruled that there is no private right of action to enforce those regulations. As

16 the Three Rivers court held, these regulations speak to the regulated entity and

17 create “no implication of an intent to confer rights on a particular class of persons.”

18 Id. at 429.

19 III. CRA’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 12(b)(6) MOTION.

20

If Plaintiffs will not voluntarily dismiss the CRA from this action, then the

21 CRA will apply for leave to file a 12(b)(6) motion. The basis of the motion is that

22 the CRA ceased to exist pursuant to ABx1 26 and is not longer a proper defendant.

23

ABx1 26 dissolved redevelopment agencies as of February 1, 2012.

24 Successor agencies were created to wind down the affairs of the dissolved

25 redevelopment agencies and to make payments due for enforceable obligations and

26 dispose of the assets. “Except for those provisions of the Community

27 Redevelopment Law that are repealed, restricted or revised pursuant to the act

28 adding this part, all authority, rights, powers, duties and obligations previously
-7JOINT STATUS REPORT SUBMITTED AUGUST 13, 2012

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 95 Filed 08/13/12 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:595

1 vested with the former redevelopment agencies, under the Community

2 Redevelopment Law, are hereby vested in the successor agencies.” Health and

3 Safety Code Section 34173.

4

If no local agency elects to serve as a successor agency for a dissolved

5 redevelopment agency, a public body, referred to herein as a “‘designated local

6 authority’ shall be immediately formed, pursuant to this part, in the county and

7 shall be vested with all the powers and duties of a successor agency as described in

8 this part.” Health and Safety Code section 34173(d)(3)(A). “All litigation

9 involving a redevelopment agency shall automatically be transferred to the

10 successor agency.” Health and Safety Code section 34173(g).

11

As successor entities, successor agencies succeed to the organizational status

12 of the former redevelopment agency, but without any legal authority to participate

13 in redevelopment activities, except to complete any work related to an approved

14 enforceable obligation. Health and Safety Code section 34173(g).

15

In this case, the DLA is the successor entity and the City is sued in its own

16 capacity for its own actions and as a successor to the CRA on certain housing

17 obligations. The proper successor entities for the CRA have been named in this

18 lawsuit. There is no legal basis to continue to include the CRA.

19

IV. DLA’S MOTION TO DISMISS.

20

The DLA anticipates filing a Motion to Dismiss. This motion will mainly be

21 based on the same substantive arguments that the CRA/LA made in its Motion to

22 Dismiss before Judge Stephen V. Wilson in Ling v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case

23 No. 11-cv-7774-SVW, which he granted. (Exhibit #2.) To wit, Plaintiffs cite to no

24 cases or statutory authority that hold an entity such as the DLA liable for housing

25 discrimination based solely on its alleged failure to monitor other defendants.

26

V. OTHER ANTICIPATED MOTIONS.

27

To date, the City has responded to Plaintiff Independent Living Center’s first

28 set of five (5) interrogatories. Plaintiff Fair Housing Counsel of San Fernando
-8JOINT STATUS REPORT SUBMITTED AUGUST 13, 2012

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 95 Filed 08/13/12 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:596

1 Valley recently served a set of twenty-five (25) interrogatories, a set of forty-seven

2 (47) requests for production of documents, and two hundred and five (205) requests

3 for admission on the City. The discovery requests seek a broad range of documents

4 and information dating back more than twenty years. Counsel for the City has

5 initiated the meet and confer process with Plaintiffs’ counsel to attempt to reach a

6 mutually agreeable resolution of the City’s objections, but the City anticipates the

7 parties may need the assistance of the Court. For instance, the City has requested

8 that Plaintiffs limit the total interrogatories served by plaintiffs to twenty-five in

9 accord with the spirit of FRCP 33(a)(1) since all three plaintiffs are represented by

10 the same counsel and are pursuing the same claims against the City, but Plaintiff

11 has not agreed.

12

VI. STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS.

13

Preliminary settlement conversations occurred between counsel for the

14 Plaintiffs and former counsel for the City and CRA prior to the April 23, 2012,

15 status conference. Since then, Plaintiffs’ lead counsel has attempted to engage

16 current counsel for the City, the CRA, and DLA in further discussions about a

17 process for surveying properties in the Redevelopment Housing Program to identify

18 inaccessible features and in discussions concerning the advisability of mediation.

19 The City is willing to explore mediation, but believes that it would be premature at

20 this time given the current status of the proceedings. The CRA and DLA have

21 advised that they are amenable to mediation so long as all parties are on board.

22 Additionally, the DLA is awaiting responses to its demands for indemnification it

23 made on various entities.

24 25 Dated: August 13, 2012
26
27

Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL G. ALLEN, pro hac vice D. SCOTT CHANG #146403 JAMIE L. CROOK #245757 RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC

28
-9JOINT STATUS REPORT SUBMITTED AUGUST 13, 2012

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 95 Filed 08/13/12 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:597

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Dated: August 13, 2012 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Dated: August 13, 2012 17 18 19 20 21 22

By: s/ Michael Allen MICHAEL ALLEN

PAULA D. PEARLMAN #109038 MARIA MICHELLE UZETA #164402 UMBREEN BHATTI RLSA # 801458 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER

DAVID GEFFEN #129342 DAVID GEFFEN LAW FIRM

DARA SCHUR #98638 AUTUMN ELLIOTT #230043 KEVIN BAYLEY #218070 DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

Respectfully submitted,

KAREN A. FELD MELISSA T. DAUGHERTY JULIET A. ANTOUN LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

By: s/ Melissa T. Daugherty MELISSA T. DAUGHERTY

Attorneys for Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency for the City of Los Angeles and CRA/LA, a Designated Local Agency.

Respectfully submitted,

MARK BYRNE JENNIFER DERWIN BYRNE AND NIXON

By: s/ Mark Byrne

.

MARK BYRNE

Attorneys for Defendant/Cross Claimant CITY OF LOS ANGELES

23

24

25

26

27

28
-10JOINT STATUS REPORT SUBMITTED AUGUST 13, 2012

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 95 Filed 08/13/12 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:598

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1
I hereby certify that on this 13th day of August, 2012, I filed the foregoing 2 Joint Status Report using the Court’s CM/ECF filing system, which shall serve as
notice of such filing on all counsel of record. I further certify that this Joint Status 3 Report will be served via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, on all
parties which have not yet entered their appearances. 4

5

s/ Miriam Becker-Cohen

Miriam Becker-Cohen

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
-11JOINT STATUS REPORT SUBMITTED AUGUST 13, 2012

 
 ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
• • Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 82 Page ID #:613

1 MICHAEL G. ALLEN*

DAVID GEFFEN #129342

D. SCOTT CHANG #146403

DAVID GEFFEN LAW FIRM

2 JAMIE L. CROOK #245757

530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205

RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX

Santa Monica, CA 90401

3

PLLC 1225 19

th

St.

NW,

Suite

600

Telephone: (310) 434-1111 FacsImile: (310) 434-1115

4 Washington D.C. 20036

Geffenlaw@aol.com

Telephone: (202) 728-1888

5 FacsImile: (202) 728-0848

DARA SCHUR #98638

schang@relmanlaw.com

DISABILITY RIGHTS

6

CALIFORNIA

* Application for admission

1330 Broadway, Suite 500

7 PJo nac vice approved by

Oakland, CA 94612

Court order Doc. No. 15
8

Telephone: (510) 267-1200 FacsImile: (~1 0)267 -1201

PAULA D. PEARLMAN

Dara. Schur@disabilityrightsca

9 #109038

.org

MARIA MICHELLE UZETA

10 #164402

AUTUMN ELLIOTT #230043

UMBREEN BHATTI

KEVIN BAYLEY #218070

11 Registered Legal Services

DISABILITY RIGHTS

Attorne}, #801~58

CALIFORNIA

12 DISABILITY RIGHTS

350 S. Bixel Ave., Suite 290

LEGAL CENTER

Los Angeles, CA 90017

13 Loyola Public Interest Law

Telephone: (213) 213-8000

Center

FacsImile: (2131213-8001

14 800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite

J\utumn.Elhott@disability

1120

nghtsca.org

15 Los Angeles CA 90017

16

Telephone: FacsImile:

((221133))~773366--11442986

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Michelle. Uzeta@lls.edu

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

18

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

fiLED

(WESTERN DIVISION)

CtERR U.S. DISTRICT COU--R"T"l

19

INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF 20 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California
non_-jJr-0fit corporation; FAIR HOUSING

CASE NO. C 0551 SJO (PJ

1
)

-

NJi

2
0.'

0u4~012

'

21 COUNCIL OFSAN FERNANDO VALLEY, a California non-profit

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALlFOfiNIA
SEC 0 ND AM ....:-N'H+-:-H-_ _---!D..E..P..!.L.!T.J.....jY

22 corporation; and COMMUNITIES

COMPLAINT FOR

ACTIVELY LIVING INDEPENDENT

INJUNCTIVE,

23 AND FR.EE, a California non-profit

DECLARATORY,

corporatIOn,

AND MONETARY

24

RELIEF; DEMAND

Plaintiffs,

FOR TRIAL BY

25

JURY

vs.

26
CITY OF LOS ANGELES~

27 CALIFORNIA, a CalifornIa municipal

corporation' COMMUNITY

28 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE

- 1-
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

• Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 2 of 82 Page ID #:614
1 CITY OF LOS ANGELES ajJublic entity; CRA/LA DESIGNATED LOCAL
2 AUTHORITY, a public entity and successor agency to the COMMUNITY
3 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES; OVERSIGHT
4 BOARD FOR THE CRA/LA DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, a
5 public entity; 105 EAST "I" STREET, L.P., a California limited partnership;
6 12129 EL DORADO AVENUE, L.P., a California limited partnership; 4651
7 HUNTINGTON, L:P., a California limited partnership; 505 BONNIE BRAE
8 PARTNERS, L.P:.4 a California limited partnershiP; 90 1 ~OUTH BROADWAY
9 STREET LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California limited partnership; ADAMS
10 935, L.P., a California limited partnership; AMCAL MONTECITO
11 FUND, L.P., a California limited partnershiP· AMISTAD PLAZA
12 PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California limited partnershiQ;
13 ANDALUCIA SENIOR APARTMENTS, L.P., a California limited partnership;
14 ARDMORE 959 PARTNERS, L.P., a California limited jlartnership;
15 ASTURIAS SENIOR APARTMENTS, L.P., a California limited gartnership,
16 B S BROADWAY VILLAGE II, L.P., a California limited Jlartnership;
17 BEHRINGER HARVARD NOHO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
18 BUCKINGHAM SENIOR APARTMENTS, L.P. a California
19 limitedjJartnershiQ; CANTABRIA SENIOR APARTMENTS, L.P., a
20 California limited partnership; CARONDELET COURT PARTNERS,
21 L.P., a California limited partnership~ CENTRAL VILLAGE APARTMENT~,
22 L.P;.{ a California limited partnership; DEcRO ORION APARTMENTS, L.P. a
23 California limited partnership; DECRO OSBORNE APARTMENTS, L.P., a
24 California limited partnershiJl; EAST LA COMMUNITY CORPORATfON, a
25 California corporation; EASTSIDE VILLAGE, L.P., a CalIfornia limited
26 Qartnership; ESPERANZA COMMUNITY HOUSING
27 CORPORATION a California corporation; EUGENE HOTEL, L.P., a
28 CalIfornia limited partnership; FAME -2 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 3 of 82 Page ID #:615
1 WEST 25 1fl STREET, L.P., a California limited partnership; FAR EAST
2 BUILDING, L.P., a California limited partnership; GRANDVIEW NINE, L.P.
3 a CalifornIa limited partnership; HART VILLAGE, L.P., a California lImited
4 partnership; HEAVENLY VISION SENIOR HOUSING, L.P., a California
5 limited Qartnership; HOBART HEIGHTS PARTNERS, L.P., a California limited
6 Qartnership; HOOVER SENIORS, L.P., a California limited partnership; IMANI
7 FE, LP, a CalifornIa limited partnership; KOREAN FAMILY HOUSING
8 CORPORATION, a California corporation; LAS MARGARITAS, L.P.,
9 a California limited Qartnership; LOS ANGELES HOUSING PARTNERSHIP,
10 INC., a California corporatio~ LOS CUATRO VIENTOS L.P., a california
11 limited partnership; MENLO PARK, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED
12 PARTNERSHIP, a California limited Qartnership; MORGAN PLACE L.P., a
13 California limited partnership; NEW GENESIS APARTMENTS, L.P., a
14 California limited partnershiP; NEW TIERRA DEL SOL, L.P., a California
15 limited partnership; NOHO SENIOR VILLAS, L.P., a California limited
16 Qartnership; OL HOPE, L.P.) a California limited ~artnershIp; P G
17 HOUSING PARTNERS, L.P., a California limited ~artnership~ PALM
18 VILLAGE SENIOR HOUSING CORP., a California corporation; PALOMAR
19 APARTMENTS, L.P., a California limited partnership; PENNY LANE
20 CENTERS, a California corporation; RAMPART APARTMENTS, A
21 CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIPba California limited
22 partnership; RE ROCK NOHO RESIDENTIAL, LLC, a Delaware
23 limited liability company; RENATO APARTMENTS, L.P., a California
24 limitedJ~artnership; RITTENHOUSE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California
25 limited~artnership; SELMA-HUDSON COMMUNITY LIMITED
26 PARTNERSHIP, a California limited Qartnership; SEVEN MAPLES, L.P. a
27 California limited partnership; SHERMAN VILLAGE APARTMENTS,
28 L.P., a California limited partnership;
-3 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et af v, City ofLos Angeles, et ai" Case No, CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWj First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 4 of 82 Page ID #:616

1 SHERMAN WAY COMMUNITY HOUSING, L.P;..?,. a California limited
2 Qartnership; STvVALL HOUSING CORPORATION, a California
3 corporation; VERMONT SENIORS a CalIfornia corporation; WA COURt,
4 L.P., a California limited partnership; WATTS/ATHENS PRESERVATION
5 XVII, L.P., a California limited partnership; WEST ANGELES VILLAS,
6 L.P ~ a California limited partnership; WE~TERN/CARLTON II, L.P., a
7 California limited partnership; and YALE TERRACE APARTMENTS, A
8 CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California limited
9 partnership,

10

Defendants.

11

12

13

14

INTRODUCTION

15

1. This civil rights action is brought because public money

16 that was to be used to build and provide affordable, accessible

17 housing was misapplied, denying hundreds of people with

18 disabilities housing over many years. The Plaintiffs are the

19 Independent Living Center of Southern California ("ILCSC"), a

20 non-profit independent living center for people with disabilities,

21 the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley ("FHC"), a non-

22 profit fair housing organization, and Communities Actively Living

23 Independent and Free ("CALIF"), a non-profit independent living

24 center for people with disabilities. Their claims are brought

25 against the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los

26 Angeles ("CRA"), the CRA/LA Designated Local Authority, a

27 public entity ("Local Authority") and successor agency to the

28 Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles;

-4 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v, City ofLos Angeles, et aI" Case No, CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 5 of 82 Page ID #:617

1 the Oversight Board for the CRA/LA Designated Local Authority

2 ("Oversight Board"), a public entity; and the City of Los Angeles

3 ("City") in its own capacity and in its capacity as a successor

4 housing agency to Defendant CRA. The claims arise from their

5 collective failure to ensure that housing is accessible and available

6 to people with disabilities as required under federal and state civil

7 rights law. In this Second Amended Complaint ("Complaint"), the

8 City, the CRA, the Local Authority, and the Oversight Board may

9 be referred to collectively as "Government Defendants." The

10 CRA, the Local Authority, the Oversight Board, and the City in its

11 capacity as successor housing agency may be referred to

12 collectively as the "Redevelopment Defendants."

13

2. This Complaint alleges that the Government Defendants

14 have engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against

15 people with disabilities in violation of Section 504 of the

16 Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

17 (the "ADA"), the Fair Housing Act, and California Government

18 Code § 11135. These Defendants have failed to ensure that

19 housing funded, developed, or significantly assisted by the

20 Redevelopment Defendants as part of their housing programs is

21 accessible to people with disabilities. These Defendants have also

22 knowingly allocated millions of dollars in federal, state and other

23 funds to finance housing throughout Los Angeles without ensuring

24 that their programs as a whole and the housing they developed,

25 funded, and significantly assisted is accessible and made

26 meaningfully available to people with disabilities.

27

3. Plaintiffs join the Owner Defendants-current owners

28 of 61 housing developments that received federal funds through

-5-
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 6 of 82 Page ID #:618

1 the Redevelopment Defendants-solely because they may be

2 necessary to effectuate any injunctive relief with respect to access,

3 retrofitting and policy implementation that the Court may order.

4

4. The Government Defendants' violations of federal and

5 state civil rights laws have thwarted efforts by Congress and the

6 California legislature to eradicate discrimination against people

7 with disabilities, and rendered Defendants' housing programs and

8 housing units unavailable to people with disabilities in direct

9 contravention of their intended purpose. Enforcement of Section

10 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, the Fair

11 Housing Act, and California Government Code § 11135 against the

12 Government Defendants is necessary because of the extensive

13 nature of the civil rights violations in their housing programs.

14

JURISDICTION

15

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to

16 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory

17 and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202

18 and 1343, and by Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil

19 Procedure.

20

6. Plaintiffs' claims for violations of California state law

21 concern the same actions and omissions that form the basis of

22 Plaintiffs' claims under federal law such that they are all part of

23 the same case or controversy. This Court has supplemental

24 jurisdiction over those state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

25 1367.

26

7. This action for declaratory and injunctive relief arises

27 in part under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29

28

-6 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 7 of 82 Page ID #:619

1 U.S.C. § 794; Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, et seq.; and

2 the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq.

3

VENUE

4

8. Venue is proper in the Central District of California

5 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § I39I(b) because Defendants operate and

6 perform their official duties therein and thus reside there for

7 purposes of venue, and because a substantial part of the events and

8 omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in Los Angeles

9 County, which is in the Central District of California.

10

PARTIES

11

9. The Independent Living Center of Southern California

12 ("ILCSC") is an independent living center for people with

13 disabilities and has its principal place of business in Van Nuys. It

14 is a non-profit, community-based corporation that provides a wide

15 range of services to people with disabilities and seniors in the City

16 of Los Angeles and adjoining areas. It is governed by a Board of

17 Directors that must always contain at least 51 % people with

18 disabilities.

19

10. ILCSC's mission is to provide services which offer

20 people with disabilities and seniors the opportunity to seek an

21 individual course towards independence, while educating the

J

22 community. The vast majority of clients served by ILCSC are

23 poor because their disabilities limit their ability to work, and they

24 therefore rely on public and private programs intended to serve

25 people with low incomes.

26

11. During 2011, ILCSC served approximately 6,000 new

27 clients, with more than half requesting assistance with searching

28 for accessible and/or affordable housing or removing barriers to

-7-
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 8 of 82 Page ID #:620

1 accessible housing, requiring it to devote 2.5 full-time equivalent

2 employees to assist clients with housing needs. In addition,

3 ILCSC's Systems Advocacy Coordinator devoted one-quarter of

4 his time to addressing housing accessibility issues, including

5 meetings with elected officials, employees of the Government

6 Defendants and others to alert them to the severe need for

7 accessible affordable housing and noncompliance with federal

8 accessibility requirements in housing funded, developed, or

9 significantly assisted by the Government Defendants.

10

12. ILCSC seeks to have its clients' needs met by public

11 and private programs that serve residents of the City of Los

12 Angeles, and provides services and supports directly only in

13 circumstances where such programs are not serving them

14 adequately.

15

13. During 2011, among ILCSC' s clients seeking assistance

16 with accessible and/or affordable housing, only 10% have found

17 housing that meets their needs. Since 2009, ILCSC has assisted at

18 least two clients seeking to secure accessible housing in buildings

19 constructed with federal funds granted by or through the

20 Redevelopment Defendants, but was not successful. ILCSC also

21 provides services through the California Community Transitions

22 program. Through the California Community Transitions program,

23 ILCSC seeks to help people move from skilled nursing facilities

24 and acute care hospitals back into community living. ILCSC

25 assists clients with locating and obtaining affordable housing,

26 provides security deposits and first month's rent, and assists with

27 home modification and durable medical equipment, among other

28 serVIces.

-8-
Independent Living Center o/Southern California, et al v. City o/Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 9 of 82 Page ID #:621

1

14. A substantial majority of ILCSC's clients, employees,

2 and community advisory board ("constituents") are people with

3 disabilities, or family of people with disabilities, who have been

4 harmed and continue to be harmed because the Government

5 Defendants have failed and continue to fail to ensure that housing

6 funded, developed, or significantly assisted by the Defendants as

7 part of their housing programs is accessible to people with

8 disabilities.

9

15. Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley ("FHC")

10 is a non-profit fair housing membership organization, incorporated

11 under the laws of the State of California, and serving clients in

12 portions of the City of Los Angeles and adjoining areas.

13

16. FHC' s mission is to eliminate housing discrimination

14 and to expand housing choices for people with disabilities and

15 members of other classes protected under federal and state civil

16 rights and equal opportunity statutes and regulations. FHC assists

17 people with disabilities to file housing discrimination complaints.

18 Between 2008 and 2011, 21 % of all such complaints were filed by

19 people with physical disabilities, and a majority of these sought

20 more accessible housing.

21

17. FHC also responds to inquiries about the availability of

22 housing for people with disabilities. Between 2008 and 2011, 23%

23 of all of FHC' s inquiries were from people with physical

24 disabilities, and a majority of these sought more accessible

25 housing.

26

18. In response to a lack of information about accessible

27 affordable housing, from 2008 to the present, FHC expended

28 substantial staff and monetary resources researching which

-9-
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWj First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 10 of 82 Page ID #:622

1 housing projects contained accessible, affordable housing units,

2 and providing that information to people with disabilities,

3 disability advocacy organizations, and the general public, as well

4 as notifying the City about its concerns and findings.

5

19. FHC engages in a number of activities to further its

6 mission of promoting equal housing opportunities including, but

7 not limited to: education programs in the community; training

8 programs for real estate professionals and the general public; fair

9 housing counseling; and coaching people with disabilities in

10 strategies to advocate for accessible affordable housing.

11

20. FHC constituents, employees, and board of directors

12 include people with disabilities, or family of people with

13 disabilities, who have been harmed and continue to be harmed

14 because the Government Defendants have failed and continue to

15 fail to ensure that housing funded, developed, or significantly

16 assisted by the Defendants as part of their housing programs are

17 accessible to people with disabilities. For instance, a former long-

18 time FHC consultant currently lives in a nursing home because of

19 her inability to find accessible affordable housing in the

20 community. Furthermore, an elderly FHC member and her adult

21 son who is a wheelchair user continue to live in an inaccessible

22 apartment building because of her inability to find accessible

23 affordable housing in the community.

24

21. Communities Actively Living Independent and Free

25 ("CALIF") is an independent living center with its principal place

26 of business in Los Angeles, California. It is a non-profit,

27 community-based corporation that provides services by and to

28 people with disabilities in the City of Los Angeles. CALIF seeks

- 10 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et alv. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 11 of 82 Page ID #:623

1 to achieve full inclusion, equality, and civil rights for people with

2 disabilities. It is governed by a Board of Directors that must

3 always contain at least 51 % people with disabilities.

4

22. CALIF's mission is 1) To achieve greater input,

5 participation, and control over policies and services especially

6 those for people with disabilities, including those that exclude

7 them; 2) To address discrimination wherever it exists; 3) To

8 encourage the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities

9 in mainstream activities that enhance the positive image and

10 experience of disability; 4) To empower people with disabilities

11 by encouraging ongoing education and a broad knowledge of the

12 history and heritage of the Disability Movement; and 5) To

13 provide the Disability Community with the following core

14 services: Systems Change Advocacy; Housing Advocacy;

15 Individual and Benefits Advocacy; Personal Assistance Services

16 Advocacy; Information and Referral; Peer Counseling;

17 Independent Living Skills Training; and Assistive Technology.

18

23. The majority of clients served by CALIF are poor

19 because their disabilities limit their ability to work, and therefore

20 they rely on public and private programs intended to serve people

21 with low incomes.

22

24. CALIF served a significant number of clients

23 requesting assistance with searching for accessible and/or

24 affordable housing or removing barriers to accessible housing,

25 requiring it to devote one full-time employee to assist clients with

26 housing needs.

27

25. CALIF's Housing Programs, administered and

28 implemented by its Housing Advocate, include a Tenant-Landlord

- 11 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-055/ SJO (PJWj First Amended Complaint

• Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 12 of 82 Page ID #:624

1 Conflict Resolution program and the California Community

2 Transition program.

3

26. Through the California Community Transitions

4 program, CALIF seeks to help people move from skilled nursing

5 facilities and acute care hospitals back into community living.

6 CALIF assists clients with locating and obtaining affordable

7 housing, provides security deposits and first month's rent, and

8 assists with home modification and durable medical equipment,

9 among other services.

10

27. In addition, CALIF's Housing Advocate provides

11 clients with assistance with applications for Section 8 and other

12 public housing programs; assistance with reasonable

13 accommodation requests in public housing; and information and

14 referrals to various affordable housing programs in the City and

15 County of Los Angeles.

16

28. Over the last four years, CALIF has been forced to

17 divert the time and resources of its Housing Advocate from

18 implementing the above-mentioned housing programs and services

19 to inspecting and confirming the accessibility of housing units to

20 which it refers clients who require housing with accessible

21 features - including units within the Government Defendants'

22 Redevelopment Housing Program. CALIF had previously referred

23 clients to such housing units advertised as accessible, only to have

24 those clients return, upset and complaining that the advertised

25 units were not in fact accessible, or that accessible units did not

26 exist.

27

29. During the time period relevant to the instant

28 Complaint, CALIF's Housing Advocate personally inspected at

- 12 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

• • Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 13 of 82 Page ID #:625

1 least three buildings constructed with funds granted by or through

2 the Government Defendants that boasted that they had accessible

3 units. Barriers discovered at these properties, both in common

4 areas and within the advertised "accessible" units, included

5 doorways that were too narrow to accommodate wheelchairs, and

6 bathrooms and kitchens that lacked accessible features and

7 required clearances. When these barriers have been discovered,

8 CALIF has spent its scarce time and resources counseling

9 frustrated and aggrieved home seekers, and educating housing

10 providers regarding their noncompliance with the law and the

11 housing rights of people with disabilities.

12

30. A substantial majority of CALIF's clients, employees,

13 and community advisory board ("constituents") are people with

14 disabilities, or family of persons with disabilities, who have been

15 harmed and continue to be harmed because the Government

16 Defendants have failed and continue to fail to ensure that housing

17 funded, developed, or significantly assisted by the Defendants as

18 part of their Redevelopment Housing Program is accessible to

19 people with disabilities.

20

31. Defendant City of Los Angeles, California is a

21 municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of

22 California.

23

32. At all times relevant, the City has been a public entity

24 within the meaning of Title II of the ADA.

25

33. At all times relevant, the City has received federal

26 financial assistance within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.

27

28

- 13 -
Independent Living Center o/Southern California, et al v. City o/Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

---------------------------------------------
Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 14 of 82 Page ID #:626

1

34. At all times relevant, the City has received state

2 financial assistance within the meaning of California Government

3 Code § 11135.

4

35. Defendant City of Los Angeles is sued in its own

5 capacity and in its capacity as a successor housing agency to

6 Defendant CRA, as set forth further below.

7

36. Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency of the

8 City of Los Angeles ("CRA") is a public agency authorized, until

9 February 1, 2012, by the California Community Redevelopment

10 Law to conduct redevelopment and revitalization activities using

11 public and private funds in designated areas of the City of Los

12 Angeles.

13

37. At all times relevant, the Defendant CRA has been a

14 public entity within the meaning of Title II of the ADA.

15

38. At all times relevant, the Defendant CRA has received

16 federal financial assistance within the meaning of the

17 Rehabilitation Act.

18

39. At all times relevant, the Defendant CRA has received

19 state financial assistance within the meaning of California

20 Government Code §11135.

21

40. At all times relevant up until February 1,2012, a Board

22 of Commissioners appointed by the Mayor of the City of Los

23 Angeles and confirmed by the Los Angeles City Council has

24 overseen the CRA.

25

41. Under an "Oversight Ordinance," adopted in 1991,

26 every action of the CRA up until February 1, 2012 has been

27 subject to Los Angeles City Council approval. L.A. Ad. Code

28 § 8.99.01, et seq.

- 14 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 15 of 82 Page ID #:627

1

42. Pursuant to the same ordinance, the Los Angeles City

2 Attorney has served as General Counsel for the CRA. L.A. Ad.

3 Code § 8.99.03.

4

43. On June 28, 2011, the Governor of the State of

5 California approved California Assembly Bill ABx 1 26 (2011)

6 ("AB 26"), which was filed with the Secretary of State on June 29,

7 2011, amending California Redevelopment Law, California Health

8 and Safety Code Sections 33500, 33501, 33607.5, and 33607.7,

9 and adding Part 1.8 (commencing with Section 34161) and Part

10 1. 85 (commencing with Section 34170), and adding Section 97.401

11 and 98.2 to the California Revenue and Taxation Code.

12

44. AB 26 fundamentally restructured California

13 Redevelopment Law, dissolving the existing structure of

14 redevelopment agencies and transferring to successor entities all

15 authority, rights, powers, duties and obligations previously vested

16 with the former redevelopment agencies, other than as specified.

17

45. AB 26 set up a timetable and structure for dissolving

18 redevelopment agencies and transferring their remaining

19 obligations to the successor entities. See Cal. Redevelopment

20 Assoc. v. Matosantos, 53 Ca1.4th 231, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 (Dec.

21 29, 2011) (holding that ABx1 26 (,The Dissolution Act') is

22 constitutional and establishing a dissolution date of February 1,

23 2012 for all agencies.)

24

46. Pursuant to AB 26, and specifically California Health &

25 Safety Code Section 34173, and as of February 1, 2012, Defendant

26 CRA was dissolved as part of this fundamental restructuring of

27 redevelopment agencies in California and certain of the CRA' s

28 functions, obligations, liabilities, and assets were transferred to

- 15 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 16 of 82 Page ID #:628

1 two successor entities, specifically a Designated Local Authority

2 called the "CRA/LA Designated Local Authority," and the City of

3 Los Angeles.

4

47. Defendant CRA/LA Designated Local Authority was

5 established on or about February 1,2012.

6

48. Defendant CRA/LA Designated Local Authority is a

7 public entity formed pursuant to California Health & Safety Code

8 34173(d).

9

49. At all times relevant, the Defendant CRA/LA

10 Designated Local Authority has been a public entity within the

11 meaning of Title II of the ADA.

12

50. At all times relevant, the Defendant CRA/LA

13 Designated Local Authority has received federal financial

14 assistance within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.

15

51. At all times relevant, the Defendant CRA/LA

16 Designated Local Authority has received state financial assistance

17 within the meaning of California Government Code § 11135.

18

52. Defendant CRA/LA Designated Local Authority is a

19 successor entity to Defendant CRA, assuming statutorily specified

20 functions, assets, and liabilities of Defendant CRA as of February

21 1,2012, as set out in AB 26.

22

53. On or about January 25, 2012, Defendant City of Los

23 Angeles passed a resolution whereby it elected, pursuant to

24 California Health & Safety Code § 34176(a), to become the

25 successor housing agency to the CRA, to receive and retain the

26 housing assets of Defendant CRA, to perform the housing

27 functions under the California Community Redevelopment Law

28 previously performed by Defendant eRA, and to accept transfer of

- 16 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et 01 v. City ofLos Angeles, et 01., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 17 of 82 Page ID #:629

1 all rights, powers, duties and obligations, except as otherwise

2 provided in California Health & Safety Code Part 1.85, of

3 Defendant CRA related to its housing assets and functions. See

4 Los Angeles City Council File No. 12-0049.

5

54. AB 26, and specifically California Health & Safety

6 Code Sections 34179, et seq., requires that an oversight board

7 consisting of seven members be established to approve and/or

8 direct specified activities of the successor agency.

9

55. On or about May 2,2012, Defendant Oversight Board

10 for CRA/LA, a Designated Local Authority, was officially

11 constituted to assume the statutorily specified functions; members

12 of Defendant Oversight Board were sworn into office; and the first

13 meeting of Defendant Oversight Board took place.

14

56. Each of the Government Defendants was the actual or

15 apparent agent, employee, manager, or representative of each of

16 the other Government Defendants. Each Government Defendant,

17 in doing the acts or omitting to act as alleged in this Complaint,

18 was acting in the course and scope of his, her, or its actual or

19 apparent authority pursuant to such agencies; or the alleged acts or

20 omissions of each Government Defendant as agent were

21 subsequently ratified and adopted by each agent as principal.

22

OWNER DEFENDANTS

23

57. Defendant 105 East "I" Street, L.P. ("105 East I") is a

24 California limited partnership that does business in California,

25 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. 105 East 1

26 currently owns Don Hotel Apartments, a multi-family housing

27 development located at 105 East 1 Street, Los Angeles, California.

28 Don Hotel Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

- 17 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

-------~------

--------------------------

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 18 of 82 Page ID #:630

1

58. Defendant 12129 EI Dorado Avenue, L.P. ("EI Dorado")

2 is a California limited partnership that does business in California,

3 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. El Dorado

4 currently owns El Dorado Apartments, a multi-family housing

5 development located at 12129 EI Dorado Avenue, Los Angeles,

6 California. EI Dorado Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

7

59. Defendant 4651 Huntington, L.P. ("4651 Huntington")

8 is a California limited partnership that does business in California,

9 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. 4651

10 Huntington currently owns Vista Monterey Senior Housing, a

11 multi-family senior housing development located at 4647

12 Huntington Drive North, Los Angeles, California. Vista Monterey

13 Senior Housing is a CRA-assisted development.

14

60. Defendant 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P. ("Bonnie

15 Brae") is a California limited partnership that does business in

16 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

17 Bonnie Brae currently owns Bonnie Brae Apartment Homes, a

18 multi-family housing development located at 501-511 South

19 Bonnie Brae Street, Los Angeles, California. Bonnie Brae

20 Apartment Homes is a CRA-assisted development.

21

61. Defendant 901 South Broadway Street Limited

22 Partnership ("901 South Broadway") is a California limited

23 partnership that does business in California, including in the City

24 and County of Los Angeles. 901 South Broadway currently owns

25 Broadway Plaza Apartments, a multi-family housing development

26 located at 901 South Broadway Street, Los Angeles, California.

27 Broadway Plaza Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

28

- 18 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWj First Amended Complaint

-----------------
Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 19 of 82 Page ID #:631

62. Defendant Adams 935, L.P. ("Adams 935") is a

2 California limited partnership that does business in California,

3 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Adams 935

4 currently owns Adams and Central, a multi-family housing

5 development located at 1011 Adams Boulevard, Los Angeles,

6 California. Adams and Central is a CRA-assisted development.

7

63. Defendant Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P. ("Amcal") is a

8 California limited partnership that does business in California,

9 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Amcal currently

10 owns Montecito Terraces, a multi-family housing development

11 located at 14653-61 and 14726-28 Blythe Street, Los Angeles,

12 California. Montecito Terraces is a CRA-assisted development.

13

64. Defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership

14 ("Amistad") is a California limited partnership that does business

15 in California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

16 Amistad currently owns Amistad Plaza, a multi-family housing

17 development located at 6050-6130 South Western Avenue, Los

18 Angeles, California. Amistad Plaza is a CRA-assisted

19 development.

20

65. Defendant Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P.

21 ("Andalucia") is a California limited partnership that does

22 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

23 Angeles. Andalucia currently owns Andalucia Senior Apartments,

24 a multi-family senior housing development located at 15305

25 Lanark Street, Los Angeles, California. Andalucia Senior

26 Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

27

66. Defendant Ardmore 959 Partners, L.P. ("Ardmore 959")

28 is a California limited partnership that does business in California,

- 19 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et aI., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 20 of 82 Page ID #:632

1 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Ardmore 959

2 currently owns The Ardmore, a multi-family housing development

3 located at 959 South Ardmore Avenue, Los Angeles, California.

4 The Ardmore is a CRA-assisted development.

5

67. Defendant Asturias Senior Apartments, L.P.

6 ("Asturias") is a California limited partnership that does business

7 in California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

8 Asturias currently owns Asturias Senior Apartments, a multi-

9 family senior housing development located at 9628 Van Nuys

10 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Asturias Senior Apartments

11 is a CRA-assisted development.

12

68. Defendant B S Broadway Village II, L.P. ("B S

13 Broadway II") is a California limited partnership that does

14 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

15 Angeles. B S Broadway II currently owns Broadway Village II, a

16 multi-family housing development located at 5101 South

17 Broadway, Los Angeles, California. Broadway Village II is a

18 CRA-assisted development.

19

69. Defendant Behringer Harvard NoHo, LLC ("Behringer

20 Harvard") is a Delaware limited liability company that does

21 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

22 Angeles. Behringer Harvard currently owns Gallery @ NoHo

23 Commons ("Gallery"), a multi-family housing development

24 located at 5416 Fair Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Gallery is a

25 CRA-assisted development.

26

70. Defendant Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P.

27 ("Buckingham") is a California limited partnership that does

28 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

- 20 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 21 of 82 Page ID #:633

1 Angeles. Buckingham currently owns Buckingham Place Senior

2 Housing, a multi-family senior housing development located at

3 4020 Buckingham Road, Los Angeles, California. Buckingham

4 Place Senior Housing is a CRA-assisted development.

5

71. Defendant Cantabria Senior Apartments, L.P.

6 ("Cantabria") is a California limited partnership that does business

7 in California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

8 Cantabria currently owns Cantabria Senior Citizen Apartments, a

9 multi-family senior housing development located at 9640 Van

10 Nuys Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Cantabria Senior

11 Citizen Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

12

72. Defendant Carondelet Court Partners, L.P.

13 ("Carondelet") is a California limited partnership that does

14 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

15 Angeles. Carondelet currently owns Carondelet Court Apartments,

16 a multi-family housing development located at 816 South

17 Carondelet Street, Los Angeles, California. Carondelet Court

18 Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

19

73. Defendant Central Village Apartments, L.P. ("Central

20 Village") is a California limited partnership that does business in

21 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

22 Central Village currently owns Central Village Apartments, a

23 multi-family housing development located at 2000 South Central

24 Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Central Village Apartments is a

25 CRA-assisted development.

26

74. Defendant Decro Orion Apartments, L.P. ("Decro

27 Orion") is a California limited partnership that does business in

28 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

- 21 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et 01 v. City ofLos Angeles, et 01., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWj First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 22 of 82 Page ID #:634

1 Decro Orion currently owns Orion Garden Apartments (aka Decro

2 Orion), a multi-family housing development located at 8947-8955

3 North Orion Street, Los Angeles, California. Orion Garden

4 Apartments (aka Decro Orion) is a CRA-assisted development.

5

75. Defendant Decro Osborne Apartments, L.P. ("Decro

6 Osborne") is a California limited partnership that does business in

7 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

8 Decro Osborne currently owns Decro Osborne Apartments (aka

9 Osborne Family), a multi-family housing development located at

10 12360 Osborne Street, Los Angeles, California. Decro Osborne

11 Apartments (aka Osborne Family) is a CRA-assisted development.

12

76. Defendant East LA Community Corporation ("ELACC")

13 is a California corporation that does business in California,

14 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. ELACC

15 currently owns Boyle Hotel Apartments, a multi-family housing

16 development located at 101 North Boyle Avenue, Los Angeles,

17 California, and Paseo Del Sol, another multi-family housing

18 development located at 417 North Soto Street, Los Angeles,

19 California. Boyle Hotel Apartments and Paseo Del Sol are both

20 CRA-assisted developments.

21

77. Defendant Eastside Village, L.P. ("Eastside Village") is

22 a California limited partnership that does business in California,

23 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Eastside Village

24 currently owns Eastside Village (Lillian Mobley), a multi-family

25 housing development located at 2250 East III th Street, Los

26 Angeles, California. Eastside Village (Lillian Mobley) is a CRA-

27 assisted development.

28

- 22 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et aI., Case No. CV 12-05518.10 (PJW) First Amended Complaint

• Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 23 of 82 Page ID #:635

1

78. Defendant Esperanza Community Housing Corporation

2 ("Esperanza") is a California corporation that does business in

3 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

4 Esperanza currently owns La Estrella Apartments, a multi-family

5 housing development located at 1979 Estrella Avenue, Los

6 Angeles, California. La Estrella Apartments is a CRA-assisted

7 development.

8

79. Defendant Eugene Hotel, L.P. ("Eugene") is a

9 California limited partnership that does business in California,

10 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Eugene

11 currently owns Eugene Hotel, a multi-family housing development

12 located at 560 South Stanford Street, Los Angeles, California.

13 Eugene Hotel is a CRA-assisted development.

14

80. Defendant Fame West 25 th Street, L.P. ("Fame West") is

15 a California limited partnership that does business in California,

16 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Fame West 17 currently owns FAME West 25 th (aka FAME-Western), a multi18 family housing development located at 1940 West 25 th Street, Los 19 Angeles, California. FAME West 25 th (aka FAME-Western) is a

20 CRA-assisted development.

21

81. Defendant Far East Building, L.P. ("Far East") is a

22 California limited partnership that does business in California,

23 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Far East

24 currently owns Far East Building, a multi-family housing

25 development located at 347-353 East First Street, Los Angeles,

26 California. Far East Building is a CRA-assisted development.

27

82. Defendant Grandview Nine, L.P. ("Grandview") is a

28 California limited partnership that does business in California,

- 23 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWj First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 24 of 82 Page ID #:636

1 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Grandview

2 currently owns Grandview 9, a multi-family housing development

3 located at 916-920 South Park View Street, Los Angeles,

4 California. Grandview 9 is a CRA-assisted development.

5

83. Defendant Hart Village, L.P. ("Hart") is a California

6 limited partnership that does business in California, including in

7 the City and County of Los Angeles. Hart currently owns Hart

8 Village, a multi-family housing development located at 6927 -41

9 Owensmouth Avenue/21702-12 Hart Street, Los Angeles,

10 California. Hart Village is a CRA-assisted development.

11

84. Defendant Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P.

12 ("Heavenly Vision") is a California limited partnership that does

13 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

14 Angeles. Heavenly Vision currently owns Heavenly Vision

15 Seniors, a multi-family senior housing development located at

16 9400 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California. Heavenly Vision

17 Seniors is a CRA-assisted development.

18

85. Defendant Hobart Heights Partners, L.P. ("Hobart") is a

19 California limited partnership that does business in California,

20 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Hobart currently

21 owns The Hobart, a multi-family housing development located at

22 924 South Hobart Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. The Hobart

23 is a CRA-assisted development.

24

86. Defendant Hoover Seniors, L.P. ("Hoover") is a

25 California limited partnership that does business in California,

26 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Hoover

27 currently owns Hoover Senior, a multi-family senior housing

28 development located at 6200-6214 South Hoover Street, Los

- 24 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et aI., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

• Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 25 of 82 Page ID #:637

1 Angeles, California. Hoover Senior is a CRA-assisted

2 development.

3

87. Defendant Imani Fe, LP ("Imani Fe") is a California

4 limited partnership that does business in California, including in

5 the City and County of Los Angeles. Imani Fe currently owns

6 Imani Fe (East and West), a multi-family housing development

7 located at 10345 and 10408-10424 South Central Avenue, Los

8 Angeles, California. Imani Fe (East and West) is a CRA-assisted

9 development.

10

88. Defendant Korean Family Housing Corporation

11 ("Korean Family Housing") is a California corporation that does

12 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

13 Angeles. Korean Family Housing currently owns Pleasant Hill

14 Homes, a multi-family housing development located at 1315

15 Pleasant Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Pleasant Hill Homes is

16 a CRA-assisted development.

17

89. Defendant Las Margaritas, L.P. is a California limited

18 partnership that does business in California, including in the City

19 and County of Los Angeles. Las Margaritas, L.P. currently owns

20 Las Margaritas, a multi-family housing development located at 115

21 and 137 North Soto Street and 319 North Cummings Street, Los

22 Angeles, California. Las Margaritas is a CRA-assisted

23 development.

24

90. Defendant Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc.

25 ("L.A. Housing Partnership") is a California corporation that does

26 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

27 Angeles. L.A. Housing Partnership currently owns Bronson Court,

28 a multi-family housing development located at 1227-39 North

- 25 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et 01 v. City ofLos Angeles, et 01., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 26 of 82 Page ID #:638

1 Bronson Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Bronson Court is a

2 CRA-assisted development.

3

91. Defendant Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P. ("LCV") is a

4 California limited partnership that does business in California,

5 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. LCV currently

6 owns Cuatro Vientos, a multi-family housing development located

7 at 5331 East Huntington Drive, Los Angeles, California. Cuatro

8 Vientos is a CRA-assisted development.

9

92. Defendant Menlo Park, A California Limited

10 Partnership ("Menlo Park") is a California limited partnership that

11 does business in California, including in the City and County of

12 Los Angeles. Menlo Park currently owns Menlo Park Apartments, 13 a multi-family housing development located at 831 West 70 th

14 Street, Los Angeles, California. Menlo Park Apartments is a

15 CRA-assisted development.

16

93. Defendant Morgan Place, L.P. ("Morgan") is a

17 California limited partnership that does business in California,

18 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Morgan

19 currently owns Morgan Place Senior Apartments, a multi-family

20 senior housing development located at 7301-15 South Crenshaw

21 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Morgan Place Senior

22 Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

23

94. Defendant New Genesis Apartments, L.P. ("New

24 Genesis") is a California limited partnership that does business in

25 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles. New

26 Genesis currently owns New Genesis Apartments, a multi-family

27 housing development located at 452-458 South Main Street, Los

28

- 26 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 27 of 82 Page ID #:639

1 Angeles, California. New Genesis Apartments is a CRA-assisted

2 development.

3

95. Defendant New Tierra del Sol, L.P. ("New Tierra") is a

4 California limited partnership that does business in California,

5 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. New Tierra

6 currently owns Tierra del Sol, a multi-family housing development

7 located at 7500 Alabama Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Tierra

8 del Sol is a CRA-assisted development.

9

96. Defendant NoHo Senior Villas, L.P. ("NoHo Senior") is

10 a California limited partnership that does business in California,

11 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. NoHo Senior

12 currently owns NoHo Senior Villas, a multi-family housing

13 development located at 5526-5532 Klump Avenue, Los Angeles,

14 California. NoHo Senior Villas is a CRA-assisted development.

15

97. Defendant 01 Hope, L.P. ("01 Hope") is a California

16 limited partnership that does business in California, including in

17 the City and County of Los Angeles. 01 Hope currently owns

18 Hope Manor, a multi-family housing development located at 1031

19 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, California. Hope Manor is a

20 CRA-assisted development.

21

98. Defendant P G Housing Partners, L.P. ("P G Housing")

22 is a California limited partnership that does business in California,

23 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. P G Housing

24 currently owns Pico/Gramercy, a multi-family housing

25 development located at 3201 West Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles,

26 California. Pico/Gramercy is a CRA-assisted development.

27

99. Defendant Palm Village Senior Housing Corp. ("Palm

28 Village") is a California corporation that does business in

- 27 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWj First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 28 of 82 Page ID #:640

1 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Palm

2 Village currently owns Palm Village Senior Citizens, a multi-

3 family senior housing development located at 9040 Laurel Canyon

4 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Palm Village Senior Citizens

5 is a CRA-assisted development.

6

100. Defendant Palomar Apartments, L.P. ("Palomar") is a

7 California limited partnership that does business in California,

8 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Palomar

9 currently owns Palomar Apartments, a multi-family housing

10 development located at 5473 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los

11 Angeles, California. Palomar Apartments is a CRA-assisted

12 development.

13

101. Defendant Penny Lane Centers ("Penny Lane") is a

14 California corporation that does business in California, including

15 in the City and County of Los Angeles. Penny Lane currently

16 owns Columbus Permanent Housing, a multi-family housing

17 development located at 8900-06 Columbus Avenue, Los Angeles,

18 California. Columbus Permanent Housing is a CRA-assisted

19 development.

20

102. Defendant Rampart Apartments, A California Limited

21 Partnership ("Rampart") is a California limited partnership that

22 does business in California, including in the City and County of

23 Los Angeles. Rampart currently owns Casa Rampart, a multi-

24 family housing development located at 401 and 512 South Rampart

25 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Casa Rampart is a CRA-

26 assisted development.

27

103. Defendant Redrock NoHo Residential, LLC ("Redrock

28 NoHo") is a Delaware limited liability company that does business

- 28 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWj First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 29 of 82 Page ID #:641

1 in California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

2 Redrock NoHo currently owns Lofts @ NoHo Commons ("Lofts"),

3 a multi-family housing development located at 11136 Chandler

4 Boulevard, North Hollywood, California. Lofts is a CRA-assisted

5 development.

6

104. Defendant Renato Apartments, L.P. ("Renato") is a

7 California limited partnership that does business in California,

8 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Renato

9 currently owns Renato Apartments, a multi-family housing

10 development located at 527 -531 South San Julian, Los Angeles,

11 California. Renato Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

12

105. Defendant Rittenhouse Limited Partnership

13 ("Rittenhouse LP") is a California limited partnership that does

14 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

15 Angeles. Rittenhouse LP currently owns Rittenhouse, a multi16 family housing development located at 1100 East 33 rd Street, Los

17 Angeles, California. Rittenhouse is a CRA-assisted development.

18

106. Defendant Selma-Hudson Community Limited

19 Partnership ("Selma-Hudson") is a California limited partnership

20 that does business in California, including in the City and County

21 of Los Angeles. Selma-Hudson currently owns Casa Verde, a

22 multi-family housing development located at 1552 Schrader

23 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Selma-Hudson is a CRA-

24 assisted development.

25

107. Defendant Seven Maples, L.P. ("Seven Maples") is a

26 California limited partnership that does business in California,

27 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Seven Maples

28 currently owns Seven Maples Senior Apartments, a multi-family

- 29 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 30 of 82 Page ID #:642

1 senior housing development located at 2618-30 West 7th Street,

2 Los Angeles, California. Seven Maples Senior Apartments is a

3 CRA-assisted development.

4

108. Defendant Sherman Village Apartments, L.P.

5 ("Sherman Village") is a California limited partnership that does

6 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

7 Angeles. Sherman Village currently owns Sherman Village

8 Apartments, a multi-family housing development located at 18900

9 Sherman Way, Los Angeles, California. Sherman Village

10 Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

11

109. Defendant Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P.

12 ("Sherman Way") is a California limited partnership that does

13 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

14 Angeles. Sherman Way currently owns Three Courtyards

15 Apartments (aka Ivy Terrace), a multi-family housing development

16 located at 13751 Sherman Way, Los Angeles, California. Three

17 Courtyards (aka Ivy Terrace) is a CRA-assisted development.

18

110. Defendant Stovall Housing Corporation ("Stovall

19 Housing") is a California corporation that does business in

20 California, including in the City and County of Los Angeles.

21 Stovall Housing currently owns Stovall Villa, a multi-family

22 housing development located at 535 West 41 st Street, Los Angeles,

23 California. Stovall Villa is a CRA-assisted development.

24

111. Defendant Vermont Seniors is a California corporation

25 that does business in California, including in the City and County

26 of Los Angeles. Vermont Seniors currently owns Vermont Seniors

27 (I and II), a multi-family senior housing development located at 28 3901-3925 South Vermont Avenuell015 West 39th Place, Los

- 30 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 31 of 82 Page ID #:643

1 Angeles, California. Vermont Seniors (I and II) is a CRA-assisted

2 development.

3

112. Defendant WA Court, L.P. ("WA Court") is a California

4 limited partnership that does business in California, including in

5 the City and County of Los Angeles. WA Court currently owns

6 Washington Court Family Housing, a multi-family housing 7 development located at 1717 East 103rd Street, Los Angeles,

8 California. Washington Court Family Housing is a CRA-assisted

9 development.

10

113. Defendant Watts/Athens Preservation XVII, L.P.

11 ("Watts/Athens") is a California limited partnership that does

12 business in California, including in the City and County of Los

13 Angeles. Watts/Athens currently owns Terre One Apartments, a

14 multi-family housing development located at 5270 South Avalon

15 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Terre One Apartments is a

16 CRA-assisted development.

17

114. Defendant West Angeles Villas, L.P. ("WAV") is a

18 California limited partnership that does business in California,

19 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. WAV currently

20 owns West Angeles Villas, a multi-family housing development

21 located at 6030 Crenshaw Boulevard, Los Angeles, California.

22 West Angeles Villas is a CRA-assisted development.

23

115. Defendant Western/Carlton II, L.P. ("Western/Carlton")

24 is a California limited partnership that does business in California,

25 including in the City and County of Los Angeles. Western/Carlton

26 currently owns Metro Hollywood Apartments (aka Hollywood

27 Western Apartments/Western-Carlton Phase II) ("Metro

28 Hollywood"), a multi-family housing development located at 1672

- 31 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 32 of 82 Page ID #:644

1 N. Western Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Metro Hollywood is

2 a CRA-assisted development.

3

116. Defendant Yale Terrace Apartments, A California

4 Limited Partnership ("Yale Terrace") is a California limited

5 partnership that does business in California, including in the City

6 and County of Los Angeles. Yale Terrace currently owns Yale

7 Terrace Apartments, a multi-family housing development located

8 at 716-734 South Yale Street, Los Angeles, California. Yale

9 Terrace Apartments is a CRA-assisted development.

10

STATUTORYAND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

11 I. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

12

117. The purpose of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is to

13 "maximize employment, economic self-sufficiency, independence,

14 and inclusion and integration into society" of people with

15 disabilities. 29 U. S.C. §701 (b)(1). The Rehabilitation Act is based

16 on findings that "individuals with disabilities continually

17 encounter various forms of discrimination in such critical areas as

18 ... housing" and that "the goals of the Nation properly include the

19 goal of providing individuals with disabilities with the tools

20 necessary to ... achieve equality of opportunity, full inclusion

21 and integration in society, employment, independent living, and

22 economic and social self-sufficiency." 29 U.S.C. §701(a)(5) and

23 (6)(B).

24

118. All entities receiving federal financial assistance must

25 comply with the anti-discrimination provisions of Section 504 of

26 the Rehabilitation Act. 29 U.S.C. §794(a). "No otherwise qualified

27 individual with a disability ... shall, solely by reason of his or

28 her disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the

- 32 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWj First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 33 of 82 Page ID #:645

1 benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
2 activity receiving Federal financial assistance ..." 29 u.s.c. §

3 794.

4

119. Section 504 requires covered entities to provide people

5 with disabilities meaningful access to programs, services, and

6 activities. Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985). The

7 meaningful access requirement applies across the board to all of a

8 covered entity's programs, services, and activities, regardless of

9 whether a particular program, service, or activity itself has direct

10 federal funding.

11

120. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

12 ("HUD") Regulations implementing Section 504 provide that "[a]

13 recipient, in providing any housing, aid, benefit, or service in a

14 program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance from

15 the Department [of Housing & Urban Development] may not,

16 directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements,

17 solely on the basis of handicap: ... Aid or perpetuate

18 discrimination against a qualified individual with handicaps by

19 providing significant assistance to an agency, organization, or

20 person that discriminates on the basis of handicap in providing any

21 housing, aid, benefit, or service to beneficiaries in the recipient's

22 federally assisted program or activity"; [or] "Otherwise limit a

23 qualified individual with handicaps in the enjoyment of any right,

24 privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by other qualified

25 individuals receiving the housing, aid, benefit, or service." 24

26 C.F.R. § 8.4(b)(1).

27

121. The HUD regulations implementing Section 504 also

28 require that "[i]n any program or activity receiving Federal

- 33 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV /2-0551 SJO (PJWj First Amended Complaint

• Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 34 of 82 Page ID #:646

1 financial assistance from the Department, a recipient may not,

2 directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize

3 criteria or methods of administration the purpose or effect of

4 which would: (i) Subject qualified individuals with handicaps to

5 discrimination solely on the basis of handicap; (ii) Defeat or

6 substantially impair the accomplishment of the objectives of the

7 recipient's federally assisted program or activity for qualified

8 individuals with a particular handicap involved in the program or

9 activity, unless the recipient can demonstrate that the criteria or

10 methods of administration are manifestly related to the

11 accomplishment of an objective of a program or activity; or (iii)

12 Perpetuate the discrimination of another recipient if both

13 recipients are subject to common administrative control or are

14 agencies of the same State." 24 C.F.R. § 8.4(b)(4).

15

122. In addition to general program requirements, HUD

16 Section 504 regulations also describe specific architectural and

17 other requirements that apply to particular housing proj ects or

18 units receiving federal financial assistance.

19

123. For example, five percent of the total dwelling units in

20 new multifamily housing proj ects receiving federal financial

21 assistance must meet the requirements set forth in the Uniform

22 Federal Accessibility Standards ("UFAS") for accessibility for

23 people with mobility impairments, and an additional two percent

24 must be accessible per UF AS requirements for people with hearing

25 or vision impairments. 24 C.F.R. §8.22(a) and (b).

26

124. Multifamily housing proj ects receiving federal financial

27 assistance must take steps to ensure that accessible dwelling units

28 in those projects are occupied by people who need the accessibility

- 34 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 35 of 82 Page ID #:647

1 features of those units, including offering available units first to

2 people who need the accessibility features and taking steps to

3 assure that advertising and other information regarding the

4 availability of accessible units reaches people with disabilities. 24

5 C.F.R. §8.27.

6

125. Accessible units must also be distributed throughout

7 housing projects and sites to the maximum extent feasible and be

8 available in a range of sizes and amenities so that a person with a

9 disability's choice of living arrangements is comparable to that of

10 others.

11

126. The regulations regarding these specific requirements

12 provide important guidance regarding what steps may be necessary

13 to ensure that people with physical disabilities have meaningful

14 access to a housing program, and the Court may accept them as

15 authoritative interpretations of the statute by the agency charged

16 with enforcement.

17 II. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

18

127. The Americans with Disabilities Act, which is modeled

19 on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, was enacted "to provide

20 a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of

21 discrimination against individuals with disabilities" with "clear,

22 strong, consistent, enforceable standards ... in order to address

23 the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with

24 disabilities." 42 U.S.C. §12101(b).

25

128. All public entities, including state and local

26 governments and their departments, agencies, and

27 instrumentalities, must comply with Title II of the Americans with

28 Disabilities Act.

- 35 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV I 2-055I SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 36 of 82 Page ID #:648

1

129. Title II of the ADA provides that "no qualified

2 individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be

3 excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the

4 services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected

5 to discrimination by such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

6

130. Like Section 504, Title II of the ADA requires covered

7 entities to provide people with disabilities meaningful access to

8 programs, services, and activities. Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F .3d

9 1480 (9th Cir. 1996). The meaningful access requirement applies

10 across the board to all of a covered entity's programs, services,

11 and activities, regardless of whether a particular program, service,

12 or activity itself has direct federal funding.

13

131. U.S. Department of Justice Regulations implementing

14 Title II of the ADA clarify that "[a] public entity, in providing any

15 aid, benefit or service, may not, directly or through contractual,

16 licensing or other arrangements, on the basis of disability ....

17 [a]id or perpetuate discrimination against a qualified individual

18 with a disability by providing significant assistance to an agency,

19 organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of disability

20 in providing any aid, benefit, or service to beneficiaries of the

21 public entity's program;" [or] "Otherwise limit a qualified

22 individual with a disability in the enjoyment of any right,

23 privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving

24 the aid, benefit, or service." 28 C.F .R. § 35 .130(b)(1).

25

132. Department of Justice Regulations implementing Title

26 II also clarify that "[a] public entity may not, directly or through

27 contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of

28 administration: (i) That have the effect of subjecting qualified

- 36 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 37 of 82 Page ID #:649

1 individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of

2 disability; (ii) That have the purpose or effect of defeating or

3 substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the

4 public entity's program with respect to individuals with

5 disabilities; or (iii) That perpetuate the discrimination of another

6 public entity if both public entities are subject to common

7 administrative control ..." 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3).

8 III. The Fair Housing Act

9

133. In 1988, Congress amended the Fair Housing Act to

10 include a number of provisions prohibiting discrimination on the 11 basis of disability, as part of a comprehensive revision of the law. 1

12 In considering those amendments, Congress stressed that

13 enforcement of civil rights laws is necessary to protect people with

14 disabilities from the "devastating" impact of housing

15 discrimination, including both architectural and attitudinal barriers

16 to full participation by people with disabilities

17

134. The debates and legislative history of the Fair Housing

18 Amendments Act of 1988 reflect Congressional findings that a

19 person using a wheelchair or other mobility aid is just as

20 effectively excluded from the opportunity to live in a particular

21 dwelling by steps or thresholds at building or unit entrances and

22 by too narrow doorways as by a posted sign saying "No

23 Handicapped People Allowed."

24 I The Fair Housing Amendments Act ("FHAA") uses the term "handicap"
25 instead of the term "disability." Both terms have the same legal meaning. See Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 631 (1998) (noting that definition of
26 "disability" in the Americans with Disabilities Act is drawn almost verbatim "from the definition of 'handicap' contained in the Fair Housing
27 Amendments Act of 1988"). Except when referring to the statutory language of the FHAA, this Complaint uses the term "disability," which is
28 more generally accepted.

- 37 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 38 of 82 Page ID #:650

1

135. As relevant in this litigation, the Fair Housing Act

2 prohibits both intentional discrimination on the basis of disability

3 and many neutral policies and practices that have a

4 disproportionate adverse impact on people with disabilities. 42

5 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(l) and 3604(f)(2).

6 IV. Section 11135 of the California Government Code

7

136. All entities receiving financial assistance from the State

8 of California must comply with Section 11135 of the California

9 Government Code, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of

10 disability. Section 11135 incorporates the definitions of

11 discrimination contained in the ADA and its implementing

12 regulations such that a violation of the ADA is also a violation of

13 § 11135. California Government Code § 1113 5(b).

14

FACTS

15 I. Lack of Affordable. Accessible Housing in Los Angeles

16

137. In order to obtain federal housing and community

17 development funds, the City submits a Consolidated Plan to HUD

18 every five years describing the housing market and housing needs

19 within Los Angeles.

20

138. According to the 2008-2013 Consolidated Plan, Los

21 Angeles is home to large numbers of people with disabilities. In

22 2000, 20.4% of the population of Los Angeles five years old and

23 older had a disability. 2008-2013 Consolidated Plan at 176.

24 Almost 45% of the population of Los Angeles 65 years old and

25 older had a disability in 2000. Id. Nearly one-quarter of disabled

26 adults and two-thirds of adults over the age of 65 have physical

27 limitations.ld. at 93. In addition, 24% of the people with

28

- 38 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWj First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 39 of 82 Page ID #:651

1 disabilities living in Los Angeles have vision or hearing

2 limitations. Id.

3

139. The City states in the Consolidated Plan that people

4 with physical limitations require accessible housing and that there

5 is an acute need for accessible housing in Los Angeles. The City

6 found that "[fJinding affordable, accessible units is a challenge" in

7 the City of Los Angeles. Id. at 94.

8

140. The City states that "there are hundreds of thousands of

9 individuals, and families, in Los Angeles, who require accessible,

10 affordable housing and do not have it." Id. at 180.

11

141. The City's Housing Element of its General Plan is the

12 City's "blueprint" for meeting the housing requirements of its

13 residents and "identifies the City's housing conditions and needs."

14 City of Los Angeles Housing Element 2006-2014 at 1. This

15 Housing Element was adopted pursuant to California laws

16 requiring that the City adopt a General Plan Housing Element with

17 certain specified information. California Government Code

18 §§ 65300, et seq.)

19

142. In its Housing Element, the City recognizes that people

20 "with physical disabilities need affordable, conveniently-located

21 housing which has been specially adapted for wheelchair

22 accessibility, along with other physical needs." City of Los

23 Angeles Housing Element 2006-2014 at 1-16.

24

143. The City acknowledges that older, more affordable

25 housing units in the City "are not accessible to those with

26 disabilities." Id.

27

144. The City reports that "[0]ver one-half of all disabled

28 adults in the City have' going-outs ide-home ' or other employment

- 39 -
Independent Living Center a/Southern California, et alv. City a/Los Angeles, et a/., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 40 of 82 Page ID #:652

1 limitations which affect the ability to work and earn an income."

2 I d. at 1-14.

3

145. As a result, people with disabilities "face unique

4 problems in obtaining affordable and adequate housing" in Los

5 Angeles. Id.

6 II.
7 8

Federal and State Financial Assistance to the City and the
eRA
146. Since at least 1974, the City has received federal

9 housing and community development funds from HUD, as well as

10 federal funds from other federal agencies.

11

147. The City has received federal funds under the

12 Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") program.

13

148. The City has received federal funds under the HOME

14 Investment Partnership ("HOME") program.

15

149. The City has received federal funds under the

16 Emergency Shelter Grant ("ESG") program.

17

150. The City has received federal funds under the Housing

18 Opportunities for People with AIDS ("HOPWA") program.

19

151. The City has also benefitted from the proceeds of

20 federal loan guarantees pursuant to Section 108 of the Community

21 Development Act. 42 U.S.C. § 5308.

22

152. The City has directed millions of dollars in CDBG and

23 HOME funds as well as state, local, and private resources to an

24 Affordable Housing Trust Fund for the purposes of developing

25 affordable housing.

26

153. By virtue of this commingling with federal funds, the

27 anti-discrimination requirements of the Rehabilitation Act and the

28 ADA attach to all funds in the Trust Fund.

- 40 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et aI., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 41 of 82 Page ID #:653

1

154. As part of its affordable housing program, the City has

2 directed hundreds of millions of dollars in CDBG, HOME,

3 Affordable Housing Trust Funds, state, and other funds to the

4 Redevelopment Defendants.

5

155. The City has also received funds from the State of

6 California.

7

156. The Redevelopment Defendants have received millions

8 of dollars in federal housing and community development funds,

9 as well as federal funds from other federal agencies.

10

157. The Redevelopment Defendants have also received

11 funds from the State of California.

12 III. Government Defendants' Redevelopment Housing Program
13

14

158. The Redevelopment Defendants used these funds and

15 others directly to acquire property eventually developed into

16 housing and/or allocated these and other funds to developers to

17 acquire property, finance, operate, build or substantially alter tens

18 of thousands of housing units.

19

159. The Redevelopment Defendants also used other

20 financing, regulatory, contractual, and governmental methods to

21 support their housing programs and to provide significant

22 assistance to developers, owners, and operators of housing.

23

160. Pursuant to a staff report presented to the Local

24 Authority at an April 19, 2012 Special Meeting, entitled "Report

25 to the Governing Board on Status of Housing Functions and

26 Transfer of Housing Assets, Functions, and Obligations to the Los

27 Angeles Housing Department (LAHD)" ("April 19, .2012 Housing

28 Report"), there were over 29,000 units of housing, including

- 41 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al.. Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 42 of 82 Page ID #:654

1 23,000 affordable units, in the Redevelopment Defendants'

2 portfolio as of April 19,2012.

3

161. Pursuant to the April 19, 2012 Housing Report, as of

4 April 19, 2012, there were nearly 4,500 additional units in the

5 Redevelopment Defendants' development "pipeline," i.e.

6 somewhere in the process of development.

7

162. There were thousands of additional units funded,

8 developed or significantly assisted by the Redevelopment

9 Defendants that are no longer in its existing portfolio.

10

163. All of these units were constructed as part of the

11 Government Defendants' program, service, or activity of

12 increasing the availability of housing, including affordable

13 housing, in the City of Los Angeles.

14

164. The inventory of housing built or rehabilitated with

15 funds, land, or other assistance provided by or through the

16 Redevelopment Defendants, including projects not yet completed,

17 is hereinafter referred to as the "Redevelopment Housing

18 Program."

19 IV. Defendants' Failure to Ensure that Peo~le with Physical

Disabilities Have Meaningful Access to he eRA Housing

20

Program

21

165. By virtue of accepting federal funds to support the

22 Redevelopment Housing Program, the Government Defendants are

23 bound to comply with the obligations of Section 504 of the

24 Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits recipients from operating

25 programs which exclude people with disabilities from participation

26 in, deny them the benefits of, or subject them to discrimination

27 under any program or activity.

28

- 42 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 43 of 82 Page ID #:655

1

166. As public entities, the Government Defendants are

2 bound to comply with the obligations of the Americans with

3 Disabilities Act, which prohibits public entities from operating

4 programs which exclude people with disabilities from participation

5 in, deny them the benefits of, or subject them to discrimination

6 under any program or activity.

7

167. By virtue of accepting financial assistance from the

8 State of California, the Government Defendants are bound to

9 comply with the obligations of Section 11135 of the California

10 Government Code, which prohibits recipients from operating

11 programs which exclude people with disabilities from participation

12 in, deny them the benefits of, or subject them to discrimination

13 under any program or activity.

14

168. However, the Government Defendants failed, and

15 continue to fail, to take steps to ensure that the Redevelopment

16 Housing Program is accessible to people with disabilities or that

17 any accessible units that exist are made available to people with

18 disabilities.

19

169. As a result, people with physical disabilities have been

20 and continue to be denied meaningful access to the Redevelopment

21 Housing Program.

22

170. For example, the Government Defendants failed, and

23 continue to fail, to maintain policies or practices to ensure that the

24 Redevelopment Housing Program contains sufficient units

25 accessible to people with mobility, auditory, or visual

26 impairments.

27

171. The Government Defendants failed, and continue to

28 fail, to maintain policies, practices, or procedures to ensure that

- 43 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 44 of 82 Page ID #:656

1 accessible units within the Redevelopment Housing Program are

2 made available to and utilized by people with mobility or auditory

3 or visual impairments who need the accessibility features of those

4 units.

5

172. The Government Defendants have failed, and continue

6 to fail, to maintain policies, practices, or procedures to ensure that

7 people with mobility or auditory or visual impairments otherwise

8 have meaningful access to the Redevelopment Housing Program.

9

173. At all relevant times, the Government Defendants could

10 not or would not identify for the public which projects receiving

11 financial or other benefit from the Redevelopment Defendants

12 received federal financial assistance triggering Rehabilitation Act

13 and regulatory obligations.

14

174. At all relevant times, the Government Defendants failed

15 to monitor compliance with the Rehabilitation Act accessibility

16 requirements in the Redevelopment Housing Program.

17

I 75. At all relevant times, the Government Defendants failed

18 to maintain a list of accessible units within the Redevelopment

19 Housing Program.

20

176. At all relevant times, the Government Defendants failed

21 to produce any list of accessible units within the Redevelopment

22 Housing Program.

23

177. At all relevant times, the Government Defendants

24 could not or would not identify for the public any wheelchair-

25 accessible or sensory-accessible units.

26

178. At all relevant times, the Government Defendants could

27 not or would not describe for the public any accessible features in

28

- 44 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

• Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 45 of 82 Page ID #:657

1 so-called "wheelchair units," "handicapped units," or "sensory

2 accessible units" within the Redevelopment Housing Program.

3

179. The Government Defendants have failed, and continue

4 to fail, to require that projects within the Redevelopment Housing

5 Program comply with federal accessibility requirements, which has

6 the effect of excluding people with disabilities from such

7 developments.

8

180. In addition, the Government Defendants failed to ensure

9 that contracts and regulatory agreements with developers, owners,

10 and operators of housing in the Redevelopment Housing Program

11 and other documents pertaining to the Redevelopment Housing

12 Program included accessibility requirements sufficient to comply

13 with the Government Defendants' obligations as recipients of

14 federal funds.

15

181. The Government Defendants also failed to exercise

16 oversight over developers and owners of housing in the

17 Redevelopment Housing Program in regards to their obligations to

18 comply and their ongoing compliance with disability access

19 provisions of federal law.

20

182. The Government Defendants' failures with regard to

21 ensuring the accessibility of the Redevelopment Housing Program

22 stand in stark contrast to their efforts to enforce other

23 requirements, such as regulatory provisions concerning

24 affordability requirements.

25

183. In addition to their failure to comply with accessibility

26 requirements for the redevelopment project as a whole, the

27 Government Defendants failed to ensure compliance with these

28 requirements in housing where the Government Defendants were

- 45 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et 01 v. City ofLos Angeles, et 01., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWj First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 46 of 82 Page ID #:658

1 providing federal funding to the developer and/or owner for the

2 project.

3

184. For example, Plaintiffs are aware of at least 61

4 multifamily projects, comprising approximately 4,140 units, for

5 which the Redevelopment Defendants provided CDBG, HOME

6 and/or AHTF funds to support new construction or substantial

7 alteration. The multifamily projects include but are not limited to:

8 Don Hotel Apartments (58 units); El Dorado Apartments (60

9 units); Vista Monterey Senior Housing (48 units); Bonnie Brae

10 Apartment Homes (53 units); Broadway Plaza Apartments (82

11 units); Adams and Central (80 units); Montecito Terraces (98

12 units); Amistad Plaza (56 units); Andalucia Senior Apartments (94

13 units); The Ardmore (48 units); Asturias Senior Apartments (69

14 units); Broadway Village II (50 units); Buckingham Place Senior

15 Housing (71 units); Cantabria Senior Citizen Apartments (81

16 units); Carondelet Court Apartments (32 units); Central Village

17 Apartments (85 units); Orion Garden Apartments (aka Decro

18 Orion) (32 units); Decro Osborne Apartments (aka Osborne

19 Family) (50 units); Boyle Hotel Apartments (51 units); Paseo Del

20 Sol (7 units); Eastside Village (Lillian Mobley) (78 units); La

21 Estrella Apartments (11 units); Eugene Hotel (44 units); FAME 22 West 25 th (aka FAME-Western) (12 units); Far East Building (16

23 units); Grandview 9 (62 units); Hart Village (47 units); Heavenly

24 Vision Seniors (46 units); The Hobart (49 units); Hoover Senior

25 (38 units); Imani Fe (East and West) (92 units); Pleasant Hill

26 Homes (24 units); Las Margaritas (42 units); Bronson Court (32

27 units); Cuatro Vientos (25 units); Menlo Park Apartments (48

28 units); Morgan Place Senior Apartments (55 units); New Genesis

- 46 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV /2-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 47 of 82 Page ID #:659

1 Apartments (106 units); Tierra del Sol (119 units); NoHo Senior

2 Villas (25 units); Hope Manor (75 units); Pico/Gramercy (71

3 units); Palm Village Senior Citizens (60 units); Palomar

4 Apartments (28 units); Columbus Permanent Housing (6 units);

5 Casa Rampart (69 units); Lofts (292 units); Renato Apartments (97

6 units); Rittenhouse (100 units); Casa Verde (30 units); Seven

7 Maples Senior Apartments (57 units); Gallery (438 units);

8 Sherman Village Apartments (33 units); Three Courtyards

9 Apartments (aka Ivy Terrace) (52 units); Stovall Villa (31 units);

10 Vermont Seniors (I and II) (140 units); Washington Court Family

11 Housing (101 units); Terre One Apartments (15 units); West

12 Angeles Villas (150 units); Metro Hollywood (60 units); and Yale

13 Terrace Apartments (55 units). The number of units at each

14 project are based upon information and belief.

15

185. None of the 61 federally-funded multifamily projects

16 contains units accessible to people with mobility and/or auditory

17 or visual impairments in sufficient numbers, sizes and locations to

18 provide people with disabilities meaningful access to this program,

19 service, or activity in violation of Section 504 of the

20 Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, the Fair Housing Act, and

21 Government Code § 11135.

22

186. Moreover, the steps outlined in the Section 504

23 regulations to maximize the utilization of accessible dwelling units

24 by people who need the accessibility features of those units were

25 not taken.

26

187. By letter of January 11, 2012, the HUD Office of Fair

27 Housing and Equal Opportunity notified the City and the CRA of

28 the results of a compliance review, which found that "the City and

- 47 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et 01 v. City ofLos Angeles, et 01., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 48 of 82 Page ID #:660

1 the CRA are not monitoring the policies and procedures of

2 federally-funded recipients in several key areas, and that the

3 policies in place are not implemented in a manner that ensures that

4 these policies and practices do not discriminate against qualified

5 individuals with disabilities because of their disability.... there

6 is no monitoring of Section 504 compliance, and ... an overall

7 lack of knowledge as to the duties and responsibilities with respect

8 to Section 504." HUD Letter of Findings of Noncompliance,

9 January 11,2012, at 7.

10

188. HUD also "found that a large percentage of residents

11 without disabilities currently occupy the designated accessible

12 units in several HUD-funded developments," and that, with no

13 oversight from the CRA, many developments had offered

14 accessible dwelling units to the general population on a lottery or

15 wait-list basis without regard to disability or need for accessibility

16 features. Id. at 8.

17

189. The City has annually certified its compliance, and the

18 compliance of its subrecipients, including CRA, with federal

19 housing and civil rights laws to HUD and other federal agencies in

20 order to ensure its continuing receipt of federal funds.

21

190. Nonetheless, and in violation of the federal and state

22 civil rights laws referenced above, the Government Defendants

23 failed, and continue to fail, to ensure that housing within the

24 Redevelopment Housing Program complies with applicable law

25 and is accessible to people with disabilities. As a result, people

26 with physical disabilities who require accessible units are denied

27 meaningful access to the Redevelopment Housing Program.

28

- 48 -
Independent Living Center a/Southern California, et alv. City a/Los Angeles, et aI., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 49 of 82 Page ID #:661

1

191. The Government Defendants' policy of failing to ensure

2 that all of the housing projects within the Redevelopment Housing

3 Program-regardless of affordability status or receipt of federal

4 funds-comply with applicable regulations and are accessible to

5 people with disabilities has a different and disparate impact on

6 people with physical disabilities, who have a particular need for

7 housing with accessibility features, and has the effect of excluding

8 people with physical disabilities.

9

192. A disproportionate percentage of people with

10 disabilities in Los Angeles have low incomes because of the work

11 limitations imposed by their disabilities.

12

193. People with disabilities have a particular need for

13 accessible units because people with low income cannot afford to

14 pay for significant modifications to their housing units.

15

194. People with disabilities have a particular need for

16 affordable, accessible units because people with low income

17 cannot afford more expensive housing units.

18

195. As a result, the Government Defendants' failure to

19 ensure that affordable housing within the Redevelopment Housing

20 Program complies with applicable laws and is accessible to people

21 with disabilities has a different and disparate impact on people

22 with physical and sensory disabilities and has the effect of

23 disproportionately excluding people with physical and sensory

24 disabilities from Redevelopment Housing Program.

25 V. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

26

196. On or about January 12, 2012, Plaintiffs presented their

27 claims for money or damages under state law to the City pursuant

28 to California Government Code § 900, et seq.

- 49 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV /2-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 50 of 82 Page ID #:662

1

197. By correspondence dated February 22, 2012, the City

2 denied Plaintiffs' state law tort claims for money or damages.

3

198. Plaintiffs have met any applicable requirement that they

4 exhaust administrative remedies in order to bring state law damage

5 claims against the City.

6

199. On or about January 12,2012, Plaintiffs presented their

7 claims for money or damages under state law to the CRA pursuant

8 to California Government Code § 900, et seq.

9

200. As of the filing of this Second Amended Complaint,

10 none of the Redevelopment Defendants have responded to

11 Plaintiffs regarding Plaintiffs' state law tort claims for money or

12 damages.

13

201. Plaintiffs have met any applicable requirement that they

14 exhaust administrative remedies in order to bring state law damage

15 claims against the Redevelopment Defendants.

16

INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS

17 I.
18

Injury to Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California

19

202. As a result of the actions described above, ILCSC and

20 its constituents have been directly and substantially injured.

21 These actions have frustrated Plaintiff ILCSC 's mission and

22 undermined the effectiveness of the programs and services it

23 provides, including encouraging community integration of people

24 with disabilities, providing assistance to individuals and families

25 searching for housing or affected by discriminatory housing

26 practices, and eliminating discriminatory housing practices.

27

203. Because the Government Defendants have not complied

28 with their obligations to ensure that their Redevelopment Housing

- 50 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV I2-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 51 of 82 Page ID #:663

1 Program met accessibility requirements, and because they have

2 failed to inform the public of the existence of any accessible units,

3 ILCSC has been required to devote substantial staff time and

4 money assisting people with disabilities to locate and secure such

5 accessible housing.

6

204. As a consequence of the violations by the Government

7 Defendants described herein, ILCSC has had to divert its scarce

8 resources away from its educational and other programs focused

9 on expanding housing choice for its constituents and toward

10 efforts focused on securing compliance with federal accessibility

11 requirements in the Government Defendants' Redevelopment

12 Housing Program.

13

205. In addition, ILCSC has invested considerable time and

14 effort in educating the City, the Redevelopment Defendants, the

15 housing industry, and the general public about the importance of

16 accessible housing for people with disabilities, in an attempt to

17 secure compliance.

18

206. Each time any of the Government Defendants failed to

19 ensure that housing in the Redevelopment Housing Program was

20 accessible, it frustrated the mission of ILCSC inasmuch as it made

21 it difficult or impossible for people with disabilities to live in that

22 housing.

23

207. The Government Defendants' conduct reduced the

24 effectiveness of outreach and advocacy efforts by ILCSC and

25 required it to provide additional educational programs to

26 counteract the impression left by the Government Defendants'

27 conduct that constructing inaccessible residential housing is

28 permissible.

- 51 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et 01 v. City ofLos Angeles, et 01., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 52 of 82 Page ID #:664

1

208. The Government Defendants' continuing discriminatory

2 practices have forced ILCSC to divert scarce resources to identify,

3 investigate, and counteract the Government Defendants'

4 discriminatory practices, and such practices have frustrated

5 Plaintiff's other efforts against discrimination, causing Plaintiff to

6 suffer concrete and demonstrable injuries.

7

209. ILCSC has expended resources attempting to counteract

8 the Government Defendants' discriminatory practices including,

9 but not limited to, counseling people with disabilities affected by

10 the Government Defendants' discriminatory practices and

11 conducting outreach to the City and the Redevelopment

12 Defendants about the accessibility requirements under federal law,

13 resulting in the diversion of resources that it would not have had

14 to expend were it not for the Government Defendants' violations.

15

210. Until remedied, the Government Defendants' unlawful,

16 discriminatory actions will continue to injure ILCSC by:

17

a. Interfering with efforts and programs intended to

18

bring about equality of opportunity in housing;

19

b. Requiring the commitment of scarce resources,

20

including substantial staff time and funding, to

21

investigate and counteract the Government

22

Defendants' discriminatory conduct, thus diverting

23

those resources from ILCSC's other activities and

24

services, such as education, outreach and counseling;

25

and

26

c. Frustrating the mission and purposes of ILCSC.

27

28

- 52 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 53 of 82 Page ID #:665

1 II.
2
3

Injury to Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley 211. As a result of the actions described above, FRe and its

4 constituents have been directly and substantially injured. These

5 actions have frustrated Plaintiff FRe's mission and undermined

6 the effectiveness of the programs and services it provides,

7 including encouraging community integration of people with

8 disabilities, providing assistance to individuals and families

9 searching for housing or affected by discriminatory housing

10 practices, and eliminating discriminatory housing practices.

11

212. Because the Government Defendants have not complied

12 with their obligations to ensure that their Redevelopment Rousing

13 Program met accessibility requirements, and because they have

14 failed to inform the public of the existence of any accessible units,

15 FRe has been required to devote substantial staff time and money

16 assisting people with disabilities to locate and secure such

17 accessible housing.

18

213. Between 2008 and 2011, FRe's Deputy Director

19 devoted at least one-third of her time to addressing housing

20 accessibility issues, including meetings with elected officials,

21 employees of the Government Defendants, and others to alert them

22 to the severe need for accessible affordable housing and

23 noncompliance with federal accessibility requirements in buildings

24 funded by or through the Government Defendants.

25

214. Because the Redevelopment Defendants could not or

26 would not publicly identify the location of any unit in the entire

27 eRA inventory that met the accessibility requirements of the

28 Rehabilitation Act, FRe was required to expend substantial staff

- 53 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 54 of 82 Page ID #:666

1 time and scarce resources on researching the location of accessible

2 affordable housing and making that information available to its

3 constituents.

4

215. As a consequence of the violations described herein,

5 FHC has had to divert its scarce resources away from its

6 educational and other programs focused on expanding housing

7 choice for its constituents and toward efforts focused on securing

8 compliance with federal accessibility requirements in the

9 Redevelopment Housing Program.

10

216. In addition, FHC has invested considerable time and

11 effort in reporting to Government Defendants the extent of

12 noncompliance in federally-funded, CRA-assisted buildings in Los

13 Angeles, and educating the housing industry, and the general

14 public about the importance of accessible housing for people with

15 disabilities, in an attempt to secure compliance.

16

217. Each time any of the Defendants failed to ensure that

17 housing funded in part by federal housing and community

18 development funds was accessible, it frustrated the mission of

19 FHC inasmuch as it made it difficult or impossible for people with

20 disabilities to live in that housing.

21

218. Defendants' conduct reduced the effectiveness of

22 outreach and advocacy efforts by FHC and required it to provide

23 additional educational programs to counteract the impression left

24 by Defendants' conduct that constructing inaccessible residential

25 housing is permissible.

26

219. Defendants' continuing discriminatory practices have

27 forced FHC to divert scarce resources to identify, investigate, and

28 counteract the Defendants' discriminatory practices, and such

- 54 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et 01 v. City ofLos Angeles, et 01., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 55 of 82 Page ID #:667

1 practices have frustrated FHC' s other efforts against

2 discrimination, causing FHC to suffer concrete and demonstrable

3 InJurIes.

4

220. FHC has expended resources attempting to counteract

5 Defendants' discriminatory practices including, but not limited to,

6 counseling people with disabilities affected by Defendants'

7 discriminatory practices and conducting outreach to the City and

8 the Redevelopment Defendants about the accessibility

9 requirements under federal law, resulting in the diversion of

10 resources that it would not have had to expend were it not for

11 Defendants' violations.

12

221. Until remedied, Defendants' unlawful, discriminatory

13 actions will continue to injure FHC by:

14

a. Interfering with efforts and programs intended to

15

bring about equality of opportunity in housing;

16

b. Requiring the commitment of scarce resources,

17

including substantial staff time and funding, to

18

investigate and counteract Defendants'

19

discriminatory conduct, thus diverting those

20

resources from the Plaintiff's other activities and

21

services, such as education, outreach and counseling;

22

and

23

c. Frustrating the missions and purposes of FHC.

24 III. In~ury to Plaintiff Communities Actively Living In ependent and Free
25

26

222. As a result of Defendants' actions described above,

27 CALIF and its constituents have been directly and substantially

28 injured.

- 55 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWj First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 56 of 82 Page ID #:668

1

223. Each time any of the Government Defendants failed to

2 ensure that housing funded in part by federal housing and

3 community development funds was accessible, it frustrated the

4 mission of CALIF inasmuch as it made it difficult or impossible

5 for people with disabilities to live at that dwelling, and

6 undermined the effectiveness of the programs and services it

7 provides, including promoting the community integration of

8 people with disabilities, providing assistance to individuals and

9 families searching for housing or affected by discriminatory

10 housing practices, and eliminating discriminatory housing

11 practices.

12

224. Because the Government Defendants have not complied

13 with their obligations to ensure that their Redevelopment Housing

14 Program meets accessibility requirements, and because they have

15 failed to inform the public about the existence of any accessible

16 units, CALIF has been required to devote substantial staff time

17 and money assisting people with disabilities to locate and secure

18 such accessible housing. CALIF has had to divert its scarce

19 resources away from its housing programs focused on expanding

20 housing choice for its clients as outlined herein, and toward efforts

21 focused on confirming and securing compliance with federal

22 accessibility requirements in the Redevelopment Housing Program.

23

225. In addition, CALIF has expended resources attempting

24 to counteract the Government Defendants' discriminatory practices

25 including, but not limited to, counseling people with disabilities

26 affected by the Government Defendants' discriminatory practices

27 and educating housing providers and the general public about

28 federal accessibility requirements and the importance of accessible

- 56 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 57 of 82 Page ID #:669

1 housing to people with disabilities, resulting in the diversion of

2 resources that they would not have had to expend were it not for

3 the Government Defendants' violations.

4

226. The Government Defendants' continuing discriminatory

5 practices have forced, and will continue to force CALIF to divert

6 scarce resources to identify, investigate, and counteract the

7 Government Defendants' discriminatory practices, and such

8 practices have frustrated Plaintiff's other efforts against

9 discrimination, causing Plaintiff to suffer concrete and

10 demonstrable injuries.

11

227. Until remedied, the Government Defendants' unlawful,

12 discriminatory actions will continue to injure CALIF by:

13

a.

Interfering with efforts and programs intended to

14

bring about equality of opportunity in housing;

15

b. Requiring the commitment of scarce resources,

16

including substantial staff time and funding, to

17

investigate and counteract the Government

18

Defendants' discriminatory conduct, thus

19

diverting those resources from CALIF's other

20

activities and services, such as education,

21

outreach and counseling; and

22

c. Frustrating the missions and purposes of CALIF.

23 IV. Injuries to All Plaintiffs

24

228. By the actions described above, the Government

25 Defendants have engaged in, and continue to engage in a pattern or

26 practice of discrimination against people with disabilities in

27 violation of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with

28 Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and Government Code §

- 57 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et aI., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

• Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 58 of 82 Page ID #:670

1 11135. The Government Defendants continue to engage in such a

2 pattern, practice, or policy of discrimination so as to constitute a

3 continuing violation.

4

229. The Government Defendants have acted or failed to act

5 with deliberate indifference. The Government Defendants have

6 known that their acts and omissions create a substantial likelihood

7 of harm to Plaintiffs' federally protected rights, and the

8 Government Defendants have failed to act upon that likelihood.

9

230. There now exists an actual controversy between the

10 parties regarding the Government Defendants' duties under the

11 federal and state civil rights laws. Plaintiffs accordingly are

12 entitled to declaratory relief.

13

231. The Government Defendants, unless enjoined, will

14 continue to engage in the unlawful acts and the pattern or practice

15 of discrimination and unlawful conduct described above.

16

232. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Plaintiffs

17 now are suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury

18 from the Government Defendants' acts and unlawful conduct

19 unless relief is provided by this Court. Plaintiffs thus are entitled

20 to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

21

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

22

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

23

SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT

24

[29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.]

25

[All Plaintiffs Against City;

26

Owner Defendants Named as Rule 19 Parties Only]

27

233. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each

28 and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

- 58 -
Independent Living Center o/Southern California, et al v. City o/Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 59 of 82 Page ID #:671

1

234. Defendant City of Los Angeles' discriminated and

2 continues to discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of

3 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by acting or failing to act in

4 a manner that, among other things:

5

a. Denies meaningful access to the Redevelopment

6

Housing Program to people with mobility

7

impairments and visual and hearing disabilities;

8

b. Has a disparate impact on people with mobility

9

impairments and visual and hearing disabilities;

10

c. Aids or perpetuates discrimination against people

11

with disabilities when such discriminatory conduct is

12

engaged in by the Redevelopment Defendants and

13

others who have received financial or other

14

significant assistance from the City as part of the

15

Redevelopment Housing Program.

16

d. Uses methods of administration that discriminate

17

against people with disabilities, defeating the

18

purpose of the Redevelopment Housing Program,

19

and/or that perpetuate the discrimination of other

20

agencies by failing to ensure that the Redevelopment

21

Housing Program provides accessible housing or

22

otherwise provides meaningful access to people with

23

mobility, visual, or hearing impairments.

24

e. Otherwise limits people with disabilities from

25

enjoying housing or the opportunity to obtain such

26

housing by engaging in the policies, practices, acts,

27

and omissions described above.

28

- 59 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, e/ al v. City ofLos Angeles, et aI., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 60 of 82 Page ID #:672

1

235. As a result of the discrimination alleged in the previous

2 paragraph, Plaintiffs have sustained the injuries described herein.

3

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4

SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT

5

[29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.]

6

[All Plaintiffs Against Redevelopment Defendants;

7

Owner Defendants Named as Rule 19 Parties Only]

8

236. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each

9 and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

10

237. The Redevelopment Defendants discriminated and

11 continue to discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of

12 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by acting or failing to act in

13 a manner that, among other things:

14

a. Denies meaningful access to the Redevelopment

15

Housing Program to people with mobility

16

impairments and visual and hearing disabilities.

17

b. Has a disparate impact on people with mobility

18

impairments and visual and hearing disabilities.

19

c. Aids or perpetuates discrimination against people

20

with disabilities when such discriminatory conduct is

21

engaged in by the Redevelopment Defendants and

22

others who have received financial or other

23

significant assistance from the City as part of the

24

Redevelopment Housing Program.

25

d. Uses methods of administration that discriminate

26

against people with disabilities, defeating the

27

purpose of the Redevelopment Housing Program,

28

and/or that perpetuate the discrimination of other

- 60 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et 01 v. City ofLos Angeles, et 01., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 61 of 82 Page ID #:673

1

agencies by failing to ensure that the redevelopment

2

housing provides meaningful access to people with

3

mobility, visual, or hearing impairments.

4

e. Otherwise limits people with disabilities from

5

enjoying housing or the opportunity to obtain such

6

housing by engaging in the policies, practices, acts,

7

and omissions described above.

8

238. As a result of the discrimination alleged in the previous

9 paragraph, Plaintiffs have sustained the injuries described herein.

10

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

12

[42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq.]

13

[All Plaintiffs Against City;

14

Owner Defendants Named as Rule 19 Parties Only]

15

239. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each

16 and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

17

240. Defendant City of Los Angeles' discriminated and

18 continues to discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of

19 Title II of the ADA by acting or failing to act in a manner that,

20 among other things:

21

a. Denies meaningful access to the Redevelopment

22

Housing Program to people with mobility

23

impairments and visual and hearing disabilities.

24

b. Has a disparate impact on people with mobility

25

impairments and visual and hearing disabilities.

26

c. Aids or perpetuates discrimination against people

27

with disabilities when such discriminatory conduct is

28

engaged in by the Redevelopment Defendants and

- 61 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et alv. City ofLos Angeles, et a/., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 62 of 82 Page ID #:674

1

others who have received financial or other

2

significant assistance from the City as part of the

3

Redevelopment Housing Program.

4

d. Uses methods of administration that discriminate

5

against people with disabilities, defeating the

6

purpose of the Redevelopment Housing Program,

7

and/or that perpetuate the discrimination of other

8

agencies by failing to ensure that the Redevelopment

9

Housing Program provides accessible housing or

10

otherwise provides meaningful access to people with

11

mobility, visual, or hearing impairments.

12

e. Otherwise limits people with disabilities from

13

enjoying housing or the opportunity to obtain such

14

housing by engaging in the policies, practices, acts,

15

and omissions described above.

16

241. As a result of the discrimination alleged in the previous

17 paragraph, Plaintiffs have sustained the injuries described herein.

18

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

20

[42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq.]

21

[All Plaintiffs Against Redevelopment Defendants;

22

Owner Defendants Named as Rule 19 Parties Only]

23

242. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each

24 and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

25

243. The Redevelopment Defendants' actions and failures to

26 act discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of Title II of

27 the ADA and its implementing regulations by engaging in the

28 following actions or omissions:

- 62 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 63 of 82 Page ID #:675

1

a. Denies meaningful access to the Redevelopment

2

Housing Program to people with mobility

3

impairments and visual and hearing disabilities.

4

b. Has a disparate impact on people with mobility

5

impairments and visual and hearing disabilities.

6

c. Aids or perpetuates discrimination against people

7

with disabilities when such discriminatory conduct is

8

engaged in by the Redevelopment Defendants and

9

others who have received financial or other

10

significant assistance from the City as part of the

11

Redevelopment Housing Program.

12

d. Uses methods of administration that discriminate

13

against people with disabilities, defeating the

14

purpose of the Redevelopment Housing Program,

15

and/or that perpetuate the discrimination of other

16

agencies by failing to ensure that the redevelopment

17

housing provides meaningful access to people with

18

mobility, visual, or hearing impairments.

19

e. Otherwise limits people with disabilities from

20

enjoying housing or the opportunity to obtain such

21

housing by engaging in the policies, practices, acts,

22

and omissions described above.

23

244. As a result of the discrimination alleged in the previous

24 paragraph, Plaintiffs have sustained the injuries described herein.

25

26

27

28

- 63 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et 01 v. City ofLos Angeles, et 01., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 64 of 82 Page ID #:676

1

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

FAIR HOUSING ACT

3

[42 U.S.C. §3601, et seq.]

4

[All Plaintiffs Against Government Defendants;

5

Owner Defendants Named as Rule 19 Parties Only]

6

245. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each

7 and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

8

246. Plaintiffs are aggrieved persons as defined in 42 U.S.C.

9 § 3602(i).

10

247. Government Defendants' policy or practice of failing to

11 act to ensure that housing projects within the Redevelopment 12 Housing Program are physically accessible as required under other

13 laws has a disparate impact on people with disabilities such that

14 Government Defendants injured Plaintiffs in violation of the

15 federal Fair Housing Act and its implementing regulations by

16 committing the following discriminatory housing practices:

17

a. Otherwise making unavailable dwellings because of

18

handicap.

19

b. Discriminating in the terms, conditions, and

20

privileges of the rental of a dwelling because of

21

handicap.

22

c. Discouraging persons from inspecting, purchasing or

23

renting a dwelling because of handicap.

24

d. Limiting the use of privileges, services or facilities

25

associated with a dwelling because of handicap.

26

248. As a result of the discrimination alleged in the previous

27 paragraph, Plaintiffs have sustained the injuries described herein.

28

- 64 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et 01 v. City ofLos Angeles, et 01., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 65 of 82 Page ID #:677

1

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 11135

3

[All Plaintiffs Against Government Defendants;

4

Owner Defendants Named as Rule 19 Parties Only]

5

249. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every

6 allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

7

250. Through their acts and omissions described herein,

8 Government Defendants have violated and will continue to violate

9 California Government Code § 11135 by unlawfully denying

10 people with disabilities the benefits of, and unlawfully subjecting

11 people with disabilities to discrimination under, Defendants'

12 programs and activities.

13

251. As a result of the discrimination alleged in the previous

14 paragraph, Plaintiffs have sustained the injuries described herein.

15

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

16

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter an order

17 against Defendants, together and individually, as follows:

18

A. Declare that the Government Defendants' policies,

19 practices, acts, and omissions as set forth above violate:

20

a. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

21

b. Title II of the ADA,

22

c. Government Code § 11135;

23

B. Enjoin the Government Defendants, their officers,

24 directors, employees, agents, managers, successors, assigns, and

25 all other persons in active concert or participation with any of

26 them, both temporarily during the pendency of this action, and

27 permanently, from:

28

- 65 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 66 of 82 Page ID #:678

1

1. Providing funds or property or other significant

2

assistance for land or for the development,

3

construction, or rehabilitation of any housing and/or

4

common areas in buildings containing housing units

5

that, in any way, fail to comply with the accessibility

6

requirements of:

7

a. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

8

b. Title II of the ADA,

9

c. Government Code § 11135;

10

2. Failing or refusing to bring housing and the public

11

use and common use areas in buildings containing

12

housing units that are part of the Redevelopment

13

Housing Program into compliance with the

14

requirements of:

15

a. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

16

b. Title II of the ADA,

17

c. Government Code § 11135; and

18

3. Failing or refusing to otherwise provide

19

meaningful access for people with mobility impairments

20

and visual and hearing disabilities to the

21

Redevelopment Housing Program.

22

C. Enjoin the Government Defendants, their officers,

23 directors, employees, agents, managers, successors, assigns, and

24 all other persons in active concert or participation with any of

25 them from failing or refusing to:

26

1. Survey each and every housing unit in the

27

Redevelopment Housing Program and appurtenant

28

common and public use areas, and assess the

- 66 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 67 of 82 Page ID #:679

1

compliance of each with the accessibility requirements

2

of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the

3

ADA, and Government Code § 11135;

4

2. Report to the Court the extent of the

5

noncompliance with the accessibility requirements of

6

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the

7

ADA, and Government Code § 11135; and

8

3. Bring each and every such housing unit in the

9

Redevelopment Housing Program and appurtenant

10

common and public use areas into compliance with the

11

requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

12

Title II of the ADA, and Government Code § 11135.

13

4. Otherwise provide meaningful access to the

14

Redevelopment Housing Program to people with

15

mobility, visual, or hearing impairments.

16

5. Adopt policies and procedures to ensure that

17

newly built or renovated housing meets the accessibility

18

requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

19

Title II of the ADA, and Government Code § 11135.

20

6. Adopt policies and procedures to ensure that the

21

Owner Defendants and any prospective owner or

22

manager of units in the Redevelopment Housing

23

Program comply with the requirements of Section 504

24

of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, and

25

Government Code § 11135 with respect to assignment

26

of accessible units to residents who need such units

27

because of their disabilities and with respect to

28

- 67 -
Independent Living Center a/Southern California, etalv. City a/Los Angeles, et ai., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 68 of 82 Page ID #:680

1

reasonable accommodation and reasonable

2

modifications in relation to those units.

3

D. Enjoin the Owner Defendants, their officers, directors,

4 employees, agents, managers, successors, assigns, and all other

5 persons in active concert or participation with any of them from

6 failing or refusing to:

7

1. Allow access to all housing built or renovated

8

using federal funds and to appurtenant common and

9

public use areas to effectuate the relief described

10

above, including access for any inspections necessary

11

to determine compliance with accessibility standards,

12

and access for any retrofitting or other physical

13

modifications necessary to bring each and every such

14

apartment complex into compliance with the

15

requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

16

Title II of the ADA, and Government Code § 11135;

17

2. Implement any policy change necessary to provide

18

meaningful access to the Redevelopment Housing

19

Program to people with mobility, visual, or hearing

20

impairments as required by Section 504 of the

21

Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, and

22

Government Code § 11135;

23

3. Allowing any other steps necessary to provide

24

meaningful access to the Redevelopment Housing

25

Program to people with mobility, visual, or hearing

26

impairments.

27

E. Award the Plaintiffs damages against the Government

28 Defendants for Plaintiffs' injuries resulting from the Government

- 68 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV I 2-055I SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 69 of 82 Page ID #:681

1 Defendants' discriminatory practices and conduct.

2

F. Award the Plaintiffs costs of this action and reasonable

3 attorneys' fees pursuant to: 29 U.S.C. § 794a; 42 U.S.C. §§12133

4 and 12205; Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 1021.5 and as otherwise may be

5 allowed by law.

6

G. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems

7 to be just and equitable.

8

JURY DEMAND

9

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
22

23

24

25

26

27

28
- 69 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et 01 v. City ofLos Angeles, et 01., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWj First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 70 of 82 Page ID #:682

1 Dated: August ~~_, 2012
2

Respectfully submitted,

3

4

~~~~. ---------

5

D. SCOTT CHANG #146403

JAMIE L. CROOK #245757

6

RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX

7

PLLC 1225 19

th

St.

NW,

Suite

600

Washington D.C. 20036

8

Telephone: (202) 728-1888

Facsimile: (202) 728-0848

9

schang@relmanlaw.com

10

... App'lication for admission pro

hac vice approved by court order

11

Doc. No. 15

12

~£/~--itNr-.-

13

PAULA D.PEARLMAN #1 9038

MARIA MICHELLE UZETA

14

#164402

UMBREEN BHATTI Registered

15

Legal Services Attorney ~80 1458

DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL

16

CENTER

Loyola Public Interest Law Center

17

800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120

Los Angeles CA 90017

18

Telephone: (213) 736-1496

Facsimile: (213l736-1428

19

Michelle. Uzeta@lls.edu

20 21

~ DAU VIDPGAEnf~F_ T~~-L

DAVID GEFFEN LAW FIRM

22

530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205

Santa Monica, CA 90401

23

Telephone: (310) 434-1111

Facsmilie: (310) 434-1115

24

Geffenlaw@aol.com

25

26

27

28

- 70 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthem Califomla, et al v. City ofLos Angeks, et 01., Case No. CV 12-055J SJO (pJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 71 of 82 Page ID #:683

1

h

UR#98638

~

2

DISABILITY RIGHTS

CALIFORNIA

3

1330 Broadway; Suite 500

Oakland, CA 94612

4

Telephone: (510) 267-1200

FacsImile: ~10)267-1201

5

Dara.Schur@disabilityrightsca

.org

6

7

~~)~C.

AUTUMN ELLIOTT #230043 -

8

KEVIN BAYLEY #218070

DISABILITY RIGHTS

9

CALIFORNIA

350 S. Bixel Ave.,.. Suite 290

10

Los Angeles CA yOO 10-2512

Telephone: (213) 213-8000

11

FacsImile: (213r213-8001

Autumn.EIIIott@disabilityrightsca

12

.org

13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 71 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthem California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al.• Case No. CV 12-0551 SJD (PJW) First Amended Complaint

• Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 72 of 82 Page ID #:684

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2

I hereby certify that on this 20th d~y of August, 2012 I filed the

3

foregoing Second Amended Complaint fur Injunctive, Declaratory, and MoneU!n' Relief; Demand for Trial By J~ and accom~anying document in

4 the traditional manner, in hard copy, at the Court. The Court will enter these

documents via its CMlECF filing system, which shall serve as notice of such

5 filing on all counsel of record.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
- 72 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthem California, e/ aJ 11. Cil)' ofLos Angeles, e/ 0/., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) First Amended Complaint

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 73 of 82 Page ID #:685

Michael G, Allen" D, Scott Chang #146403 Jamie L Crook #245757 RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC 1225 19th St NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 202-728-1888··
*Application for admission pro hac vice approved by COUlt
order Doc, No, 15 ··See attachm nt for additional attorne s

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California non-profit corporation, et aJ. (see attachment)
PLAINTIFF(S)
v.

CASE NUMBER

2: 12-cv-00551-SJO-PJW

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, a California municipal corporation, et al. (see attachment)
DEFENDANT(S).

SUMMONS

TO: DEFENDANT(S): ..:.S~ee~at~ta..:.c..:.hm~en;::.;t_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you
must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached 0 complaint Ii second amended complaint
o counterclaim D cross-claim or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer

or motion must be served on the plaintiffs attorney, Michael G. Allen

, whose address is

ReIman, Dane & Colfax PLLC, 1225 19th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036 . If you fail to do so,

judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Dated: _ _ _~_--",7)J':::'--(Z..JL~~1..::;1-_ - _

By: __),-,--,-~~

[Use 60 days Ifthe defendant is the United States or a United States agency, or is an officer or employee ofthe United States. Allowed
60 days by Rule 12(a)(3)).

CV-OIA (12/07)

SUMMONS

---------
Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 74 of 82 Page ID #:686

1 MICHAEL G. ALLEN*

D. SCOTT CHANG # 146403

2 JAMIE L. CROOK #245757

RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX

3

PLLC 1225

19

th

St.

NW,

Suite

600

DAVID GEFFEN #129342 DAVID GEFFEN LAW FIRM 530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 434-1111 FacsImile: (310) 434-1115

4 Washington D.C. 20036

Geffenlaw@aol.com

Telephone: (202) 728-1888 5 FacsImile: C~02} 728-0848
schang@relmanlaw.com

DARA SCHUR #98638 DISABILITY RIGHTS

6
* Application for admission 7 Rro nac vice approved by
Court order Doc. No. 15
8
PAULA D. PEARLMAN 9 #109038
MARIA MICHELLE UZETA 10 # 164402
UMBREEN BHATTI 11 Registered Legal Services
Attorney #801458 12 DISABILITY RIGHTS
LEGAL CENTER 13 Loyola Public Interest Law
Center 14 800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite
1120

CALIFORNIA 1330 Broadway, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 267-1200 FacsImile: C~ 10)267-1201 Dara. Schur@disabilityrightsca .org AUTUMN ELLIOTT #230043 KEVIN BAYLEY #218070 DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 350 S. Bixel Ave., Suite 290 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 213-8000 FacsImile: (2131213-8001 A-utumn.Elhott@disability nghtsca.org

15 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 736-1496

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16 FacsImile: (213) 736-1428

Michelle. Uzeta@lls.edu

17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

18

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(WESTERN DIVISION)

19
INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF 20 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California
non-p~ofit corporation; FAIR HOUSING

CASE NO. CV 120551 SJO (PJW)

21 COUNCIL OF SAN FERNANDO VALLEY, a California non-profit
22 corporation; and COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING INDEPENDENT

SUMMONS ATTACHMENT

23 AND FREE, a California non-profit

corporation,

24
Plaintiffs,

25
vs.

26
CITY OF LOS ANGELES: 27 CALIFORNIA, a Califorma municipal
corporation; COMMUNITY

28 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE

- 1-
Independent Living Center a/Southern California, et al v. City a/Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Summons Attachment

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 75 of 82 Page ID #:687
1 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a~ublic entijy; CRA/LA DESIGNATED LOCAL
2 AUTHORITY, a public entity and successor agency to the COMMUNITY
3 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES; OVERSIGHT
4 BOARD FOR THE CRA/LA DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, a
5 public entity; 105 EAST "I" STREET, L.P., a California limited partnership;
6 12129 EL DORADO AVENUE, L.P., a California limited partnership; 4651
7 HUNTINGTON, L:P., a California limited partnership; 505 BONNIE BRAE
8 PARTNERS, L.P., a California limited partnership; 901 SOUTH BROADWAY
9 STREET LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California limited partnership; ADAMS
10 935, L.P., a California limited partnership; AMCAL MONTECITO
11 FUND, L.P., a California limited partnership; AMISTAD PLAZA
12 PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California limited 8artnershiQ;
13 ANDALUCIA SENI R APARTMENTS, L.P., a California limited partnership;
14 ARDMORE 959 PARTNERS, L.P., a California limited jJartnership;
15 ASTURIAS SENIOR APARTMENTS, L.P., a California limited Rartnership,
16 B S BROADWAY VILLAGE II, L.P., a California limited Qartnership;
17 BEHRINGER HARVARD NOHO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
18 BUCKINGHAM SENIOR APARTMENTS, L.P., a California
19 limited partnershiQ; CANTABRIA SENIOR APARTMENTS, L.P., a
20 California limited partnership; CARONDELET COURT PARTNERS,
21 L.P., a California limited partnership~ CENTRAL VILLAGE APARTMENT~,
22 L.P., a California limited partnership; DECRO ORION APARTMENTS, L.P., a
23 California limited partnership; DECRO OSBORNE APARTMENTS, L.P., a
24 California limited partnership; EAST LA COMMUNITY CORPORATfON, a
25 California corporationi EASTSIDE VILLAGE, L.P., a Cahfornia limited
26 partnership; ESPERANZA COMMUNITY HOUSING
27 CORPORATION, a California corporation; EUGENE HOTEL, L.P., a
28 CalIfornia limited partnership; FAME
-2-
Independent Living Center a/Southern California. et al v. City a/Los Angeles. et al.. Case No. CV /2-055/ SJO (PJW) Summons Attachment

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 76 of 82 Page ID #:688
1 WEST 25 1D STREET, L.P., a California limitedp~rtnership; FAR EAST
2 BUILDING, L.P., a California limited partnership; GRANDVIEW NINE, L.P.,
3 a Califorma limited partnership; HART VILLAGE, L.P., a California lImited
4 partnership; HEAVENLY VISION SENIOR HOUSING, L.P., a California
5 limited Qartnership; HOBART HEIGHTS PARTNERS, L.P., a California limited
6 partnership; HOOVER SENIORS, L.P., a California limited partnership; IMANI
7 FE, LP, a CalifornIa limited partnership; KOREAN FAMILY HOUSING
8 CORPORATION, a California corporation; LAS MARGARITAS, L.P.,
9 a California limited partnershiQ; LOS ANGELES HOUSING PARTNERSHIP,
10 INC., a California corporation; LOS CUATRO VIENTOS, L.P., a California
11 limited partnership; MENLO PARK, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED
12 PARTNERSHIP, a California limited partnership; MORGAN PLACE, L.P., a
13 California limited partnership; NEW GENESIS APARTMENTS, L.P., a
14 California limited partnership; NEW TIERRA DEL SOL, L.P., a California
15 limited partnership; NOHO SENIOR VILLAS, L.P., a California limited
16 Qartnership; OL HOPE, L.P.} a California limited l'_artnershIp; P G
17 HOUSING PARTNERS, L.P., a California limited partnership; PALM
18 VILLAGE SENIOR HOUSING CORP., a California corporation; PALOMAR
19 APARTMENTS, L.P., a California limited partnership; PENNY LANE
20 CENTERS, a California corporation; RAMPART APARTMENTS, A
21 CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California limited
22 partnership; REDROCK NOHO RESIDENTIAL, LLC, a Delaware
23 limited liability company:; RENATO APARTMENTS, L.P., a California
24 limited partnership; RITTENHOUSE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California
25 limited partnership; SELMA-HUDSON COMMUNITY LIMITED
26 PARTNERSHIP, a California limited partnership; SEVEN MAPLES, L.P. a
27 California limited partnership; SHERMAN VILLAGE APARTMENTS,
28 L.P., a California limited partnership;
-3-
Independent Living Center a/Southern California. et al v. City a/Los Angeles. et al.. Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Summons Attachment

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 77 of 82 Page ID #:689

SHERMAN WAY COMMUNITY HOUSING, L.P A a California limited 2 Rartnership; STuVALL HOUSING CORPORATION, a California 3 corporation; VERMONT SENIORS, a Cahfornia corporation; WA COURT, 4 L.P., a California limited partnership; WATTS/ATHENS PRESERVATION 5 XVII, L.P., a California limited partnership; WEST ANGELES VILLAS, 6 L.P., a California limited partnership; WESTERN/CARLTON II, L.P., a 7 California limited partnership; and YALE TERRACE APARTMENTS, A 8 CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California limited 9 partnership

10

Defendants.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-4-
Independent Living Center a/Southern California, et al v. City a/Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Summons Attachment

, , Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 78 of 82 Page ID #:690

Michael G. Allen· D. Scott Chang #146403 Jamie L. Crook #245757 RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC 1225 19'h SI. NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 202-728-1888*· • Application for admission pro hac vice approved by court order Doc. No. 15 -·See attachment for additional attornevs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA, a California non-profit corporation, et

al. (see attachment) v.

PLAINTIFF(S)

CASE NUMBER

2: 12-cv-00551-SJO-PJW

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, a California municipal corporation, et al. (see attachment)
DEFENDANT(S).

SUMMONS

TO: DEFENDANT(S):_S_ee_a_t_ta_ch_m__en_t_____________________________________________

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you
must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached 0 complaint ~ second amended complaint
o counterclaim 0 cross-claim or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer

or motion must be served on the plaintiffs attorney, Michael G. Allen

, whose address is

Reiman, Dane & Colfax PLLC, 1225 19th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036 . If you fail to do so,

judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file

your answer or motion with the court.

Dated: _ _ _f?J",-"_!"to_r...;;..7AJ.:.....:....:rL~_ _

Clerk, U.S. District Court
By: -),~~---f'Ro...="--y.~;ho~Q_ _DeJ:1)ty Clerk (Seal ofthe Court)

[U~e 60 days tithe defendant is the United States or a United States agency, or is an officer or employee ofthe United States. Allowed 60 days by Rule 12(a)(3JI

CV-OIA (12/07)

SUMMONS

· , Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 79 of 82 Page ID #:691

1 MICHAEL G. ALLEN*

DAVID GEFFEN #129342

D. SCOTT CHANG # 146403

DAVID GEFFEN LAW FIRM

2 JAMIE L. CROOK #245757

530 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205

RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX

Santa Monica, CA 90401

3 PLLC 1225 19th St. NW, Suite 600

Telephone: (310) 434-1111 FacsImile: (310) 434-1115

4 Washington D.C. 20036

Geffenlaw@aol.com

Telephone: (202) 728-1888

5 FacsImile: (202) 728-0848

DARA SCHUR #98638

schang@relmanlaw.com

DISABILITY RIGHTS

6

CALIFORNIA

* Application for admission

1330 Broadway, Suite 500

7 Rro hac vice approved by

Oakland, CA 94612

Court order Doc. No. 15
8
PAULA D. PEARLMAN

Telephone: (510) 267-1200 FacsImile: (~10)267-1201 Dara. Schur@disabilityrightsca

9 #109038

.org

MARIA MICHELLE UZETA

10 # 164402

AUTUMN ELLIOTT #230043

UMBREEN BHATTI

KEVIN BAYLEY #218070

11 Registered Legal Services

DISABILITY RIGHTS

Attorney #801 t:1-5 8

CALIFORNIA

12 DISABILITY RIGHTS

350 S. Bixel Ave., Suite 290

LEGAL CENTER

Los Angeles, CA 90017

13 Loyola Public Interest Law

Telephone: (213) 213-8000

Center

FacsImile: (2131213-8001

14 800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite

Autumn.EIIIott@disability

1120

rightsca.org

15 Los Angeles, CA 90017

Telephone: (213) 736-1496

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16 FacsImile: (213) 736-1428

Michelle. Uzeta@lls.edu

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

18

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(WESTERN DIVISION)

19
INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF

CASE NO. CV 12-

20 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California 0551 SJO (PJW)

non_-I>rofit corporation; FAIR HOUSING

21 COUNCIL OF SAN FERNANDO

VALLEY, a California non-profit

SUMMONS

22 corporation; and COMMUNITIES

ATTACHMENT

ACTIVELY LIVING INDEPENDENT

23 AND FREE, a California non-profit

corporation,

24

Plaintiffs,

25

vs.

26 CITY OF LOS ANGELES~

27 CALIFORNIA, a CalifornIa municipal

corporation; COMMUNITY

28 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE

- 1-
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et aI., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Summons Attachment

----------~----------~----
, , Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 80 of 82 Page ID #:692
1 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public enti_IT; CRA/LA DESIGNATED LOCAL
2 AUTHORITY, a public entity and successor agency to the COMMUNITY
3 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES; OVERSIGHT
4 BOARD FOR THE CRA/LA DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, a
5 public entity; 105 EAST "I" STREET, L.P., a California limited p_artnership;
6 12129 EL DORADO AVENUE, L.P., a California limited partnership; 4651
7 HUNTINGTON, LJ>., a California limited partnership; 505 BONNIE BRAE
8 PARTNERS, L.P., a California limited partnershiP; 901 SOUTH BROADWAY
9 STREET LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California limited partnership; ADAMS
10 935, L.P., a California limited ]2artnership; AMCAL MONTECITO
11 FUND, L.P., a California limited partnership; AMISTAD PLAZA
12 PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California limited 8artnershi]2;
13 ANDALUCIA SENI R APARTMENTS, L.P., a California limited partnership;
14 ARDMORE 959 PARTNERS, L.P., a California limited JJartnershi p;
15 ASTURIAS SENIOR APARTMENTS, L.P., a California limited ]2artnership,
16 B S BROADWAY VILLAGE II, L.P., a California limited partnership;
17 BEHRINGER HARVARD NOHO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
18 BUCKINGHAM SENIOR APARTMENTS, L.P., a California
19 limitedJJartnershi]2; CANTABRIA SENIOR APARTMENTS, L.P., a
20 California limited partnership; CARONDELET COURT PARTNERS,
21 L.P., a California limited partnership; CENTRAL VILLAGE APARTMENTS,
22 L.P., a California limited partnership; DECRO ORION APARTMENTS, L.P., a
23 California limited partnership; DECRO OSBORNE APARTMENTS, L.P., a
24 California limited partnership; EAST LA COMMUNITY CORPORATfON, a
25 California corporationi EASTSIDE VILLAGE, L.P., a CalIfornia limited
26 ]2artnership; ESPERANZA COMMUNITY HOUSING
27 CORPORATION a California corporation; EUGENE HOTEL, L.P., a
28 CalIfornia limited partnership; FAME
-2 -
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Summons Attachment

· ' Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 81 of 82 Page ID #:693
1 WEST 25 ill STREET, L.P.;..i' a California limited partnership; FAR tAST
2 BUILDING, L.P., a California limited partnership; GRANDVIEW NINE L.P.,
3 a CalifornIa limited partnership; HART VILLAGE, L.P., a California lImited
4 partnership; HEAVENLY VISION SENIOR HOUSING, L.P., a California
5 limited partnership; HOBART HEIGHTS PARTNERS, L.P., a California limited
6 }Jartnership; HOOVER SENIORS, L.P., a California limited partnership; IMANI
7 FE, LP, a CalifornIa limited partnership; KOREAN FAMILY HOUSING
8 CORPORATION, a California corporation; LAS MARGARITAS, L.P.,
9 a California limited }Jartnership; LOS ANGELES HOUSING PARTNERSHIP,
10 INC., a California corporation; LOS CUATRO VIENTOS, L.P., a California
11 limited partnership; MENLO PARK, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED
12 PARTNERSHIP, a California limited }Jartnership; MORGAN PLACE, L.P., a
13 California limited 1'_artnership; NEW GENESIS APARTMENTS, L.P., a
14 California limited partnership; NEW TIERRA DEL SOL, L.P., a California
15 limited partnership; NOHO SENIOR VILLAS, L.P., a California limited
16 }Jartnership; OL HOPE, L.P.; a California limited ~artnershlp; P G
17 HOUSING PARTNERS, L.P., a California limited partnership; PALM
18 VILLAGE SENIOR HOUSING CORP., a California cOrPoration; PALOMAR
19 APARTMENTS, L.P., a California limited partnershi]?; PENNY LANE
20 CENTERS, a California corporation; RAMPART APARTMENTS, A
21 CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California limited
22 partnership; REDROCK NOHO RESIDENTIAL, LLC, a Delaware
23 limited liability companx; RENATO APARTMENTS, L.P., a California
24 limitedJ2artnership; RITTENHOUSE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California
25 limited Qartnership; SELMA-HUDSON COMMUNITY LIMITED
26 PARTNERSHIP, a California limited }Jartnership; SEVEN MAPLES, L.P. a
27 California limited partnership; SHERMAN VILLAGE APARTMENTS,
28 L.P., a California limited partnership;
-3-
Independent Living Center ofSouthern California, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW) Summons Attachment

, ' Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 98 Filed 08/20/12 Page 82 of 82 Page ID #:694

SHERMAN WAY COMMUNITY HOUSING, L.P A a California limited 2 Rartnership; STuVALL HOUSING CORPORATION, a California 3 corporation; VERMONT SENIORS, a CalIfornia corporation; WA COURT, 4 L.P., a California limited partnership; WATTS/ATHENS PRESERVATION 5 XVII, L.P., a California limited partnership; WEST ANGELES VILLAS, 6 L.P., a California limited partnership; WESTERN/CARLTON II, L.P., a 7 California limited partnership; and YALE TERRACE APARTMENTS, A 8 CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California limited 9 partnership

10

Defendants.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
-4-
Independent Living Center a/Southern California, et al v. City a/Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJW)
Summons Attachment

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 56 Page ID #:6713

nM l

MICHAEL G. ALLEN, pro hac vice

DAVID GEFFEN#I29342

1

JOHN P. RELMAN,pro hac vice

2 D. SCOTT CHANG #146403

JENNIFER I. KLAR,pro hac vice

3 RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC

4

1225 19th St. NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036

5

Telephone: (202) 728-1.888 Facsimile: (202) 728-0848

DAVID GEFFEN LAW fiRM 530 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 205 Santa Monica~ CA 90401 Telephone; (31 0) 434-1111
Facsimile: (31 0) 434-1115 Geffenlaw@aol.com

6

mallen@relmanlaw .com schang@relmanlaw .com

DARA SCHUR #98638 DISABILITY RiGHTS CALIFORNIA

7
9
}()
11

MARONEL BARAJAS #242044 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER Loyola Public Interest Law Center 256 S. Occidental Blvd., Suite B Los Angeles, CA 90057 Telephone: (213) 736-1496 Facsmule: (2 I3) 736-1428 Maronel. barajas@drlcenter .org

1330 Broadway, Ste. 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (5 l 0) 267-1200 Facs1mile: (510)267-1201 Dara. Schur@disabi lityrightsca.org
AUTUMN ELLIOTT #230043 SRIVIDYA PANCHALAM #265398

12

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 350 S. Bixel Street., Ste. 290

13

Los Angeles, CA 900 17

Attorners .for Plaintiffs

Telephone: (213) 213-8000

i4 1

Facsimile: (213) 213-8001

15

Autumn.Elliott@disabili tyrightsca.org

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

17

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA {Yt'ESTERN DIVISION)

18 INDEPENDENT LIVJNG CENTER OF 19 SOUTHERN CALJFOR}..TfA, et al.

) Case No.: 12-CV-00551 FMO (PJWx) ) )

20

Plaint1 ffs,

) SETTLEl\'IENT AGREEMENT AND

21

vs.

) RELEASE OF CLAIMS )

22

) )

23 ClTY OF LOS ANGELES,

)

CALIFORNIA, and COMMUNITY

)

24 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE )

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

)

25

)

26

Defendants.

)

27

28
IEC;et al v. City oj Los Angeles. et al., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJf.V.x.) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RE:LEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 56 Page ID #:6714
T ABLJ£ OF CONTENTS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIM.S............. 1
RECl'rALS .......................................... ........................................... 1 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................... 4 SCOPE AND TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT......................... 11 MONITORING .......................................................................... 333 RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING ................................ 377 MUTUAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS .......................................... 388
DISPUTE RESOLUTION ..................................................... 41 t
COMPENSATION AND FEES ............................................ 422 COURT'S RETENTION OF JURISDICTION ......................... 444 MISCELLANEOUS ..... .............................................................. 444

"" ILC

e'i'(il

1',

Cii.1'

O.TLosAll,geTe:i;

i "eT(jl,

-c.-,t~--t'

No

:·12~CJ'-551

Ft-.-10

(P.JH:,:)

SI"T1 1 p,Jf"H A<.mi·f!I.·W'•n ,,~.;o RELEASE OF CI.,\1\'IS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 3 of 56 Page ID #:6715

SETTLEl\tiENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

This Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims {the "Agreement") is

entered into between the City of Los Angeles (the "City"), a municipal corporation, and Independent Living Center of Southern California ("lLCSC"); Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley ("FHC"), and Communities Actively Living

Independent and Free ('"CALIF'') (collectively referred to herein as ''Plaintiffs"). The City and the Plaintiffs are refeiTed to herein collectively as ..the Parties."

RECITALS

This Agreement is made and entered into with reference to the following facts: On January 13, 2012, Plaintiffs commenced litigation against the City
and CRA/LA, A Designated Local Authority, Successor to Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (''CRA/LA") known as Independent Living Center ofSouthern Califomia, et al. v. City ofLos Angeles, et a!., filed on Januruy 13, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.2: l2-cv~00551-FMO-PJW (the "'Litigation~'). The Litigation concerns multi family apartment buildings that received or will receive any Federal financial assistance from the City after July 11, 1988, and/or (2) was or will be designed, constmcted, altered, operated, administered, or financed, in whole or in pa1t, in connection with a program administered in whole or in part by the City since Janumy 26, 1992. P1aintiffs also joined, for Rule 19 purposes, a total of 61 owners of multifamily properties that had been assisted by the City or CRA ("Owner Defendants"). The CRA/LA and Owner Defendants are not Parties to this agreement.

On Angust 20) 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (""SAC"), which remains the operative complaint in this proceeding. The SAC
a11eges that the City and CRA!LA engaged in a pattern or practice ofdiscrimination against people with disabilities- --in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (uSection 504"), 29 U.S.C. § 794; Title II of the Americ~ns with

.. .___

1 ILC, et al v. City o}Los Angeles, et al., Ca.r;c No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx}
SF.TILEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 4 of 56 Page ID #:6716
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12132; and California Govemment C Section 11135, et seq. (''Section 11135'.)--by failing to ensure that multifamily housing funded, developed or significantly assisted by the City or CRA is accessible and made meaningfully available to people with disabilities. The SAC names the
City as a defendant in its own capacity and in its capacity as the successor housing
agency under the Redevelopment Dissolution Law, following dissolution ofthe former Community Redevelopment Agency of the City ofLos Angeles, as further described i11 the SAC, Paragraph 35 et seq.
On November29, 2012, the Hon. S. James Otero denied the City's and
CRA/LA~s motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' claims under Section 504, the ADA and Section 11135.
Plaintiffs sought by this Litigation to ensure that multifamily housing developments in Los Angeles bui1t at least in part with public funds or in connection
-...vith City programs are made access1ble and meaningfully available to people with
disabilities. They also sought to ensure that the City and CRNLA comply with their own program access and other obligations to people with disabilities with respect to the operation of multifamily housing programs as they relate to people with disabilities, in accordance with the requirements of Section 504, the ADA, and Section 11135.
The City 1·epresents that Exhibit A to this Agreement is a full and complete listing of ( l) all of the Housing Developments that received any Federal
financial assistance from the City since July 11, 1988~ p.lus (2) a11 of the Housing Developments that were designed) constructed, altered, operated, administered, or financed, in \Vho)e or in part, in connection with a program administered in whole or in part by the City since January 26, 1992, with the exception of Housing
Developments listed in Exhibit B to this Agreement. The City further represents that
there are no omissions from the listing other than those Housing Developments listed in Exhiblt Band that the City will promptly advise Plaintiffs and supplement
2 !Lc;et a/ v. City o]Los Angeles, et al., CCiseNo. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx)
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 5 of 56 Page ID

#:6717

should~

the listing if it learns at any time that any Housing Development that

been on the listing was excluded.

Exhibit B to this Agreement is a Iist of 22 Housing Developments
that received Federal funds through the City and the CRA since July 11, 1988, and in which the City and fanner Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Los Angeles entered into Cooperation Agreements or other agreements prior to June 28, 2011, which explicitly required the former Community Redeve1opment Agency to fulfill outstanding obJigations imposed by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development in connection with the funds, including
compliance with Section 504 oftbe Rehabilitation Act. The Housing
Devel.opments in Exhibit B are not covered by the accessibility and remediation provisions at Paragraphs I11.10.(a) through lii.lO.Q) of this Agreement.
The City denies that it violated Section 504, the ADA, or Section 11135 or that it committed any discrimination. The City enters into this Agreement for settlement purposes only. The entry of the attached .Final Judgment, the terms of this Agreement, and actions taken pursuant to those documents shall not be construed as an admission by the City of any fault or wrongdoing, or as an
admission of the validity of any claims made by the Plaintiffs. This Agreement shall
not be treated as an admission of liability or wrongdoing by any party for any purpose and shall not be used by any party in any future proceeding, in any venue whatsoever, either within the City or otherwise, on the issue ofliability, knowledge,
or past practice and custom.

During the pendency of the Litigation, Plaintiffs and the City undertook extensive discovery and engaged in extens.ive discussions regarding a potential resolution and settlement of the Plaintiffs' claims in the Litigation, including in mediation before private mediators. As a result of such discussions, the Parties now wish to effect a complete resolution and setl]ement of the claims, disputes, and
controversies relating to the Plaintiffs' alfegations in the Litigation, and to resolve

3
ILC, eta! v. City o}Los Angeles, et al.• C"se No. 12«CV-551 FMO (PJfflx)
SEITLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASF. Ofl CLAJMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 6 of 56 Page ID #:6718
unde~r~~~ their differences by settling such claims, disputes, and controversies
set forth in this Agreement. The Parties intend this Agreement to bind and apply to the City and
Plaintiffs. EnLry of Judgment pursuant to this Agreement shall extinguish all Released Claims {as de'fined below) and constitute final and complete resolution of all issues addressed herein.
The goal ofthe Agreement is to significantly enhance the accessibility of multifamily housing in Los Angeles, the availability of fair and accessible housing for indivjduals with a variety of disabilities, including mobility~ visual and hearing disabilities, and the accessibility ofthe City's housing programs.
DEFINITIONS "Accessible~ n when used with respect to a Housing Unit or a Housing Development, means and refers to full compliance with the requirements of the Accessibility Standards for purposes of Section 504, the ADA, and Section 11 i35, as well as adoption of the policies attached hereto as Exhibit C. "'Accessible Housing Development" means a Housing Development that is Accessible, including Accessible public and common use areas, as required by Section 504 and the ADA, as well as the number and type ofAccessible Housing Units that are required to be Accessible by this Agreement. "Accessible Housing Units'~ refers collectively to Housing Units with Mobility Features and Housing Units with HearingNision Features. "'Accessibility Laws" means Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794 et seq,; the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq.; California Government Code Section I 1135 et seq.; implementing regulations and design standards for each of the preceding statutes; and the California Building Code.
4
··7LL,etalv. Cityo}LosAngeles, etal., CaseNo./2-CV-55/FMO(PJWx)-
Sl:::TTLEMENT AGREEMENT ANO RELEASE. OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 7 of 56 Page ID #:6719
mrfJ./ For purposes ofthis Agreement, "Accessibility Standards" means
only the following compliance standards:
a. For Housing Developments constructed or silbstantially altered before March 15, 2012. the new constmction requirements of24 C.F.R. pt. 8, including 24 C.P.R.§§ 8.22 and 8.32 ruJ well as the new construction requirements ofUFAS,_ or their successor standards;
b. For Housing Developments constructed or substantially altered on or
after March 15, 20 l 2:

1.

the requirements jn 5(a);

u.

the Alternative Accessibility Standard; or

m.

any future accessibility standard and other regulatory

requirements applicable to newly constructed facilities in

federally-assisted programs that may be adopted in a

final rule issued by HUD pursuant to notice and comment

rulemaking under Section 504 so long as such

accessibility standard and regulatory requirements do not
provide tor less accessibility for persons with disabilities

than either (i) or (ii).

c. For Housing Developments constructed after April12> 2016:

1.

the requirements in 5(b);

n.

the requirements in ANSI A l l?.l-1986 and the Fair

Housing Accessibility Guidelines, March 6~ 1991, in

conjunction with the Supplement to Notice of Fair

Housing Accessibility Guidelines: Questions and

Answers About the Guidelines, Jun·e 28, 1994; and

111.

the accessibility provisions of the California Building

Code Chapter llB, or any future accessibility standard

and other regulatory requirements applicable to newJy

ILC

et

ul

v.

City

o}

Los

Angeles,

5
et al..,

Case

No.

12-CV-551

FMO

(PJWx)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 8 of 56 Page ID #:6720
~J- v
'if constructed facilities adopted as part of the California
Building Code. ''Alternative Accessibility Standard" means and refers to the alternative accessibility standard for new construction set out in HUD 1S notice at 79 Fed. Reg. 29,671 (May23, 2014), when used in conjunction with the new
construction requirements of24 C.P.R. pt. 8, 24 C.F.R. § 8.22, and the new
construction requirernents of28 C.P.R. pt. 35, including the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design as defined in 28 C. F.R. § 35.104 and as applied to public
entities (excluding any elevator exceptions).
"Assistance Animals~· means and refers to animals that work, provide assistance, or perfomt tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability as welt as anjmaJs that provide emotional supp011 that al1eviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person's disability. Assistance Animals include animals that are trained and untrained and include dogs and other animals.
·•Auxiliary Aids,, means and refers to aids, services, or devices that enable persons witl1 vision, hearing, manual, or speech impairments to have an equal opportunity to participate in, or enjoy the benefits o·f, programs, services, or activities, including housing and other programs, services, and activities subject to the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act. Auxiliary aids include but are not limited to the aids, services, and devices set out in the definition of auxiliary a1ds auxiliary aids in 24 C.F.R. § 8.3 and
tbe definition of auxiliary aids and services in 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. See also 42 U.S.C. § 12103(1).
"Certification of Compliance with Accessibility Standards~' means and refers to a Certificatjon issued by the City, certifying that the Housing Development and accessible Housing Units meet the AccessibiJity Standards.
6 - ILC, et al v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx)
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 9 of 56 Page ID

#:6721

~~

leu ··certification ofAdoption ofHousing Policies•· means and refers

Certification issued by the City certifying that the Housing Development has

adopted the Housing Policies.

''City" means and refers to the City of Los Angeles~ California.

"Covered Housing Development" includes all Housing

Developments listed on Exhibit A, and all Housing Developments and Housing Units that are financially assisted, designed, constructed, altered, operated,

administered, or financed in connection with a program administered by the City (directiy or in its role as the "Housing Successor Agency'~ pursuant to the

Redevelopment Dissolution Act), or by its Subrecipients, during the Settlement

Term. Housing Developments listed in Exhibit B are covered solely for the

purposes of application of Housing Policies and non-discrimination provjsions, as

set out in Paragraphs lll.IO(k), III.lO(rn), and Il.I.19.

"'Effective Date!' means and refers to the effective date of this

Agreement, which is the date of the latest signature on this Agreement by any of the Patiies.

'"HCJD'' includes the City of Los Angeles's Housing+ Community

Investment Department and any successor department or agency;

"Housing Development" or '•Development"' means and refers to the whole of one or more residential structures and appurtenant structures, equipment~

roads, walks, and parking lots that (1) received or will receive any FederaJ financial assistance from or tlu·ough the City and/or (2) were or are designed, constructed, altered, operated, administered, or financed in connection with a program

administered by the City (directly or in its role as the '1Housing Successor Agency" pursuant to the dissolution legislation) or by its Subrecipients.

"Housing PoliciesH mean.s the policies attached as Exhibit C to this Agreement, or any mutualty agreed upon subsequent policies.

7
lLC, et al v. City oj'Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (P.JWx)
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAl MS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 10 of 56 Page ID #:6722
nv\v
"Housing Unif' or "Unit" means and refers to a single unit ofresiu
that provides spaces for living, bathing, and sleeping, provided such definition shall not be construed to exclude Single Room Occupancy Units. A Housing Unit or Unit is the same as a dwelling unit.
"Housing Unit vl'ith Hearing/Vision Features'; means and refers to a
Housing Unit that complies with 24 C.F.R. § 8.22 and a1l applicable provisions of UFAS or the comparable provisions ofthe Alternative Accessibility Standard, and shaH include but not be limited to section 809.5 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible
Design. Hearing/Vision Features include but are not limited to visual alarms (UFAS §§ 4.34.1 0, 4.28.3), auxilia1y alarms (UFAS §§ 4.34.10, 4.28.4), telephone volume controls and hearing aid compatibility (UFAS § 4.3 LS), protections against
protmding objects (UFAS § 4.4), staitway requirements (UFAS §§ 4.9, 4.26.4), protections ·against exposed pipes and SUlfaces (UFAS §§ 4.19.4, 4.24.6) 4.34.6.5(8)), audible alarms (UFAS § 4.28.2), signage (UFAS § 4.30), push button controls for telephones (UFAS § 4.31.6), consumer information (UFAS § 4.34.4), and range, cooktop, and oven controls (UFAS §§ 4.34.6.6, 4.34.6.7).
"Housing Unit with Mobility Features~~ means and refers to a Housing
Unit that is located on an accessible route and complies with the requirements of 24
C.F.R. § 8.22 and all applicable provisions ofUFAS or the comparable provisions of the Altemative Accessibility Standard including but not limited to sections 809.2 through 809.4 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. A Housing Unit with Mobility Features can be approached, entered, and used by persons with mobility disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.
"Judgment" means a judgment entered by the District Court in this Litigation, substantially in the forrn attached to this Agreement as Exhibit D that, among other things, fully approves and incorporates the terms of this Agreement and retains the District Court's jurisdiction to enforce the Agreement throughout the Settlement Tetm.
8
lLC, etal v. City ofLos Angeles, et aJ., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWxT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENJ' AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 11 of 56 Page ID #:6723
"Owner~· means and refers to an owner of a Housing Development a
such owner's successors and assigns that (1) has received, receives, or will receive any Federal financial assistance from the City since July 11, 1988, and/or (2) was, is, or win be the Owner of a Housing Development designed, constructed, altered, operated, administered, or financed, in whole or in part, in connection with a
program administered in whole or in pa1i by the City since January 26, 1992. An
Owner may also be a Subrecipient. "Person with a Disability', means and refers to a person who has a
physical or mental impainnent that substantially limits one or more major life activities such as caring for oneself, n1a11ual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, or learning; has a record of such impairment; or is regarded as
having such an impainnent. See 24 C.F.R. § 8.3, as modified by the ADA
Ame.ndments Act of2008, Pub. L. 110-325, §7(2), 122 Stat. 3558 (September 25, 2008), amending 29 U.S.C. §705(20). This definition includes people with disabilities as detined in Cal. Gov. Code Sec. 12926 to the extent that provision is
more inclusive than federal law.
''Program Access" means applicable.Accessibility Laws directing a public entity to operate each service, program. or activity so that the service, program~ or activity, when viewed iti its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by Persons with Disabilities.
''Property Management Agene' means and refers to a person or entity that manages one or more of the Housing Developments Covered by this Agreement on behalf of an Owner.
"Reasonable Accommodation" means a change in rules, policies, practices, or procedures that is necessary) pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, to provide a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a Housing Unit.
9
JLC et al V- City o]Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJ1K"')
SE'ffLEMBNT AGRcEMI:NT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 12 of 56 Page ID #:6724

""Reasonable Modification" means a change in rules, policies, practices, or procedures that is necessary, pursuant to Section 504 or the ADA, to
provide a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a Housing
Unit. Pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, "Reasonabte Modification" means any reasonable physical or structural change to a Housing Unit or a public or common use area.

"Registiy" refers to the Internet-based Accessible Housing Registry described in Paragraph III.l O.(m), below.
'"Settlement Coordinator'~ or "Section 504/ADA Coordinator for
Acccssib)e Housing" means the individual designated by the City pursuant to and in accordance with Paragraph III.l4, below.
''Settlement Term,, means the period of time commencing with the Effective Date and extending tbr ten (10) years after the District Court's entry of
Judgment, or until the Target Number of Accessible Units is achieved, whichever occurs later.

'·Subrecipient'~ means and refers to any public or private agency, institution~ organization, or other entity or person to which Federal financial assistance or financial assistance from or through the City is extended. A Subrecipient also means a non-Federal entity that receives a sub-award from a passthrough entity to carry out part of a Federal program; but does not include an individual that is a beneficiary of such program. A Subrecipient may a] so be a
recipient of other Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency. 24
C.F.R. §200.93. A Subrccipient may also be an Owner.
·•substantial Rehabilitation" has the same meaning as in 24 C.F.R.
§ 8.23 .

"Target Number of Accessible Units" means the number of apartment units the City must cause to be Accessible pursuant to this Agreement to meet its obligations under this Agreement within ten (10) years of the Effective Date. The

-----

....

!LV.

et

ar'.'.

City

oJ Los

Angeles,

to et a[.,

Case No.

12~CV-551

FMO (PJYVx}

SElTLEMEN'I' AGREEMENT AND RELG.ASF. OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 13 of 56 Page ID

#:6725

'(\~

Parties have agreed that the Target Number of Accessible Units is Four Thousandr (4,000).
''Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards" or "UFAs~~ means and refers to a set of scoping requirements and standards for the design and construction of buildings and facilities to ensure that they are readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. See Appendix A to 24 C.F.R subpart 40 for residential structures and Appendix A to 41 C.F.R. subpart I01-19.6 for general~type. Pursuant to 24 C.F. R. § 8.32(a), effective July 11, 1988, the design, construction, or alteration ofbuildings in co11fonnance with sections 3-8 ofUFAS shall be deemed to comply, inter alia, with the requirements of24 C.F.R. § 8.22.
SCOPE AND TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged~ the Parties stipulate, and intend that the District Court wilJ make the following findings as pat1 of the Final Judgment:
Recitals. The recitals set f011h above are incorporated by reference in this Section and made a part of this Agreement.
Jurisdiction. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs and the City for purposes of this Action and jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and I367, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. Reliefrna.y be granted pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794a and42 U.S.C. § 12132 et seq. Venue is proper in this Dish·ict.
Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties, and shall become effective on the Effective Date.
Purpose of Settlement. To avoid the cost, expense, and Lmcettainty of protracted litigation, the City and Plaintiffs enter into this Agreement, which shall be binding upon the City and Plaintiffs and extinguish all Released Claim.() and shall constitute the final and compete resolution of all issues addressed herein. Pursuant
ll /LC ef a/ v. City oj'Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 12-CV·551 FMlJ{P}Wx/-··- -··- -
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 14 of 56 Page ID #:6726
to the terms of this Agreement, the City will undertake the actions described below
for the purpose ofensuring that City-assisted housing programs, services, and
activities are in compliance with the accessibility requirements of Section 504, the ADA, and Section 11135.
Appro\'al by the District Cout•t. The Pa1iies intend that this Agreement be approved by the District Court, and that the District Court retain jurisdiction for the Tenn of this Agreement to resolve any dispute regarding
compliance with the Agreement that cannot be resolved through the process described in Section Vll1 below. Furthermore, upon such approval, the District Court shall enter the Judgment under Rule 54(b) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (substantially in the fonn attached to this Agreement as Exhibit D.)
Term of Agreement. The District Court shall have continuing jurisdiction over this Agreement thrm1ghout the Settlement Term. This Agreement shall expire ten (10) years after entry of Judgment by the District Court, or when the Target Number of Accessible Units is achieved, whichever is Later. Nothlng in this Paragraph shall bar any Party from moving for an extension of the Agreement to enforce any obligations herein.
City's Commitment to Provide Affordable, Accessible Housing. The City shaii take the actions set forth in this Agreement to provide accessibility for persons with disabilities in its housing-related programs. Among other things, the City shall ensure over the Settlement Term the production of the Target Number of Accessible Units by means of inspecting Existing Housing Developments to determine compliance with this Agreement, causing, to the extent possible, Subrecipients and Owners to can·y out construction to remedy non-compliance with requirements set out in this Agreement, and taking all other actions necessary to pmvide for Four Thousand (4,000) Accessible Housing Units in Accessible Housing Developments as required by this Agreement by no later than ten years after the
Effective Date. The failure of the City to secure tl1e cooperation of any Subrecipient
JLC eta/ v. City ofLos Ai'igeles;-e1t2a:....,l,.......,......,C;;-a-se-M-;;-;o,....-=1=2--=c=v..,..-5~5=-=l-::F=-=u-:o~(P.::-'Jf=vx-.J----
SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND REt...EASEOFCLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 15 of 56 Page ID #:6727
t
or Owner with efforts to remedy non-compliance with requirements set out in this
Agreement shall not excuse the City's obligation to achieve the Target Numberof
Accessible Units. To accomplish the activities in this Agreement, the City shall carry out a program with a value that averages a miniinum of $20 million per year over the Settlement Tenn; which amount may be adjusted by mutual agreement of the Parties upon completion of the Target Number of Accessible Units. Completion of the Target Number of Accessible Units shall not relieve the City of the obligation to comply with other provisions of the Agreement. The City shall also take the
actions set forth in this Agreement and such other actions as may be necessary to
ensure that the City, Subrecipients. and Owners comply with the obligation to operate housing programs and Housing Developments in accordance with Federal and California law and comply with the other obligations set forth in this Agreement.
City,s Compliance. The City shall comply with the requirements of Sectim1 504, the ADA, Section 11135, and other applicable nondiscrimination laws with respect to all aspects of its own housing-related programs, services, and activities, including administration and financing.
Reporting of Activities to Ensure Compliance. Pursuant to its reporting obligations set out in Paragraph 111.1 1, be1ow, and elsewhere in this Agi·eement, the City shaH report on the actions it takes to ensure its own compliance and to require and ensure its Subrecipients' and Owners' compliance with Section 504, the ADA~ Section 11135, and the terms of this Agreement.
SJ>ecific Commitments to Achieving Accessibility. This Agreement provides for the following:
(a) Architectural Accessibility. The City shaH cause Four Thousand (4,000) Housing Units ("Target Number of Accessible Units") to come into compliance with the architectural accessibility standards under Section 504, the ADA, and Section 11 I 35 within ten (I 0) years
13
ILC, et at v. City o]Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 12-CV-55! FMO (PJW.x) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 16 of 56 Page ID

#:6728

¥v

of the Effective Date. At least Two Thousand Six Hundred and FiftyFive (2,655} of such units must be Housing Units with Mobility Features. In order to count a Housing Unit toward the Target Number of Accessible Units, the City must provjde a Certification of Compliance with Accessibility Standards to the Monitor that the Housing Unit and the Housing Development meet the requirements of Accessibility Standards.
(b) Accessible Housing Unit Plan. Annual production schedules will be
established pursuant to an Accessible Housing Unit Plan ("Plan"),
recommending locations of accessible housing units, which will be agreed to by the Parties withjn twelve (12) months of the Effective Date.
The Plan shall be developed by one or more experts, agreed to by the Pa1ties and compensated by the City, in an amount not to exceed Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000), who will conduct accessibility surveys and otheiWise advise the Parties on compliance with federal and state accessibility requirements, as set forth in Paragraph III. tO(d), below. The Plan shall provide for geographic distribution of accessible units throughout Los Angeles, and in a range of unit sizes, and shall maximize affordability and access to public transportation and other amenities. Consistent with federal relocation and Reasonable Accommodation and Reasonable Modification requirements, the Plan shall provide that the City, when appropriate, temporarily relocate, or require Owners to temporarily relocate, existing tenants occupying units to be retrofitted, at Owner or City expense) and shall address potential temporary displacements of tenants. The Parties agree that Plaintiffs shalJ be consulted in the event that changes must be made to the Accessible Housing Unit Plan.

-

·-- -7rc,

et al

v.

Clij/o..fLos

Angeles,

14
et al.,

Case No.

12~CV-551

FMO

(PJWx)

SETTLEMJ..:NT AGREEMENT AND RL'LI!ASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 17 of 56 Page ID #:6729

(c) Qualifications ofEX!!£r!S: Each expert hired by the City to llnplemer Paragraph IlL 1O(b), above, shall: (I) be an architect; (2) have substantia!
experience in evaluating or assisting public entities in evaJuating the accessibility of facilities under Section 504, the ADA, and California Building Code; (3) be knowledgeable in current federal and Califomia
accessibility standards; (4) have a minimum of three (3) years'
experience in providing Section 504 and/or ADA services related to
accessible facilities; and (5) be CASp cet1ified. (d) Development of Accessible Housing Unit Plan: The experts identified
in Paragraph ill.IO(c), above, shall assist the City in the following: Identifying which existing Housing Developments are in
compliance or not in compliance with the Accessibility Standards. To
this end, the City shall provide to the experts those accessibility survey reports and related documentation previously prepared by the City's
accessibility consultants and other consultants for the Parties. The
experts' review ofsurvey reports prepared by the City's accessibility consultant may include on-site reviews to detem1ine the accuracy and sufficiency of the survey reports. Ifthe experts detennine that existing
survey reports are accurate and provide all ofthe infom1ation required to
ensure compliance with the Accessibility Standards, the accessibility
reports may be used for purposes of as$ess1ng the relevant Housing
Development's compliance with the Accessibi1ity Standards. The
experts may also rely on other accessibiHty surveys of any Housing
Developments covered by this Agreement that they deem to be reliable. The City shaH take steps to ensure that persons working on behalf of the City shall not waive, ignore) or otherwise fail to identify noncompliance ·with Accessibility Standards in Housing Developments.

I

-

-

-

.
-ILC

,

etalv.

C. ityo]Los' Angeles,

15
eta!.,

CaseNo.

12-CV-551

FMO(PJWx)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 18 of 56 Page ID #:6730
Utilizing the infonnation gathered to develop the Accessible Housing Unit Plan.
Assisting the City in developing protocols~ assessment tools, checklists, and standards for ensuring acces.sibllity and for issuance of Certifications of Compliance with Accessibility Standards.
Assisting the City to develop internal capacity, including the capacity of designated staff in HCID, the City Department on Disability, and the City Department of Building and Safety to ensure compliance by Subrecipients and Owners with applicable accessibility requirements, including the Accessibility Standards.
Developing a quality assurance program that ensures the quality and consi~-tency of work performed by City staff and agents pursuant to this Agreement, advising the City of issues identified through the quality assurance program, and making recommendations about how to address such performance problems (e.g.• additional training, extra oversight, limiting functions performed.).
Providing training to the City staff and agents who will implement the accessibility provisions of this Agreement, including training for designated staff for HCID, the City Department on Disability, and the City Department of Building and Safety regarding the interpretation and application of the Accessibility Standards, conducting and documenting on-site accessibility surveys, and such other issues as the experts deem prudent and appropriate. (e) Flexibilitv in Meeting Target Number of Accessible Units. Subject to the requirements of the Plan and Section 504, the City shall have flexibility to meet its annual and overall production schedules through a combination of new construction, substantial alteration, remediation of existing housing units) provision of Housing Units under the Enhanced
16 ""IL'C, eta/ v. City o]Los Angeles, eta/., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx)
SETTLE:\.IENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 19 of 56 Page ID #:6731
Unit~s~~ v Sensory Unit Program, or certification that existing Housing

2

federal and California accessibility standards.

3

(f) Accessibility of Future Housing Developments. The City shall ensure

4

that Housing Developments that are newly constructed or substantially

5

altered after Aplil I2, 2016, are designed, constructed, and maintained in

6

f11ll compliance with the Accessibility Standards in this Agreement

7

through specialized review of plans and specifications and on-site

8

compliance inspections throughout the design and construction process.

9

With respect to any future new construction or future substantial

10

alterations, the City shall require developers to construct at least 10% of

II

units to comply with UFAS requirements for mobmty accessibility and

12

an add1tional 4% of units to comply with UFAS requirements for

13

sensory accessibility, and to ensure that they are affordable for

14

households with incomes at 30%~ 50%, and 80% ofarea median income.

15

The Parties agree that the City may count toward the Target Number of

16

Accessible Units up to a total of 20% of Housing Units in a single

17

Housing Development that meet UFAS requirements, provided that no

18

inore than 5% of such units be designated for sensory accessibility.

19

(g) Accessibility in Existing Buildings to be Rcmediated. For purposes of

20

meeting the Target Number of Accessible Units, tbe City may count a

21

remediated unit to the extent the unit and the projecfs common areas

22

meet the Accessibility Standards, and the unit and conunon areas are

23

located on accessible routes.

24

{h) Credit for Early Performance. The Parties agree that any units made

25

accessible pursuant to the terms of this Agreement after April 12, 20 16,

26

and before the entry of Judgment by the District Court shall count

27

towards the City's Target Number of Accessible Units.

28

17 !LC, et al v. City o] Los Angeles, et a/., Cww No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx)
SUTTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 20 of 56 Page ID

(i)

#:6732
pro~gr~ Enhanced Sensory Unit Program. The City will establish a

to provide auxiliary aids and services and enhanced accessibility features

for individuals. with hearing and vision disabilities who reside in existing

Housing Developments. The program will provide assistance to make

additional structural features and assistive technology available that

assure that people with sensory disabilities have equal access to City-

assisted housing opportunities. These Housing Units must_, at a

minimmn, meet UFAS standards for Housing Units with Hearing/Vision

features. The City may count no more than 200 such units during the

Settlement Term toward the Target Number of Accessible Units.

(j) Ensuring Program Accessibility. The City shall adopt policies,

procedures, and training to ensure that its affordable housing program

complies with the program accessibility requirements of Section 504, the

ADA, and Section l 1135 and promotes maximum utilization of

accessible units by people with disabilities needing the accessibility

teatw·es, including provisions regarding Reasonable Accommodations,

Reasonable Modifications, Effective Communication, Auxiliary Aids

and Services, and Assistance Animals.

Within 180 days of the Effective Date, and in consultation with the Plaintiffs, the City will conduct a self-evaluation pursuant to Section 504 and the ADA, of the Housing+ Community Investment Department and the Department of Building and Safety, and develop a transition plan to address accessibility deficiencies identified in the selfevaluation.

Within 18.0 days of the Effective Date, and in consultation with the Plaintiffs, HClD will revise its effective communication policy to ensure tl1at it complies with the requirements of Section 504, the

ADA, and Section l1135.

18
ILC eta/ v. City ojLos Angeles, eta!., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx) SE'ITLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 21 of 56 Page ID #:6733
(k).J\'lanagemeut Policies to Ensure Accessibility. To ensure maximum utilization of accessible units by people witl1 disabilities needing the accessibility features, the City shal1, within 60 days of the Effective Date,
require all owners and managers of City-assisted housing to adopt the unifmm marketing and leasing policies that are attached hereto as Exhibit C~ and incorporated by reference into this Settlement Agreement. These
policies are the product of coJlaboration between the C1ty and Plaintiffs,
and the Parties are of the opinion that they comply with Section 504, the ADA, and Section lll35. TI1ese policies provide for affirmative
marketing directed at people with disabilities, uniform application,
waiting Jist. and tenant selection practices (including unit assignment and transfer standards), effective communication with people with disabilities, assistance and support animals, the provision of reasonable modifications and reasonable accommodations, and grievance procedures. The City shall enforce those policies: (1) with respect to newly constructed or substantially altered buildings, from the time of construction or alteration through the end of the Settlement Term, and (2) witl1 respect to existing buildings, from the date tl1e uniform marketing and leasing policies are implemented through the end of the Settlement TemJ. Thereafter, while the City may exercise continuing authority to impose such policies on buildings with remaining affordability covenants~ the City's obligation to enforce such policies cannot be compeHed through this Settlement Agreement. . (l) Ensuring Compliance with Management Policies.
The City shall monitor its Subrecipients and Owners and require that its Subrecipients and Owners comply with the applicable requirements of Section 504 and applicable HUD regulations, the ADA and applicable I-IUD regulations, California
19
JLC, eta! v. City of Los Angeles, eta/., Case No. 12~CV·551 FMO (PJWx)
SeTTLEMENT AOREEM ENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 22 of 56 Page ID #:6734
Accessibility Standards, and this Agreement in designing,
constmcting, altering, operating) administering, and financh1g
housing. Failure or refusal of a Subrecipient or Owner to comply with the Accessibility Standards and applicable provisions of this
Agreement may result in progressive steps by the City to con1pel compliance such as declaring an event of default under active loan
agreements, suing for breach of loan or covenant agreements with demand for specific performance and damages, negative evaluations and reduction in rating factor points for future project consideration through ex]sting contractor evaluatioll and contractor responsibHity ordinances, or debarment proceedings or the filing of a complaint or refen·a! to HUD for further enforcement actions.
Within 180 days of the Effective Date, the City shall~ in consultation with Plaintiffst develop and begin to carry out a monitoring, compliance, and enforcement plan to ensme that Owners
and Property Management Agents of Covered Housing Developments comply with management policies to ensure accessibility. That plan will include a Unit Utilization Plan based on unit utilization surveys and audits of occupancy~ waiting lists, and transfer lists to assess the extent to which people with disabilities occupy accessible units or need or have requested accessible units; and that describes the steps the City will take to maximize appropriate utilization. It will also require Owners and Project Management Agents to adopt corrective action plans to maximize the occupancy of accessible units by families that need accessibility features.
A. Occupancy utilization surveys and audits shall identify. by unit number, bedroom size, and accessibility type: a) accessible units that are not occupied ·by a Person with a
20
/L"C, et aTv~ City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx)
SEITLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLt\JMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 23 of 56 Page ID #:6735
t
Disability needing the accessibility features, and whether those households have executed the requ.lred lease addendum, and b) vacant accessible units. B. Transfer audits shall identify, by address~ name, and desired unit type and bedroom size,_ and requested accessibility features, existing residents of Covered Housing Developments to determine if any Persons with a Disability desire or have previously requested a unit with accessibility features, if they are on a transfer list for such a unit, and what steps are being taken to meet their accessibility needs. C. Waiting list audits shall examine waiting lists for Covered Housing Developments and, subject to a protective order to be negotiated by the paJiies or secured through an appropriate petition to the Court, identify by name and application date any individuals on the list who are Persons with Disabilities who desire a Housing Unit with accessibihty features, the nature of the features needed, and the bedroom size, and what steps are being taken to meet their accessibility needs. The City shall issue a Certification of Adoption of Housing Policies when it reasonably confinns that the Owner or Property Management Agent of a Covered Housing Development has adopted the Housing Policies for that Housing Development and notified the tenants of the adoption. (m) Internet-based Accessible Housing Registry ("Registry"}. Within 270 days from the Effective Date, the City will, with input from the Plaintiffs as to content, features, usability, aud accessibility, develop an accessible website listing all Housing Units in Covered Housing
21 ---·-·····7LC,.et al v. City o]Los Angeles, eta!., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx)
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 24 of 56 Page ID #:6736
Developments, including real-time availability of accessible units, Hsts of accessible features, numbers of bedrooms, rent infonnation, and contact information for each housing development. The website shaH meet version 2.0 Levels AA of the ''Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" published by the Web Accessibility Initiative (W AI) of the World Wide Web Consmiium (W3C), or any subsequent version(s) that are published during the Settlement Tenn. Documents posted on the Registry should confom1 to the W3C,s Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT) and be in formats that can be recognized and read by software commonly used by individuals who arc blind or have low vision to read digital information.
The City shall maintain the Registry for the entire Settlement Term, and infonnation shall be kept current. The City shall develop a mechanism for providing intbnnation and options equivalent to those on the Registry for Persons with Disabilities who do not have internet access or whose disabilitles limit their ability to communicate electronically, including making infonnation available in map format, written format and alternative formats through the Settlement Coordinator or designee.
The purposes of the Registry include: 1) allowing Persons with Disabilities to obtain detailed current information about accessible Housing Units and Housing Developments; 2) allowing People with Disabilities to use the Registry to sign up to be notified about accessible housing units that are available for rent, make application for such units, and be placed on waiting lists for such units; 3) ensuring that accessible Housing Units are occupied by people who need the accessible features~ and 4) assisting Owners and
22
-- --·- - -·u ILC:et al v. City ofLos Angeles, eta!., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx)
SETTLEMENT AGREF..M El\lT AND RELEASE 01~ CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 25 of 56 Page ID #:6737

1

Property Management Agents in conducting targeted outreach to

2

People with Disabilities. The City wil1 require Owners and Property

3

Management Agents in Covered Housing Developments to post

4

information about the Developments on the Registry and to use the

5

applicanl information provided through the Registry in ·conducting

6

outreach and leasing accessible housing. The City shalJ also post and

7

maintain in an easily locatable place and accessible f01mat (i.e.,

8

HTML or Word- not PDF) on its main website a list of all Covered

9

Housing Developments, which shall be maintained throughout the

l 0

Term of the Agreement and updated on a quarterly basis, as needed.

11

(n) Training and Education. The City will develop and implement a

12

curriculum to train City housing staff and owners and property managers

13

of Covered Housing Developments about disability rights obligations in

14

assisted housing under Section 504~ the ADA, and the Fair Housing Act.

15

The curriculum will also address implementation of the terms of the

'16

Agreement. Trainings will be provided on a regular· basis to new City

17

staff and new property managers of assisted housing and current staff

18

and emp toyees will be required to attend refresher classes. The Patties

!9

agree that Plaintiffs shall be consulted in the development of the training

20

curriculum and materials within a reasonable time prior to any such

21

training, and shall be invited to attend such training, either as

22

participants or as presenters.

23

(o) Provision of Funding. The City shall provide an average of $20 mHiion

24

per year during the Settlement Term, which it estimates as the funding

25

required to perfom1 its obligations under the Agreement in accordance

26

with the timeframes set out therein.

17

28

23
T.:Cet at v. City o]Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 12~CV-551 FMO (PJWx)
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 26 of 56 Page ID #:6738
(p) Flexibilitv in Use of Funding. The City shall have discretion to use funds budgeted for the Agreement for the following purposes: Leveraging additional development funds to support new construction of affordable rental housing. Assisting owners of Covered Housing Developments to achieve compliance with accessibility requirements of Section 504, the ADA, and Section 11135. Assisting with structural modifications to dwelling units in Covered Housing Developments at the request of individual tenants or applicants. Oversight and enforcement of architectural accessibility requirements and management policies in Covered Housing Developments. Development of the Intemet-based Accessible Housing Registry. Development and implementation of training and education programs. Record keeping and reporting. Hiring of experts and consultants to assist the City in carrying out its obligations under the Agreement. Renorting Requirements. The Settlement Coordinator shall prepare a
semi-annual report containing qualitative and quantitative data detailing the activities carried out under this Agreement for the preceding reporting period
pursuant to Paragraphs III.12-13, below. to be provided to Plaintiffs• Counsel and
the Monitor on or before June 30 and December 31 of each year beginning December 31, 2016.
24
lLC: eta/ v. City o]Los Angeles, et al.1 Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJW.t)
SE11LEMBNT AGREEMEN'l' AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

f-z Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 27 of 56 Page ID #:6739 crfv Report Contents_ Reports referenced in ParagrapJ1 Ill. 11, above, shall include, at a minimum, a detailed description of the following: (a) Compliance efforts which have been made sjnce the last report with respect to each of the substantive terms of this Agreement, and the actions taken to ensure the City's own compliance and to require and ensure its Subrecipients' and Owners' compliance with Section 504, the ADA, Section 11135, and the terms of this Agreement. (b) Quarterly, annual, m1d. overall progress in achieving the Target Number of Accessible Units and annual production schedules w1der the Accessible Housing Unit Plan, including information regarding geographic distribution of accessible units in a range of unit sizes; affordability and access to public transportation and other amenities; and the provision of temporary replacement housing for tenants displaced by remediation efforts~ sufficient to evaluate compliance with the requirements of this Agreement and the Accessible Housing Plan in those areas. (c) Progress in completing unit utilization surveys, and audits of occupancy, waiting lists, and transfer lists, and progress on implementing corrective action plans to maximize occupancy of accessible units by Persons with Disabilities that need the accessibility feature. (d) Progress in ensuring that Housing Developments adopt the Housing Policies, and of monitoring and enforcement efforts to ensure compliance with the Housing Policies. (e) Progress in implementing disability rights training and education for City housing staff and for owners and property managers of Cityassisted buildings. (f) Progress in the development and maintenance of the lnternet-based Accessible Housing Registry and its use by Housing Developments and
25 !LC, et al v_ City o} Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 12~CV-55l FMO (PJWx)
SETTLF.MENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE Or CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 28 of 56 Page ID #:6740
housing applicants. (g) Compliance efforts which the City intends to take during the next
reporting period. (h) The Repm1 shall also include:
A Jist by address and unit number of all Housing Developments and Housing Units which have received Certifications of Compllance with Accessibility Standards and Certifications of Adoption of Housing Po1icies since the last report.
Specific quantitative data a.s identified in Paragraph
J1I.l3, below. A list of the grievances or complaints that were received
by the C1ty through the Grievance Procedure (including copies of any
wdtten grievances or complaints) since the last report and tl1e actions taken in response, redacting any private, personal infonnation concerning residents o( or applicants for~ Housing Units. The City
shall make clear in the Report when any such information is redacted.
To the extent Plaintiffs' Counsel or the Monitor reasonably detetmine
after consultation with the City that such private infonnation must be reviewed in unredacted form in order to analyze the Rep011 or assess
compliance with this Agreement, Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Monitor may request that disclosure of such information be made pursuant to a protective order, and the City shall provide such infonnation pursuant to a protective order to be negotiated b)' the Monitor and the parties or secured through an appropriate petition to the Court.
The amount and sources of City fi.mds expended since the last report.
26 LC, eta! P. City o]Los Angeles, eta!., Case No. 12~CV-551 FMO (PJWx)
SETTLEMENT AGREcME't><T AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 29 of 56 Page ID #:6741
Quantitative Data. Quantitative data referenced in Paragraph III.12(h)ii, above, shall include the number of properties inspected; numbers/types of units under construction; number/types of Accessible Units completed; number of Housing Developments in/out of compliance witb policy obligations; number/types of Accessible Units occupied by persons with disabilities who need the accessibility features; number/types of Accessible Units occupied by persons who do not need the accessibility features; number of persons with disabilities on waitl.ists and transfer fjsts for Housing Developments; number of Developments in compliance with Registry posting requirements; number of Housing Developments listed on the webbased registry; number of persons with disabilities on the web-based registry; number of requests for reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications granted or denied; number of grievances filed with Owners and their resolution; number of grievances filed with the City and their resoJution; and other data that the City deems reJevant. The repmt shall be submitted to the Monitor pursuant to Paragraph II 1.11, above.
Appointment of Settlement Coor·dinator ("Settlement Coordinator" or '~Coordinaior"). Within 90 days of the Eftectlve Date, the City shall hire a Settlement Coordinator and provide the individual's name and contact information to PJaintHTs' Counsel and the Monitor. The Settlement Coordinator wilJ coordinate effective implementation of this Agreement, shall be retained throughout the tenn of this Agreement, and shall be directed and compensated by the City. The Settlement Coordinator will report directly to the General Manager ofHCID concerning matters relating to this Agreement The City shall commit sufficient resources, authority, and independence so that. the Settlement Coordinator can successfully accomplish his or her responsibilities under this Agreement.
ADA Coordinator. The Settlement Coordinator position is in addition to, not a replacement for~ the City's current Section 504/ADA Coordinator7 who generally peiforms the functions set out in 24 C.F.R. § 8.53(a) and 28 C.F.R.
27 ILC, eta! v:-uty oj'LoS"Angeles, et aL) Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx)
SETrLEMENT AOREEMENI AND RGLEASE Of" CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 30 of 56 Page ID #:6742
§ 35.107 for the City. The Settlement Coordinator and the Section 504/ADA Coordinator shall coordinate as appropriate.
Qualifications of Settlement Coordinator. The initial Settlement
Coordinator, and any Settlement Coordinator subsequently hired shall: (a) have substantial experience in evaluating or assisting public entities in evaluating the accessibility of facilities under Section 504 and the ADA; (b) be knowledgeable in current federal and California accessibjlity standards; and (c) have experience in coordinating and implementing complex projects. It is highly desirable for the Settlement Coordinator to also have a minimum of three (3) years' experience in
providing Section 504 and/or ADA services related to accessible facilities and be
licensed either as an architect or as a registered civil engineer. Responsibilities and Authority of the Settlement Coordinator.
(a) At all times during the term of the Agreement, the Settlement Coordinator shall have responsibility and authority to: Receive and respond to reasonable inquiries and complaints fi·om Plaintiffs and others conceming accessibility barriers affecting Housing Developments, the Registry, and th.e City's Housing Programs. Recommend the adoption or modification of the City's policies and procedures concerning accessibility barriers affecting Housing Units and Housing Developments. Ensure the City's adoption of written policies and procedures concerning the maintenance of accessible features in Housing Units and Housing Developments. Coordinate aH compliance activities under this Agreement, including: A. Implementation ofthe provisions ofthis Agreement B. Coordination of the activities of City personnel who
28 rrc. eta/ v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 1l~CV-551 Fl'vfO {PJWx)
SITTTLEMENT AGI~EEI\·IENT AND RELEASE Of CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 31 of 56 Page ID #:6743
will implement this Agreement. Issue, or oversee the issuance of, Certifications of Compliance with Accessibility Standards for Housing Units and Housing Developments pursuant to Paragraph III.lO(a), and Certifications of Adoption of Housing Policies pursuant to Paragraph Ill.l O(l)iii. Review~ contribute to, and timely submit all reports required by this Agre.ement, as weU as any underlying documentation. ConsuH, as the Settlement Coordinator deems appropriate, with City personnel, contractors, or representatives to obtain infonnation concerning the City's compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Provide or oversee training identified in Paragraph III.IO(d). Oversee the development and implementation of the Registry identified in Paragraph III.l O(m) - tl1e Registry shaH be made available to the parties and the Civil Rights Monitor (i) in electronic fonn and (ii) in written form through the office of the Settlement Coordinator. Oversee the development and implementation of assistance in financing remediation~ as set out in Paragraphs III.l 0(a), (b). Conduct or oversee field spot checks of Covered Housing Developments. to confinn compliance with the physical accessibility and policy provisions of this Agreement. Adopt and catTY out procedures under which the Settlement Coordinator will accept, review, and resolve grievances or complaints arising under this Agreement, including througl1 the
29 ILC et al v. Ci.ty o}Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx) __..
SETTLEMENT AGReEMENT AND RELEASI~ OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 32 of 56 Page ID #:6744
grievance procedure set out in Paragraph III.l9, belm'>', from Plaintiffs, the dhmbility community, residents in and applicants for tenancy at the Housing Developments Covered by this Agreement, and other organizations that advocate for persons with disabilities.
Receive and respond to inquiries regarding the implementation of this Agreement by the City, Subrecipients, Owners, and Property Management Agents.
Recommend, subject to consultation with the Plaintiffs, the adoption or modification of the City's Housing Policies.
Oversee the performance of the City, Subrecipient<>, Owners, and Property Management Agents regarding the accessibility of Housing Units and Housing Developments and the Housing Policy provisions of this Agreement to ensure that they do not waive, ignore, or otherwise fail to identify and address noncompliance with Federal fair housing and civil rights requirements or any requirements of this Settlement.
Ensure the City's adoption of and compliance with written policies and procedures contemplated by this Agreement.
Respond to Plaintiffs' or Plaintiffs' Counsel's requests for information and docume11ts relating to any provisions of this Agreement. (b) The Settlement Coordinator may utilize stati and designees to carry out activities and obligations of the Settlement Coordinator, but the City shall require the Settlement Coordinator to retain the responsibility and the authority for perfonning Settlement Coordinator functions.
30 ll.C, et alv. City o]Los Angeles, eta!., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx)
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 33 of 56 Page ID #:6745
Settlement Coordinator Responsibilities for Registrv. As part of developing the Accessible Housing Unit Plan, the Settlement Coordinator shall oversee the creation of a database to include the following information:
(a) Identification by address and Owner of all Covered Hous-ing
Developments. (b) The Housing Developments and Units {identified by Unit number)
that meet the Housing Accessibility Standards, pursuant to a Certification of Compliance by the City. (c) Tbe date remedjation or construction began and concluded on ~ach of the existing Housing Developments and Housing Units. (d) The date a Ce1iification of Compliance was issued by the City.
(e) Which units are Accessible in each Housing Development, identifying
separately and by unit number the Housing Units with Mobility Features and the Housing Units with Sensory Mobility Features. Grievance and Complaint System. Within 30 days of the Effective Date) the City shall establish policies and procedures mutuaUy acceptable to the
parties for submission of grievances or complaints to, and responses by, the City
concerning accessibility in housing and programs covered by this Agreement, including complaints about the City's implementation of its Housing Program and
comp1aints about Owner or Management actions in Housing Units and Housing
Developments covered by this Agreement, as well as complaints about the Internet
Regist1y. The grievance procedures shall comply with the requirements of28 C.P.R. § 35.107, and shall at a minimum:
{a) Describe the procedures and timelines for submitting a complaint and obtaining a response.
(b) Provide for accessibility, effective communications, and reasonable accommodations in utilizing the procedures.
(c) Identify staff responsible for investigating and resolving complaints.
31 lLC. et at v. City ii]Los Angeles, et aJ., Case No. 12~CV~55l FMO (PJWx)
SETrLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RE::LEASE OF CLArMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 34 of 56 Page ID

(d)

m~r #:6746
Provide and describe a progressive set of sanctions that the City

use against Owners for policy noncompliance.

(e) Include maintenance of a log of complaints and their resolution or

outcome. Plaintiffs' Rights With Respect to Testing: In order to further the

Parties' intent that the Agreement wiH be successfully implemented, the Parties

agree that Plaintiffs may at their discretion conduct tests in Housing Units and Housing Developments and otherwise monitor implementation to determine whether

the tem1s of the Agreement are being followed. Where Plaintiffs may need to secure

cooperation with Owners in order to conduct such tests, the City agrees not to

interfere in Plaintitf.9' efforts to gain such cooperation. However, nothing contained

herein shall constitute a guarantee by the City that Plaintiffs shall receive ·such

cooperation from Owners, and the failure of Owners to cooperate with Plaintiffs shall not constitutea breach oftbis Agreement on the pa1i of the City. Should

Plaintiffs discover any purported issues or problems with the implementation as a

result of any tests conducted or m.onitming, Plaintiffs will make best efforts to notify

the City of the results. Training regarding tbis Agreement to SuQervisory EmuJoyees:

Within fifteen ( 15) days of the approval of this Agreement, the City shall train each

of its employees having supervisory authority for any components ofthis Agreement

on the requirements of this document. Thereafter, the City shall provide such training to any newly hired employee with such authority within fifteen (15) days of

hiring and to any employee newly given such authority within fifteen (15) days of

conferring on that employee such authority.

lLC, eta/ v. Ci~t)1-o-f?"'L.-o_s_A...,..n_g_e-.l-es-.-=e::.,c.t~a3l,-2.,.....,c""".as_Y_:N.,...,o-.-=1=2.....,-c=v=--=ss-=-J;-F=·'lv.:-:.t=o.....,(P='J"'Jc;-;·V.~-..)-- ··· · - -
SETTLEMG:NT AGREEMENT AND RC.LEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 35 of 56 Page ID #:6747
MONITORING Court Appointment of Monitor. Within seventy-five (75) days of Effective Date> the Parties will ask the District Court to appoint a Monitor to ensure that this Agreement is implemented effectively and to assist the Court in monitoring the City's compliance with this Agreemertt. The Patiies shall jointly propose to the
District Court one or more candidates to serve as a comt-appointed Monitor. The Monitor \Vill assess the City's progress toward achieving the Target Nwnber of Accessible Units and implementation of policies and procedures by reviewing plans~ policies> procedures, expenditures, staffing, and production of accessible units, among other things. The Monitor shall serve throughout the Settlement Tenn and shall repmi to the Court. For the purposes of this Settlement Agreement, the
rYJonitor•s authority shall derive from the Court) not the Parties. (a) Monitor Qualifications. The Monitor's qualifications shall include, but
not be limited to the following: (1) familiarity with and experience in the monitoring and enforcement of disability rights laws; and (2) familiarity with and experience in the education and training of employees in (a) disability rights laws, and (b) the requirements of compliance with
settlement agreements or court orders. Preference shaH be given to an individual who is familiar with compliance with disability housing accessibility laws. (b) Monitor R~sponsibility and Authority. The Monitor shall evaluate the City's compliance with the provisions of this Agreement to ensure full compllance with all of its terms. The Monitor shall have the obligation and authority to take steps to cany out this responsibility including but not limited to the obligation and authority to:
Monitor, review, collect, evaluate, and verify written and eJectronic data and infonnation on progress and completion of the Accessible Unit Housing Plan, accessibility of Housing Units and
33 ILC, et al v. Ci~y o.fLos Angeles, et al., Case Nu. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx)
SETTLEMENT AGitEEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 36 of 56 Page ID #:6748
Housing D~velopmentsr City Housing Program Accessibility, City monitoring of Owner compliance, and all other components of the Agreement
Conduct inspections, with appropriate notice to affected
individuals) of selected Hm,Jsing Uuhs and Housing Developments as the
Monitor deems appropriate, and measure, photograph, or otherwise document accessibility compliance.
Interview City staff, consultants) contractors, and agents as the Monitor deems appropriate.
Hire experts or staff as needed, within the budgetary limits in Paragraph III.i 0.(b), above, to assist in carrying out these responsibiJiti es.
Review and assess all reports prepared by the City as required by the tenns and provisions of this Agreement, and prepare recommendations for additional action as needed.
Maintain records ofthe Monitoring team's activities and relevant documents.
Provide Counsel for Plaintiffs and the City any re~evant infonnation known to or available to the Monitor under any provision of this Agreement upon reasonable request.
Prepare a written semi-annual report for submission to Counsel for Plaintiffs and the City on or before June 30 and December 31 of each year, beginning December 31, 2016, which shall describe, at
a minimum, the Monitor's assessment ofthe City's progress in complying with all of the provisions of this Agreement, and the
Monitor's comments on Reports submitted by the City. A copy will be filed with the Court. The parties shall meet and confer among themselves or with the Monitor to resolve any problems identified by the
n.c. 34 et al V. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. 11-CV-551 FMO (PJWx) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 37 of 56 Page ID #:6749
Monitor or any ofthe parties. If the parties cannot reach agreement,
either pmiy can request that the Mon]tor submit an additional report to
the Court with recommendations for action, and shall file a motion with
the Cowi for consideration of such recommendations or other requested relief.
Meet and confer with Plaintiffs and the City, to consider suggestions for implementing the spirit and letter of the Agreement, and to clarify information contained in the Monitor's repotis.
(c) Records and Other Information Available to Monitor. For the
duration of this Agreement, except to the extent that disclosure of information is prohibited by law or applicable privileges, the City shall provide the Monitor upon request information and records (or other computerized counterparts) sufficient to adequately monitor the City's compliance with all provisions of this Agreement and to complete the repOJting described in Paragraphs III.9 and III. II, including but not limited to all records relating to implementation of the AccessjbJe Housing Unit Plan, architectural accessibility compliance for existing and new Housing Developments (including surveys, plans, and architectural drawings), issuance of Certifications of Compliance with Accessibility Standards and Certifications of Adoption ofHousing Policies, the City's program accessibility and ADA/504 self-evaluations. occupancy and utilization surveys and auditst reasonable accommodation and reasonable
modification logs, grievances and complaints, progress in meeting Target
Number, the Registry, training materials, and annual funding devoted to
tl1e program. The City must make available to the Monitor any records
relating to the implementation of any provision of this Agreement, including records submitted by or required to be maintained by Owners and Property Management Agents. The City shall make clear when any
35
1LC. et ctl v. City o]Los Angeles, eta/., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWJ.~
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 38 of 56 Page ID #:6750
such information or records are being withheld from the Monitor in accordance \v:ith this section. To the extent the Monitor reasonably determines after consultation with the City that such information or records must be reviewed in order tbr the Monitor to satisfy his or her responsibilities under this Agreement or to the Comt, the Monitor may reque~i that disclosure of such infonnation or records be made pursuant to a protective order, and the City shall provide such information pursuant to a protective order to be negotiated by the Monitor and the parties or secured through an appropriate petition to the Court (d) l\feetings with :Monitor.
Preliminarv Meeting: No later than ninety (90) days following the commencement of employment by the Monitor, the Monitor and counsel for all Parties shall attend a preliminary meeting at a location designated by the Monitor. The purpose oftbe meeting shall be for the City to describe the activities that have been and will be taken with respect to the implementation ofthe Agreement and for the patiies~ counse] to discuss any relevant issues concerning the implementation of the Agreement.
Additional Meetings: In addition to the preliminary meeting, the Monitor shall hold at least one annual meeting witb the City and Plaintiff.~ to review progress. The Monitor may, as he or she deems appropriate, schedule other meetings and/or conferettce calls with the Parties' counsel to discuss any relevant issues concerning the implementation and enforcement of the Agreement. (e) Cost of Monitor: The City shall bear the cost of the Monitor during the Settlement Term, capped at the amounts specified below:
Years 1-3: Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($850,000) per year.
36
""JLCuet at-ii.city of Los Angeles, eta!., Case No. 12~CV-551 .FMO (P.!Jflx)
SEITLEMENT AGRf.EMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

~~:t./ Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 39 of 56 Page ID #:6751
Years 4-6: Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,0ff per year.
Years 7-10: Three Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($375,000) per year. (i) Monitoring Authority. The Monitor sball have the authority to hire others to assist him or her, including but not limited to the authority to hire one or more persons with technical expertise to assist in monitoring the implementation of the Accessible Housing Unit Plan and ce1tification of accessible units, within the budgetary limits in Paragraph IV.I(e), above, to assist in carrying out this authority.
RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING Record Keeping and Reporting. (a) During the Settlement Tenn. the City shall maintain all records necessary to verify compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The City shall instruct Owners and Property Management Agencies to maintain all records regarding compliance with the terms of the Agreement. (b) Subject to the limitations cited in Paragraph IV.L(c)., the City shall, upon reasonable request, make best efiorts to provide a copy of any data and reports that it, its agents, Subrecipients, Owners, or Propet1y Management Agents generate to c.omply with this Agreement, whether maintained electronically or otherwise, including but not limited to records identified in various provisions of this Agreement and documents.that support the RepOJ1s requjred by this Agreement, to the Monitor or Plaintiffs' Counsel.
37 lLC, el al v. City o]"Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJW:r;)
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ReLEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 40 of 56 Page ID #:6752
City~s Duty to Retain Documents. The City shall maintain all documents and records provided to the Monitor as well as all documents and records maintained and/or generated by the City that pertain to the Agreement for a period of five (5) years. For a period not to exceed six (6) months beyond the expiration of this Agreement, Plaintiffs' Counsel shall, upon request, be provided access to any of the records desc1%ed in the Record-Keeping provisions of this Agreement.
MUTUAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS P"laintiffs, for and jo consideration of this Agreement, including any and all recitals, promises, covenants, and terms herein, for themselves (and for their executors, assigns, and successorst as well as their administrators, agents, and representat1ves acting in their official capacjties on behalf of Plaintiffs) (collectively ''Plaintiff Releasing Parties"), do hereby fully and finally remise, release, acquit, and forever discharge the City and, in their official capacities, its respective successors, directors, officers, employees, agents, its past, present and future departments (including HCID (formerly known as the Los Angeles Housing Department))~ boards, commissionsl predecessors, and successors-in-interest, (collectively "Defendant Released Entities") fium any and all claims and demands of any and every kind, name, nature, or desc1iption, and from any rights, disputes, complaints, charges, actions and causes of action, suits, debts, injuries, reimbursements, contracts, covenants, liens, liabilities, losses, costs, expenses, obligations, and damages of any nature, kind, and description, whether asserted or unasserted, known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated, suspected or unsuspected~ or actual or contingent, in law or in equity, which the Plaintiff Releasing Parties now have against the Defendant Released Entities or any of the Defendant Released Entities, whether or not the same be now existent or known to the PlaintiffReleasing Parties, by reason of or arising out of the claims as more particularly alleged in this
38
rr:c;-a· a/ v. City o]Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx)
SE:ITLEMENT AGREBMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 41 of 56 Page ID #:6753
Litigation and arising up until the date of Judgment~ including but not limited to any claim or cause of action,. including but not limited to injunctive, declaratory, or other non~monetmy relief, however described, that the Plaintiff Releasing Pat1ies asserted
or could have asseJted in this Litigation against the Defendant Released Entities,
pertaining to accessibility under Section 504, the ADA, and Section 11 135, and availability to people with disabilities of any and all of the multifamily housing funded, developed, or sign1ficantly assisted by the City at any time prior to this Agreement ('"Released Claims"). Such Released Claims, however, shaH not include any claims to enforce the tenns of this Agreement, nor shall they include claims set forth in any other action tiled between January 1, 2011 and March 31, 2011 against the Defendant Released Entities and currently pending in the United States District Court for the Cent1·al District of California.
The City, for itself and its respective successorst directors, officers,
employees, agents, their past, present and future departments (including HCID (fonnerly known as the Los Angeles Hol.lsing Department)), boards, commissions,
predecessors, and successors-in-interest, (collectively "Defendant Releasing
Parties"), for and in consideration ofthis Agreement including any and all recitals,
promises, covenants, and tenns herein, does hereby fully and finally remise, release,
acquit, and forever discharge Plaintiffs {and their assigns, and successors, as well as their administrators, agents, and representatives acting in their official capacities on
behalf of Plaintiffs) (collectively "PlaintiffReleased Entities") from any and aH
claims and demands of any and every kind, name, nature, or description, and from any rights, disputes, complaints, charges, actions and causes of action, suits, debts, injuries, reimbursements, contracts, covenants, llens, liabilities, losses, costs, expenses, obligations, and damages of any nature, kind, and description, whether asserted or unasserted, known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated, suspected or unsuspected, or actual or contingent, in law or in equity, which the City now has against the Plaintiff Released Entities, whether or not th.e same be now existent or
39 -n:-c;-et al v. City o]'Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 12-CV-551 PMO (PJWx)
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ANP RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 42 of 56 Page ID #:6754
known to the City: by reason of or arising out oftl1e claims as more particularly alleged in this Litigation and arising up until the date of Judgment, including but not limited to any claim or cause of action, including but not Umited to injunctive, declaratory, or other non-monetary relief, however described, that the City asserted
or could have asse1ted in the Action, pertaining to the accessibility under Section
504, the ADA, and Section l 1135, and availability to people with disabilities of any and all ofthe multifamily housing funded, developed, or significantly assisted by the City at any time prior to this Agreement ("Released Claims"). Such Released Claims, however, shall not include any claims to enforce the terms of this Agreement.
\Vaiver or Civil Code Section 1542: With respect to the release of
claims by reason of or arising out of the claims as more pa1ticularly alleged in the this Litigation and arising up until the date of Judgment, as provided in Paragraphs VI. 1 and VI.2, above, the Plaintiff Releasing Parties and the Defendant Releasing Parties waive and relinquish any and all tights and benefits afforded by Califom1a Civil Code Section 1542, and acknowledge and understand that the facts with respect to the Action and this Agreement may, after the date of execution of this Agreement, be discovered to be other than or different from the facts now known and believed to be true. The Plaintiff Releasing Pruties and the Defendant Releasing Parties knowingly accept and assume the risk of the facts being different. agree that this Agreement shall be and remain in all aspects effective and not subject to termination by vittue of any such difference in facts, understand and acknowledge the significance and consequences of such specific waiver of California Civil Code Section 1542, and expressly assume full responsibility for any losses or consequences that may be incurred by making such waiver. The PlaintiffReieasjng Pa11ies and the Defendant Releasing Parties expressly understand that Califomia Civil Code Section 1542 provides as follows:
40
·--IL C. et a/ v. City o] Los Angeles, et al., Ca.ve No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx) SETTLEMENT AGR~EMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 43 of 56 Page ID #:6755
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE
CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER
FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERJALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.
The Plaintiff Releasing Parties and the Defendant Releasing Parties, being aware of the foregoing code section, freely, voluntarily, and expressly waive to the fuHest extent applicable any rights they may have thereunder. Tl1e Plaintiff Releasing Parties and the Defendant Releasing Parties acknowledge that, in agreeing to the foregoing release, they have not relied on any inducements,
promi~es, or representations by tl1e Plaintiff ReJeased Entities or the Defendant
Released Entities, other than as expressly set forth in and this Agreement. Such Released Claims, however, shall not include any claims to enforce the terms of this Agreement, nor shall they include claims set forth in any other action filed between January 1, 2011 and March 31, 2011 against the Defendant Released
Entities and currently pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of Califomia.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Meet and Confer Obligation. If any Party believes that a dispute
exists relating to any violation of or failure to perfom1 any of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement, it shall notify the other Party in writing and describe the
alleged violation or failure to perfom1 with particularity. The Parties shall meet and confer within ten (1 0) business days of receipt of such notice. If they are unable to resolve their differences, they shall resort to mediation as described below.
l.Vlediation. If the Pru.1ies are unable to resolve a dispute through the
meet and confer process described above, the Parties shall mediate the dispute. The Parties shall have fifteen (l5) business days to jointly select a mediator. If the Patties
41 !LT.ei al v. City of Los Angeles. et al.. Case No. 12~CV~551 FMO (PJWx)
SETTLEMEJ>;T AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 44 of 56 Page ID #:6756
are unable to reach agreement on a mediator, each side may submit three (3) names
of proposed mediators to the District Court and the District Comi shall select the
mediator. The mediation shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of the selection of
the mediator, in the manner detem1ined by the mediator, and the Parties shall engage
in good faith efforts to resolve the dispute through such mediation.
Resolution bv the District Court. If the Parties are unable to resolve a
dispute through the mediation process described above, any Party may make a motion to the District Court to enforce the Agreement in order to resolve the dispute.
COMPENSATION AND FEES Compensation to Plaintiffs. The City agrees to pay Plaintiffs a total of
Four Million, Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,500,000) to resolve their claims fol" monetary damages. Payment shall be made no earlier than forty-five (45) days, and no later than sixty (60) days, from the Effective Date. Payment shall be made by wire transfer to Plaintiffs' Counsel, Relrnan, Dane & Colfax, PLLC, 1225 19th Street N. W., Suite 600, Washington~ D.C. 20036-2456, for distribution to Plaintiffs.
Attorneys' Fees. The parties agree that attorneys' fees will be
submitted to the Comt for determination. Plaintiffs' Counsel shall submit a fee petition to the Court within forty-five {45) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement. 11
Costs. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this
Agreement, Plainti11s' Counsel shall supply to the City documentation of costs
incurred by Plaintiffs' Counsel in this Litigation, in an amount not to exceed One Million Dollars($ I ,000,000). Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of such documentation, the City agrees to reimburse Plaintiffs' Counsel for all such documented costs. Payment shall be made by wire transfer to Reiman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC, 1225 19th Street N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20036-2456, for distribution among Plaintiffs' Counsel.
42 lLC, et al v. City oj'Los Angeles, eta!., CaseNo.JZ-CV-551 FMO (PJWx)
SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 45 of 56 Page ID #:6757

Prospective Monitol'ing Fees and Costs for Plaintiffs' Counsel: In

addition to the fees described in Paragraph VIU.2, the City shall pay to Plaintiffs'

Counsel the1r reasonable and necessary monitoring fees and expenses during the
Settlement Term not to exceed the following amounts, exclusive of any disputes
resolved by the District Court: (c} Years 1-3: Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) per year.

(d) Years 4-6: One Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand Dollars ($156,000) per

year. (e) Years 7- 10: One Hundred Thi11y-Five Thousand($135,000) per year.

.Payment of fees, costs, and expenses for the monitoring work to be performed by Plaintiffs~ Counsel shall be made as follows:

No later than sixty (60) days following the Effective Date, the City shall deposit Eighty-Three Thm1sand, Three Hundred and Thirty-Three Dollars and

Thirty-Three Cents ($83,333.33) into each of three separate sub-accounts
("Monitoring Accounts'')> tor purposes of allocating funds for the payment of

fees to counsel for each of the three respective Plaintiffs. Such Monitoring

Accounts arc to be maintained with a national banking association designated by Plaintiffs~ Counsei and approved by the Court. Thereafter, during the Settlement Tetm, on each anniversary of the Effective Date~ the City shall deposit into each such Monitoring Account one-third of the amount specified

in that respective year in Paragraph VIII.4, above.

Funds from the Monitoring Accounts shall be disbursed to Plaintiffs' Counsel no later than the first day of each calendar quarter during the Settlement Tem1 in amounts re·flecting (a) the number of hours of monitoring work perfonned during the previous three month period, multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, and

(b) costs and expenses incurred during the previous three month period. No less

tha11 thirty (30) days prior to any such disbursal. Plaintiffs' Counsel shall submit to the City invoices for actual fees and expenses incurred on a quarterly basis, together

liX:.

e{a/

v.

City

43
ofLo_s_A:r--n-g_e,....le-s,-e__;.t,:;..a_,.J.-~-=c=-as-e--=N:7o.-...,..12-=--....,c=v,...,-5::-::5:-:-J-=p=M-=-:O~(P::-:~=w;-;-x)...---· ·--· ~-

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAiMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 46 of 56 Page ID #:6758
with a signed declaration from Plaintiffs' Counsel attesting to the accuracy of such.
ln the event the parties cannot agree informally on the amount to be disbursed to
Plaintiffs' Counsel from the Monitoring Accounts for a particular three month period, the matter shall be submitted to the Court for resolution. Fees shall be made
payable to Reiman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC. for distribution among Plaintiffs' CounseL
COURT'S RETENTION OF JURISDICTION
The Parties agree, and the Parties intend that, the Judgment will provide
that the District Court shaJI retain continuing jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the terms of this Agreement during the Sett1ement Term, and that the Judgment wiU incorporate the tenns of this Settlement Agreement by reference. The Cou1i
thereafter shall retain jurisdiction to resoJve any disputes that may arise during the
Settlement Tenn. Only the Parties may seek to enforce the ten11s of the Agreement
through the dispute resolution process provided for in Section VII, above. Three (3) months before the end of the Settlement Term, the City shall prepare a final report to
the Monitor and Plaintiffs showing that it has fu1ly comp1ied with the provisions of this Settlement Agreement, and may move the Court for an Order terminating its
jurisdiction of this matter as of a date following the Settlement Term, on the basis that all of its obligations under the Settlement Agreement have been fully discharged.
MISCELLANEOUS
Entire Agreement; Severability. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the City and Plaintiffs and supersedes all prior agreements, written or oraL Each provision and term of this Agreement shall be
interpreted in such manner as to be valid and enforceable. ln the event any provision
or lcrm of this Agreement is determined to be or is rendered invalid or
ire, 44
eta/ v. Cit¥ o]Los Angeles, et al., Ct1se No. 12·CV-551 FMO (PJW.x).
SETTLEMENT AGREF..MENT AND RELF.ASE OF CI.AIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 47 of 56 Page ID #:6759

unenforceable, all other provisions and terms of this Agreement shall remain
unatTccted to the extent pennitted by law.

Modification of Settlement Agreement.
(a) This Settlement Agreement may only be modified or amended in writing, signed by all patties, that specifically states that its purpose is to amend or modify this Settlement Agreement.
(b) All deadlines and dates for performance by the City under this Settlement Agreement may be extended or modified by written agreement between Plaintiffs and the City.
(c) If the City should be delaye~ 1nten·upted, or prevented from
performing any of its obligations under this Settlement Agreement
and such delay, interruption, or prevention is due to fire, act of God,
or other unforeseeable events, including, but not limited to any cause outside the reasonable control of the City, as the case may be, then the time for performance of the affected obligation of City may be extended, by written agreement of the Parties, for a period equivalent to the period of such delay, interruption, or prevention.
(d) Any Pa1iy may file a wrilien motion with the District Court for the
purpose ofmodifying a tenn or provision of the Settlement
Agreement. Before filing a motion with the District Coutt, the
moving Party must discl1Ss the reasons for the proposed modification
with all Parties for the purpose of detennining whether there is
agreement on the· need for the modification. Claims Against CRA/LA. Nothing in this Agreement releases the Defendant CRA/LA, A Designated Local Authority~ Successor to Community Redevelopment Agency ofthe City ofLos Angeles ("CRA/LA''), from any claims
that Plaintiffs have asserted against it in the Litigation or from any clajms that the
City may have agajnst the CRA!l.JA. Plaintiffs intend to continue to pursue all

-· ····JLC:.ei

CiTi~City

of

Los

Angeles,

45
et aC

Case No.

12~CV-55!

FMO

(PJWx)

SETJ'L.t:MENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 48 of 56 Page ID #:6760

pending claims against the CRA/LA in litigation.
Conditions Precedent. The Parties agree that this Settlement Agreement shaH be conditioned upon, and shall be effective only upon, the occurrence ofeach and every one of the following events:
(a) The Settlement Agreement has been approved by the City Council and the Mayor.

(b) The Settlement Agreement has been fully executed by the Parties. {c) The Court has entered an Order substantially in the form attached as
Exhibit D.

Notice to tbe Par·ties: A11 notices required or permitted hereunder shall
be in writing and shaH be served on tbe Parties at the addresses set forth below. Any
such notices shall be:

(a) Sent by ovemight delivery using a nationally recognized overnight courier, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered one (1) business day after deposit with StlCh courier; or
(b) Personally delivered, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered
upon receipt by the Party to whom tbe notice was delivered. As a
courtesy only, email may be used to provide a Parly with notification that a notice has been sent and may include a copy of the notice. A Party's address may be changed by wlitten notice to the other Pat1y; provided that no notice of a change of address shall be effective until receipt of such notice as provided for above.

To Plaintiffs:

cIl/4no4d~N0Q7ocrGnmdielamntJoeLraenivSVitnregesecCto,ev#no1t,e0rC1ohfieSfoEuxtheecmutiCvealOiffofrinciear Van Nuys CA 91401 nvescovoC:.V.ilcsc. org

sPcF1k/4aaoi6ninr2Sol1aHrhwaaoTmr@uioastnfuiaCnsKigirStTiCyntmr,loeaCeuuwtsnAzi,cnSEig9luxc1iooet4ecfu0unS12tca0iinv0l.eFoDregrinreacntdoor Valley

-

-

---·---.I.L....,..C.-e-,.-1-t.z...l.-v-.Clty of los
SE1TLEMENT

46 Angeles, eta!.,
AGREEMENT AND

Case No.
Rf:LEASE

12-CV"551
OP CLAlMS

FMO

(PJW.x)

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 49 of 56 Page ID #:6761

Cc/oomLmilluibneittihesNAavcatirvroel,yELxievciuntgivIendDetpreecntdoernt and Fre-

2

634 South Spring Street> Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 900 14

lnavarro@califwilc.org

3

With a copy to:
4 5 6 7

Michael AJlen, Esg. Rclman. Dane & Colfax, PLLC 1225 19rh Street NWd Suite 600 Washington .DC 20 36
TFaecles1pmhoilnee::c122o022)772288-:0-1884888
EmaH: maflen relmanlaw.com

Autumn Elliott, Esg.

Disabjlity Rights California

9

350 S. Bixel Ave:1. Suite 290 Los Angeles, CA ~oo t 7

10

Telephone: (213} 213-8000 Facs1mi1e: f213 2l3w800 I

11

Autumn.El iott a disabilit ri htsca.or

12

To City of Los Angeles: Miguel A. Santana City Administrative Officer

13

1500 City Hall East 200 Nmtn Main St, 151h Floor

14

Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 473-7534

15

Facstmile: (213) 473-7510 'Miguel.Santana@lacity.org

16

17

18

19

20

21

\Vith a copy to:

22

23

24

Rushmore Cervantes

General Manager

Housi11g + 1200 West

C7toh mStm., u9n11i1 tFyloInovr estment

Department

Los Angeles CA 90017

Tclephone:]2 J3) 808-8808

Facstmile: 213) 808-8616

Rushmore. ervantes@lacity.org

James P. Clark Chief Assistant City Attorney 800 City Hall East 200 North Main St., 81h Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (2 I3) 978-8100 Facsnnile: (2 I3) 978-8312 James.P .Clark(a{iacity.org

25

Noreen S. Vincent

26

Senior Assistant City Attorney 800 City Hall East

27

200 North Main St.. gth Floor Los Angeles, CA

28

Telephone: (213) 978-7730 Facs1mile: (213) 978-7714

Noreen.Vincent @lacity.org

·

-·· ··-·-TLC,efarv.

47
City oj Los Angeles, et a!., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx)

SE'fTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 50 of 56 Page ID #:6762
Opportunitv to Consult with Counsel: The Parties represent that prior to signing this Settlement Agreement, they have read it, consulted with counsel of their choke, and each understood its terms and conditions. The Parties hereto accept this Settlement Agreement as thejr own free and voluntary act, without duress, and intend to be legally bound by it. Thjs Settlement Agreement is made without reliance upon any statements or representations by the Pa1ties or their representatives that are not contained herein.
Settlement Agreement Binding on Successors and Assigns: This Agreement shall be binding on, and enforceable by, the Parties, their employees, and theh· successors and assigns.
Titles: The titles used in this Settlement Agreement ru·e nonsubstantive descriptions included solely for the Parties~ ease of reference and shall not be construed to alter the substantive provisions of this Settlement Agreement.
Weekends and Holidays: If a reporting day or other deadline under this Agreement falls on a weekend or state or federal holiday, the report or other required action will be due on the first business day after the weekend or holiday.
CounterRarts and Facsimiles: This Settlentent Agreement may be
executed in counterparts and facsimiles, all of which when taken together shall constitute a single instrument.
Parties Agree to Cooperate: The Parties agree to cooperate in submitting this Settlement Agreement to the Court for execution, and to cooperate and execute additional documents or take other actions necessary to perform their
respecti,:e obligations under this Set1lement Agreement. Construction: This Settlement Agreement is the result of negotiations
and joint drafting, undertaken in good faith and in that regard the rule of contractual construction that an ambiguous tenn shaH be construed against the drafter shall not be employed.
48 JLC eta/ v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. 12-CV-551 i~'MO (PfWx)
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE Of CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 51 of 56 Page ID #:6763

Agreed to by the Parties, as evidenced by signatures below.

;J-z_/; 2

3 Dated: ·.:)

b

4

NotnnVa'es~covoJ;C~htef

~u.-v-r-
xecuttve Officer

Independent Livmg Center of Southern

California

5 Dated:
6
7

Sharon Kmlaw Executive Director Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley

8 Dated: 9 JO

Ldhbeth FJavarro, Executive Dtrector Communities Actively Living Independent and Free

II Approved as to Form:
12 Dated:~~ /~ 2e116
13 I4 15 16 17 18
19 20
21
22 23

7&d4YJ!tZ_ J011llP.Rel1118 Michael G. Allen RELMAN. DANE & COLFAX PLLC 1225 19th St. NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 728-1888 Facsimile: (202) 728-0848 mallen@relmanlaw.com
Autumn Elliott DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 350 S. Bixel Ave., Suite 290 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 213-8000 Facsimile: (213) 213-8001 Autumn.Elliott@disabilityrightsca.org

24

Dara Schur

25

DISABIUTY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

1330 Broadway. Suite 500

26

Oakland, CA 94612

27

Telephone: (510) 267-1200

28

Facsimile: (510) 267-1201 Dara.Schur@disabilityrightsca.org

49 .
lLC, eta/ v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. 12-CV·551 FMO (PJWx)
SBITLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 52 of 56 Page ID #:6764

Agr~td to by tile Parties, as evidenced by signatures below.

Dated: 3
4

Dated: "1"/}a;r- 121 20I&

6

~...

Nom1a Vescovot Chte1 EXecuttve Officer
Independent Livmg Center of Southern California

Dated:

J(t l 1
.-~pprovcd as to Form : 12 Dated:

14

\5

16

,
t

..r.,

I~

19
.:>.o
·-" I .., 1 1
.·,r 1·
1 :....:: 1
'

tilhbeth Navarro, Execuhve Dzrector Communities Actively Living Independent and
J'ree
John P. Reiman Michael G. Allen
RELMAN 1 DANE & COLFAX PLLC
1225 19th St. NW. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 728-1888 Facsimile: (202) 728w0848 mallen@relmanJaw.com
Autumn Elliott
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
350 S. Bixel Ave., Suite 290
Los Angeles, CA 900 17
Telephone: (2t3) 213-8000 Facsimile: (21 3) 213~8001

Dara Schur
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
1330 Broadway, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 267-12{)0 Facsimile: (510) 267~1201

·-· JJX::~:r--iilv.

Ci~V

o.fLo"i;"Aizge!es,

49
et al.; Cast~-No.

12-CV-551

FMO (PJWx)

.. -- -·- -

Sii liU.MENT AGREEMENT AND RF.l.F.ASE 01; CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 53 of 56 Page ID #:6765

Agreed to by the Pru1ies, as evidenced by signatures below.

Dated : 3
4 5
Dated: 6 7
8 Dated: · 9 10

Nonna Vescovo, Ch1et Execut1ve Officer
Independent Living Center of Southern California
FShaiarroHnoKusminigawC,oEuxnecciluto1fvSeaDn1Freecmtoarndo Valley
L. v.r· CClof(trr(r5:ue.n(£~uh1n.NiLt.iaejvs-a·hArr1co(,tV)ivl~iexleycLuihvviengDl1nrdeecptoerndent and
Free

11
Approved a'> to Form:
12 Dated: 13 14 15 16 17 18

·- · · - - - - ·· -·-···· ' . -~· --....... ·· .. .. -·----· . John P. Relman
Michael G. Allen RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC 1225 19th St. NW, Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 728-18"88
Facsimile: (202) 728-0848 mallen@relmanlaw.com

19

Autumn Elliott

20

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 350 S. Bixel Ave., Suite 290

21

Los Angeles, CA 90017

22

Telephone: (213) 213-8000
Facsimile: (213) 213-8001

23

Autumn.Elliott@disabilityrightsca.or,g

24

Dara Schur

25

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

26

1330 Broadway, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612

27

Telephone: (510) 267-1200

28

Facsimile: (510) 267~1201 Dara.Schur@disabilitvrigbtsca.org

49 ILC, et al v. City o] Los Angeles, et al., Case No. ii=cV:551 FMO (PJWx)
SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 54 of 56 Page ID #:6766

Marone} Barajas

D1SABIL1TY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER

2

Loyola Public Interest Law Center

3

256 S. Occidental Blvd., Suite B

Los Angeles, CA 90057

4

Telephone: (213) 736-1496

5

Facsimile: (213) 736-1428

Maronel.barajas@drlcenter.org

6

7

David Geffen

s

DAVID GEFFEN LAW FIRM 530 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 205

9

Santa Monica, CA 90401

10

Telephone: {310) 434-1111 Facsimile: (31 0) 434-1115

1 I

GeffenJa w@aol.com

12

Counsel for Plaintiffs

l3

14

15

16

17

t8

14

20

_,'1..,

----I LC:

;.~i til·\·._

Ctti· (){Lei.~
Sr"iui·"-H· ~T

'>fn~i:TC.~.~:

-

50
r!l til.,

AGRt:E\·Il·.S 1 ·\r-.:D

Cas·(~?. .i;~~
REI .EAst'

Tf~c'f'~.{'S FliJB"iPJH:"ti
or· C'l.,\1'\.1~

·------

.

...

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 55 of 56 Page ID #:6767

Dated:
3 4 Approved CIS to Fmm: 5
Dated:
6 7 8 9 IU I 1
12 Attest:
l3
Holly L Wolcott, City Clerk
14 CITY OF LOS ANGELES 1.5 16 By:
17 Date:
18 19 20 21
22

···-··~--------·-· --~
Miguel A. Santana City Administrative Officer CITY OF LOS ANGELES
~·. -·- ......·······-·-······· ....... .. ..··-. ...... ·-.·-· •... .-- .. ..- ..........___ James P. Clark
Chief Deputy City Attorney CITY OF LOS ANGELES

24 25 Council File Number: ~ __........ ·--··· · - -:·Date of Approval: - - - - - - -
26 Said Agreement is Number-------·------·-·---·--· of City Contracts 27
18
51 JLC, et al v. Ci(v o}Los Angeles, et aL, G'ase No. 12-CV-551 FMO (P.JWx)
SETrLEM!:iNT AGREEMENT /\NO RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 530-2 Filed 07/29/16 Page 56 of 56 Page ID #:6768
Exhibits 2 Exhibit A: List of Exist1ng Covered Housing Developments, Excluding Units in
Exhibit B.
3
4 Exhibjt 8: List of 22 CRA/LA Housing Developments Not Part of Agreement 5 Exhibit C-1: City of Los Angeles Pair 1-lous1ng Policy in Regards to Disability 6 Gt1idance and Requirements for Owners and Property Managers, May 12, 2016 7 Exhibit C-2: Tenant Handbook of Rental Occupancy Policies Regarding Disability
for [Housi.ng Development], May 12, 2016 l) Exhibit 0: Proposed Judgment
10 ] 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20
2! 22
- ·'~.,
24 25

1LC:-~·I~;.-Ci1X.-(~/Los

52 Angdt's.-t'l aCi..;;t...e i\"";;I 2-(T-)51

F/110

tPJIV.YJ

·--·--

-· ·-

SrTlr.ulri',T A<iRFF\1FNl .-\'\10 Rrll',,~r: or Ct At~ to.;

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 1 of 46 Page ID #:9163
FILED
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

1

4&15

2

3

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

BY: ____________W_E_S_____ DEPUTY

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JS-6

6

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9

10

11

12
INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF ) CASE NO.: CV 12-0551 FMO (PJWx)

13 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al. )

14

) [-P--R--O---P-O---S-E--D---] JUDGMENT

15 vs.

Plaintiffs,

) PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT ) AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN

16

) CRA/LA, A DESIGNATED LOCAL

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
17
CALIFORNIA, et al.

) AUTHORITY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY ) TO THE COMMUNITY

18

) REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF

19

Defendants.

) THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, AND

________________________________ ) PLAINTIFFS

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4821-0731-7070.1

1

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWx)
-[P--R-O-P-O--S-E-D-] JUDGMENT

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 2 of 46 Page ID #:9164

1
WHEREAS, the CRA/LA, a Designated Local Authority, a defendant in this

2
action and the successor agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of

3 Los Angeles (the “CRA”), and the Independent Living Center of Southern California

4
(“ILCSC”), the Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley (“FHC”) and

5 Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (“CALIF”) (collectively referred to

6
herein as “Plaintiffs”) have entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims,

7 attached as Exhibit A, which fully resolves claims asserted by Plaintiffs against the CRA;

8
and

9

WHEREAS, the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action,

10
the Plaintiffs, the CRA, and the Settlement Agreement; and

11
WHEREAS, upon consideration, the Court finds the Settlement Agreement

12
to be fair, reasonable, and adequate.

13
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND

14 DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

15
1. For the purposes of this Judgment, the Court adopts the terms and

16 definitions set forth in the Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit A, and all terms of

17
the Settlement Agreement are incorporated herein by reference.

18
2. This Judgment Pursuant to Settlement completely resolves this civil

19
action between the CRA and Plaintiffs. The claims against the City of Los Angeles were

20
previously resolved by Judgment Pursuant to Settlement Agreement by and between City

21 of Los Angeles and Plaintiffs (Doc. 532, filed August 4, 2016). This does not resolve this

22
action between Plaintiffs and the remaining nominal defendants.

23

3. In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, this Court

24
reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the terms of the

25 Settlement Agreement during the Settlement Term, and to resolve any disputes that may

26
arise during the Settlement Term.

27

28

4821-0731-7070.1

2

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWx)
[-P-R-O--P-O-S-E-D--] JUDGMENT

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 3 of 46 Page ID #:9165

1
4. The court determines that there is no reason to delay entry of this
2
Judgment Pursuant to Settlement Agreement By and Between the CRA and Plaintiffs.
3

4
IT IS SO ORDERED and ADJUDGED
5

6

7 Dated: S__e_p_t._7__, _2_0_17
8
9

__________/s_/_______________________ The Hon. Fernando M. Olguin UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

11
Attachment: Exhibit A
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4821-0731-7070.1

3

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWx)
-[P-R--O-P-O--S-E-D-] JUDGMENT

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 4 of 46 Page ID #:9166

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11

Exhibit A

12

Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4821-0731-7070.1

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 5 of 46 Page ID #:9167

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 6 of 46 Page ID #:9168

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 7 of 46 Page ID #:9169

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 8 of 46 Page ID #:9170

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 9 of 46 Page ID #:9171

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 10 of 46 Page ID #:9172

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 11 of 46 Page ID #:9173

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 12 of 46 Page ID #:9174

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 13 of 46 Page ID #:9175

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 14 of 46 Page ID #:9176

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 15 of 46 Page ID #:9177

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 16 of 46 Page ID #:9178

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 17 of 46 Page ID #:9179

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 18 of 46 Page ID #:9180

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 19 of 46 Page ID #:9181

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 20 of 46 Page ID #:9182

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 21 of 46 Page ID #:9183

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 22 of 46 Page ID #:9184

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 23 of 46 Page ID #:9185

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 24 of 46 Page ID #:9186

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 25 of 46 Page ID #:9187

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 26 of 46 Page ID #:9188

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 27 of 46 Page ID #:9189

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 28 of 46 Page ID #:9190

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 29 of 46 Page ID #:9191

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 30 of 46 Page ID #:9192

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 31 of 46 Page ID #:9193

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 32 of 46 Page ID #:9194

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 33 of 46 Page ID #:9195

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 34 of 46 Page ID #:9196

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 35 of 46 Page ID #:9197

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 36 of 46 Page ID #:9198

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 37 of 46 Page ID #:9199

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 38 of 46 Page ID #:9200

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 39 of 46 Page ID #:9201

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 40 of 46 Page ID #:9202

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 41 of 46 Page ID #:9203

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 42 of 46 Page ID #:9204

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 43 of 46 Page ID #:9205

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 44 of 46 Page ID #:9206

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 45 of 46 Page ID #:9207

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596 Filed 09/07/17 Page 46 of 46 Page ID #:9208

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 1 of 32 Page ID #:9209

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 2 of 32 Page ID #:9210

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 3 of 32 Page ID #:9211

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 4 of 32 Page ID #:9212

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 5 of 32 Page ID #:9213

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 6 of 32 Page ID #:9214

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 7 of 32 Page ID #:9215

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 8 of 32 Page ID #:9216

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 9 of 32 Page ID #:9217

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 10 of 32 Page ID #:9218

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 11 of 32 Page ID #:9219

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 12 of 32 Page ID #:9220

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 13 of 32 Page ID #:9221

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 14 of 32 Page ID #:9222

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 15 of 32 Page ID #:9223

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 16 of 32 Page ID #:9224

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 17 of 32 Page ID #:9225

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 18 of 32 Page ID #:9226

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 19 of 32 Page ID #:9227

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 20 of 32 Page ID #:9228

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 21 of 32 Page ID #:9229

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 22 of 32 Page ID #:9230

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 23 of 32 Page ID #:9231

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 24 of 32 Page ID #:9232

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 25 of 32 Page ID #:9233

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 26 of 32 Page ID #:9234

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 27 of 32 Page ID #:9235

1

2

3

4

5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9

10

11

12
INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF ) CASE NO.: CV 12-0551 FMO (PJWx)

13 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al. )

14

) [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

15 vs.

Plaintiffs,

) PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT ) AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN

16

) CRA/LA, A DESIGNATED LOCAL

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
17
CALIFORNIA, et al.

) AUTHORITY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY ) TO THE COMMUNITY

18

) REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF

19

Defendants.

) THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, AND

________________________________ ) PLAINTIFFS

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4821-0731-7070.1

1

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWx)

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 28 of 32 Page ID #:9236

1
WHEREAS, the CRA/LA, a Designated Local Authority, a defendant in this

2 action and the successor agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of

3
Los Angeles (the “CRA”), and the Independent Living Center of Southern California

4 (“ILCSC”), the Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley (“FHC”) and

5
Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (“CALIF”) (collectively referred to

6 herein as “Plaintiffs”) have entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims,

7 attached as Exhibit 1, which fully resolves claims asserted by Plaintiffs against the CRA;

8 and

9

WHEREAS, the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action,

10 the Plaintiffs, the CRA, and the Settlement Agreement; and

11

WHEREAS, upon consideration, the Court finds the Settlement Agreement

12
to be fair, reasonable, and adequate.

13

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND

14
DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

15

1. For the purposes of this Judgment, the Court adopts the terms and

16
definitions set forth in the Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit 1, and all terms of

17
the Settlement Agreement are incorporated herein by reference.

18

2. This Judgment Pursuant to Settlement completely resolves this civil

19
action between the CRA and Plaintiffs. The claims against the City of Los Angeles were

20 previously resolved by Judgment Pursuant to Settlement Agreement by and between City

21
of Los Angeles and Plaintiffs (Doc. 532, filed August 4, 2016). This does not resolve this

22 action between Plaintiffs and the remaining nominal defendants.

23
3. In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, this Court

24 reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the terms of the

25
Settlement Agreement during the Settlement Term, and to resolve any disputes that may

26 arise during the Settlement Term.

27

28

4821-0731-7070.1

2

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWx)

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 29 of 32 Page ID #:9237

1
4. The court determines that there is no reason to delay entry of this 2 Judgment Pursuant to Settlement Agreement By and Between the CRA and Plaintiffs.
3

4

IT IS SO ORDERED and ADJUDGED

5

6

7 Dated: __________
8
9

__________________________________ The Hon. Fernando M. Olguin UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

11
Attachment: Exhibit 1
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4821-0731-7070.1

3

Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 12-0551 SJO (PJWx)

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 30 of 32 Page ID #:9238

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 31 of 32 Page ID #:9239

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 596-1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 32 of 32 Page ID #:9240

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 608 Filed 12/13/17 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:9492

1

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (WESTERN DIVISION)
8

9

10

INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF ) Case No.: 12-CV-00551 FMO (PJWx)

11 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al.

)

12

Plaintiffs,

) ) AMENDED JUDGMENT PURSUANT

13 vs.
14
15 CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

) TO CORRECTED SETTLEMENT

) ) )

AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND

) PLAINTIFFS

16

CALIFORNIA, and COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE

) )

17 CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

)

)

18

Defendants.

)

) 19

20

21

WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles, a defendant in this action (the

22 “City”) and the Independent Living Center of Southern California (“ILCSC”), the

23 Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley (“FHC”) and Communities

24 Actively Living Independent and Free (“CALIF”) (collectively referred to herein as

25 “Plaintiffs”) have entered into a Corrected Settlement Agreement; and

26

WHEREAS, the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

27 action, the Plaintiffs, the City, and the Corrected Settlement Agreement; and

28

ILC, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx) AMENDED JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CORRECTED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 608 Filed 12/13/17 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:9493

1

WHEREAS, upon consideration, the Court finds the Corrected

2 Settlement Agreement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate.

3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

4 AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

5

1. For the purposes of this Judgment, the Court adopts the terms

6 and definitions set forth in the Corrected Settlement Agreement, and all terms of

7 the Corrected Settlement Agreement are incorporated herein by reference.

8

2. This Corrected Judgment Pursuant to Settlement completely

9 resolves this civil action between Plaintiffs and the City of Los Angeles but does

10 not resolve this action between Plaintiffs and other defendants, including the

11 CRA/LA, a Designated Local Authority, Successor to Community Redevelopment

12 Agency of the City of Los Angeles.

13

3. In accordance with the terms of the Corrected Settlement

14 Agreement, this Court reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction to interpret

15 and enforce the terms of the Corrected Settlement Agreement during the Settlement

16 Term, and to resolve any disputes that may arise during the Settlement Term.

17

4. The court determines that there is no reason to delay entry of

18 this Judgment Pursuant to the Corrected Settlement Agreement By and Between the

19 City of Los Angeles and Plaintiffs.

20

21

IT IS SO ORDERED and ADJUDGED.

22

23

24 Dated: December 13, 2017 25 26

_________/s/_________________________ Hon. Fernando M. Olguin UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27

28

1
ILC, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx) AMENDED JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CORRECTED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 614 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:9681

1 CHAD A. READLER

Acting Assistant Attorney General

2 NICOLA T. HANNA

United States Attorney

3 DOROTHY A. SCHOUTEN, AUSA

Chief, Civil Division

4 DAVID K. BARRETT, AUSA

Chief, Civil Fraud Section

5 LISA A. PALOMBO, AUSA (SBN 169119)

Room 7516, Federal Building

6

300 N. Los Angeles Street

Los Angeles, California 90012

7

Tel: (213) 894-4042; Fax: (213) 894-7819

Email: Lisa.Palombo@usdoj.gov

8 MICHAEL D. GRANSTON

SARA MCLEAN

9 WILLIAM C. EDGAR

ERIC SCHMELZER

10 Attorneys, Civil Division

United States Department of Justice

11

175 N Street NE, 9th Floor, Room 9.121

Washington, DC 20002

12

Tel: 202-307-0256; Fax: (202) 307-3852

Email: Eric.Schmelzer@usdoj.gov

13

Attorneys for United States of America

14

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

WESTERN DIVISION

18 INDEPENDENT LIVING CETNER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA et al.,
19 Plaintiffs,
20 v.
21 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
22 Defendants.
23

No. CV 12-551-FMO (PJWx) NOTICE OF RELATED CASES [C.D. Cal. Local Rule 83-1.3.1]
Honorable Fernando M. Olguin

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 614 Filed 01/31/18 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:9682

1

For the reasons set forth in the attached Notice of Related Cases filed today in

2 United States ex rel. Ling et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al., No. 11-cv-00974-PSG(JCx)

3 (Ling), the United States informs the Court that the above-captioned action may be

4 related to Ling.

5 Dated: January 31, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

6

CHAD A. READLER

Acting Assistant Attorney General

7

NICOLA T. HANNA

United States Attorney

8

DOROTHY A. SCHOUTEN

Assistant United States Attorney

9

Chief, Civil Division

DAVID K. BARRETT, AUSA

10

Chief, Civil Fraud Section

MICHAEL D. GRANSTON

11

SARA MCLEAN

WILLIAM C. EDGAR

12

ERIC SCHMELZER

Attorneys, Civil Division

13

United States Department of Justice

14

15

/s/ Lisa A. Palombo

16

LISA A. PALOMBO

Assistant United States Attorney

17

Attorneys for United States of America

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 614-1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 49 Page ID #:9683

1 CHAD A. READLER

Acting Assistant Attorney General

2 NICOLA T. HANNA

United States Attorney

3 DOROTHY A. SCHOUTEN, AUSA

Chief, Civil Division

4 DAVID K. BARRETT, AUSA

Chief, Civil Fraud Section

5 LISA A. PALOMBO, AUSA (SBN 169119)

Room 7516, Federal Building

6

300 N. Los Angeles Street

Los Angeles, California 90012

7

Tel: (213) 894-4042; Fax: (213) 894-7819

Email: Lisa.Palombo@usdoj.gov

8 MICHAEL D. GRANSTON

SARA MCLEAN

9 WILLIAM C. EDGAR

ERIC SCHMELZER

10 Attorneys, Civil Division

United States Department of Justice

11

175 N Street NE, 9th Floor, Room 9.121

Washington, DC 20002

12

Tel: 202-307-0256; Fax: (202) 307-3852

Email: Eric.Schmelzer@usdoj.gov

13

Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America

14

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

WESTERN DIVISION

18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. MEI LING and FAIR HOUSING
19 COUNCIL OF SAN FERNANDO VALLEY,
20 Plaintiffs,
21 v.
22 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal
23 corporation, and CRA/LA, a Designated Local Authority, a public entity,
24 Defendants.
25

No. CV-11-00974 PSG (JCx) NOTICE OF RELATED CASES [C.D. Cal. Local Rule 83-1.3.1]
Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez

26

27

28

ATTACHMENT

2

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 614-1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 2 of 49 Page ID #:9684

1

The United States of America files this Notice pursuant to Local Rule 83-1.3.1.

2 With the above-captioned action, the United States seeks damages and penalties from the

3 City of Los Angeles (City) and CRA/LA, the successor entity to the Community

4 Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles (the CRA), under the False Claims Act (FCA),

5 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733, and common law. The United States alleges, among other

6 things, that the defendants knowingly presented and caused the presentment of false or

7 fraudulent claims for payment or approval to the Department of Housing & Urban

8 Development (HUD) for the construction or alteration of multifamily housing that did

9 not comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (Section

10 504); the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619 (the FHA); the Americans with

11 Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12131–12213 (the ADA) and their implementing

12 regulations; and the duty to affirmatively further fair housing, e.g., 24 C.F.R. § 91.225

13 (2015) (the Federal Accessibility Laws). The HUD Programs at issue are the

14 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership

15 (HOME), Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA), Economic

16 Development Initiative (EDI), and Neighborhood Stabilization programs. This action

17 was initially filed as a sealed qui tam action by whistleblowers, or “relators,” Mei Ling

18 and the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley. The United States has now

19 intervened and taken over responsibility for litigating the case.

20

The present notice relates to a largely-settled action captioned Independent Living

21 Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., No. 12-cv-551-FMO

22 (PJWx) (hereafter Independent Living), filed by plaintiffs Independent Living Center of

23 Southern California, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, and Communities

24 Actively Living Independent and Free. In support of its pending motion to dismiss here,

25 the City argues the accessible housing claims involving the City “were previously

26 litigated and resolved through a court approved and monitored settlement in the

27 Independent Living Center of Southern California case.” (Dkt. 128-1, City Mem. at p.

28 1). The defendants in Independent Living are the City, the CRA, and owners of sixty-

1

ATTACHMENT

3

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 614-1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 3 of 49 Page ID #:9685

1 one buildings that received federal assistance. A copy of the Independent Living

2 complaint is attached here. The Independent Living plaintiffs allege the City and CRA

3 discriminated against people with disabilities in violation of Section 504, the ADA, the

4 FHA, and California law. (Indep. Living, Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 98, ¶ 1).

5 Specifically, the City and CRA failed to ensure their housing programs, which were

6 developed or significantly assisted with federal, state, and local funds, were accessible to

7 people with disabilities. (Id. ¶ 2).1 The United States is not a party to the Independent

8 Living case, which seeks monetary and injunctive relief for people against whom the

9 City and CRA discriminated.

10

According to the Independent Living plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, since

11 at least 1974, the City has received HUD funds under the CDBG, HOME, ESG, and

12 HOPWA programs. (Id. ¶¶ 146–151). That complaint alleges the City used these

13 federal funds, along with state and local funds, to acquire property, finance, operate,

14 build, or substantially alter tens of thousands of public housing units. (Id. ¶¶ 152, 158).

15 The Independent Living Plaintiffs allege the City and CRA “failed, and continue to fail,

16 to take steps to ensure that [public housing] is accessible to people with disabilities or

17 that any accessible units that exist are made available to people with disabilities.” (Id. ¶¶

18 168) and that consequently, “people with physical disabilities have been and continue to

19 be denied meaningful access to the [defendants’ public housing].” (Id. ¶ 169). For

20 example, the Independent Living plaintiffs note that the City and CRA: (1) failed to

21 ensure that their buildings contained sufficient units accessible to people with mobility,

22 auditory, or visual impairments; (2) failed to maintain policies, practices, or procedures

23 to ensure that people with mobility, auditory, or visual impairments have meaningful

24 access to public housing; (3) failed to monitor compliance with accessibility

25 requirements in their public housing programs; (4) failed to maintain a list of accessible

26

27

1 The individual owners in the Independent Living matter were named solely as

28

necessary to effectuate any injunctive relief entered against the City and CRA. (Indep. Living, Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 98, ¶ 3.)

2

ATTACHMENT

4

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 614-1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 4 of 49 Page ID #:9686

1 units; (5) could not identify for the public any wheelchair-accessible or sensory-

2 accessible units; (6) could not describe for the public the accessibility features in their

3 buildings; (7) failed to ensure that that contracts and regulatory agreements with

4 developers, owners, and operators of publicly-assisted buildings included accessibility

5 requirements sufficient to comply with federal and state law; and (8) failed to exercise

6 oversight over such developers and owners. (Id. ¶¶ 168–186). The City and CRA

7 entered into settlements with the Independent Living plaintiffs on July 29, 2016, and

8 September 6, 2017, respectively. Still pending in that case are claims against the

9 individual building owners, which are the subject of a pending motion for judgment on

10 the pleadings. (Indep. Living, ECF No. 606).

11

Pursuant to Local Rule 83-1.3.1, the parties shall file a Notice of Related Cases

12 “whenever two or more civil cases filed in this District: (a) arise from the same or

13 closely related transaction, happening, or event; (b) call for determination of the same or

14 substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or (c) for other reasons that

15 would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges.” The FCA

16 action before the Court here calls for a determination of substantially related or similar

17 questions of law and fact to those raised in the Independent Living complaint.

18 Specifically, the underlying false conduct by the City and CRA in both cases is a failure

19 to make its federally-assisted housing accessible to people with disabilities. (U.S.

20 Compl. in Intervention, ECF No. 137, ¶¶ 196–215, 276–301). The buildings at issue in

21 this FCA action are a subset of the buildings at issue in the Independent Living matter.2

22 Like the plaintiffs in Independent Living, moreover, the United States alleges the City

23 and CRA failed to enforce the Federal Accessibility Laws and systematically failed to

24 make federally-assisted projects accessible. (E.g., id. ¶¶ 183–95). For instance, the

25 United States alleges the City and CRA: (1) failed to ensure their buildings contained

26 sufficient units accessible to people with mobility, auditory, or visual impairments, (id.

27

28

2 Because the Independent Living matter includes buildings assisted with funds other than federal grant money, the number of buildings in that matter are larger.

3

ATTACHMENT

5

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 614-1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 5 of 49 Page ID #:9687

1 ¶¶ 184–85; Attach. C. to the Compl. in Intervention); (2) did not maintain an accurate list

2 of accessible units or a centralized wait list for housing for people with disabilities, (id.

3 ¶¶ 200, 205–06); (3) had little idea whether and where compliant units might be, (id. ¶¶

4 199, 202); (4) made no effort to communicate effectively with people with disabilities

5 about the existence or availability of accessible units (to the extent any existed), (id. ¶

6 203); (5) allowed people who do not have disabilities to live in accessible units, (id. ¶

7 204); (6) made no effort to match accessible units with people in need of those units’

8 features, (id. ¶ 205); and (7) did not ensure subrecipients of HUD funds were meeting

9 the federal accessibility requirements. (Id. ¶ 215).3 Additionally, like the Independent

10 Living matter, this matter concerns issues regarding the CRA pertaining to the

11 dissolution law which dissolved the former agency and any successor liability. (Id. ¶¶

12 28–62); Indep. Living v. City of Los Angeles, 205 F. Supp. 3d 1105, 1110–15 (C.D. Cal.

13 2016).

14

Accordingly, the two civil cases appear to call for the determination of at least

15 some substantially related or similar questions of law and fact, and for other reasons

16 could entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges. The United

17 States therefore submits this Notice of Related Cases.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 See paragraphs 264 through 301 of the United States’ Complaint in Intervention for a description of the CRA’s failures to make its housing accessible.

4

ATTACHMENT

6

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 614-1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 6 of 49 Page ID #:9688

1 Dated: January 31, 2018 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ATTACHMENT

Respectfully submitted, CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General NICOLA T. HANNA United States Attorney DOROTHY A. SCHOUTEN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division DAVID K. BARRETT, AUSA Chief, Civil Fraud Section MICHAEL D. GRANSTON SARA MCLEAN WILLIAM C. EDGAR ERIC SCHMELZER Attorneys, Civil Division United States Department of Justice
/s/ Lisa A. Palombo LISA A. PALOMBO Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America
5
7

CCaassee28::1122--ccvv--0000505612--FJMSTO--MPLJGW DDooccuummeenntt 1614F-1iledF0ile1d/1031/1/321/1P8agePa1goef 743of 4P9agePaIDge#:I1D #:9689

ATTACHMENT

8

ATTACHMENT

6

CCaassee28::1122--ccvv--0000505612--FJMSTO--MPLJGW DDooccuummeenntt 1614F-1iledF0ile1d/1031/1/321/1P8agePa2goef 843of 4P9agePaIDge#:I2D #:9690

ATTACHMENT

9

ATTACHMENT

7

CCaassee28::1122--ccvv--0000505612--FJMSTO--MPLJGW DDooccuummeenntt 1614F-1iledF0ile1d/1031/1/321/1P8agePa3goef 943of 4P9agePaIDge#:I3D #:9691

ATTACHMENT

10

ATTACHMENT

8

CCaassee28:1:122-c-cvv-0-00505612-F-JMSOT-PMJLWG DDooccuummeenntt 6114-F1iledFil0e1d/1031//1321/1P8agPea4geof1403ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:4ID #:9692

ATTACHMENT

11

ATTACHMENT

9

CCaassee28:1:122-c-cvv-0-00505612-F-JMSOT-PMJLWG DDooccuummeenntt 6114-F1iledFil0e1d/1031//1321/1P8agPea5geof1413ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:5ID #:9693

ATTACHMENT

12

ATTACHMENT

10

CCaassee28:1:122-c-cvv-0-00505612-F-JMSOT-PMJLWG DDooccuummeenntt 6114-F1iledFil0e1d/1031//1321/1P8agPea6geof1423ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:6ID #:9694

ATTACHMENT

13

ATTACHMENT

11

CCaassee28:1:122-c-cvv-0-00505612-F-JMSOT-PMJLWG DDooccuummeenntt 6114-F1iledFil0e1d/1031//1321/1P8agPea7geof1433ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:7ID #:9695

ATTACHMENT

14

ATTACHMENT

12

CCaassee28:1:122-c-cvv-0-00505612-F-JMSOT-PMJLWG DDooccuummeenntt 6114-F1iledFil0e1d/1031//1321/1P8agPea8geof1443ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:8ID #:9696

ATTACHMENT

15

ATTACHMENT

13

CCaassee28:1:122-c-cvv-0-00505612-F-JMSOT-PMJLWG DDooccuummeenntt 6114-F1iledFil0e1d/1031//1321/1P8agPea9geof1453ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:9ID #:9697

ATTACHMENT

16

ATTACHMENT

14

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP1a0geof1463ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:1ID0 #:9698

ATTACHMENT

17

ATTACHMENT

15

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP1a1geof1473ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:1ID1 #:9699

ATTACHMENT

18

ATTACHMENT

16

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP1a2geof1483ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:1ID2 #:9700

ATTACHMENT

19

ATTACHMENT

17

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP1a3geof1493ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:1ID3 #:9701

ATTACHMENT

20

ATTACHMENT

18

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP1a4geof2403ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:1ID4 #:9702

ATTACHMENT

21

ATTACHMENT

19

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP1a5geof2413ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:1ID5 #:9703

ATTACHMENT

22

ATTACHMENT

20

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP1a6geof2423ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:1ID6 #:9704

ATTACHMENT

23

ATTACHMENT

21

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP1a7geof2433ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:1ID7 #:9705

ATTACHMENT

24

ATTACHMENT

22

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP1a8geof2443ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:1ID8 #:9706

ATTACHMENT

25

ATTACHMENT

23

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP1a9geof2453ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:1ID9 #:9707

ATTACHMENT

26

ATTACHMENT

24

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP2a0geof2463ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:2ID0 #:9708

ATTACHMENT

27

ATTACHMENT

25

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP2a1geof2473ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:2ID1 #:9709

ATTACHMENT

28

ATTACHMENT

26

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP2a2geof2483ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:2ID2 #:9710

ATTACHMENT

29

ATTACHMENT

27

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP2a3geof2493ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:2ID3 #:9711

ATTACHMENT

30

ATTACHMENT

28

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP2a4geof3403ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:2ID4 #:9712

ATTACHMENT

31

ATTACHMENT

29

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP2a5geof3413ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:2ID5 #:9713

ATTACHMENT

32

ATTACHMENT

30

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP2a6geof3423ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:2ID6 #:9714

ATTACHMENT

33

ATTACHMENT

31

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP2a7geof3433ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:2ID7 #:9715

ATTACHMENT

34

ATTACHMENT

32

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP2a8geof3443ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:2ID8 #:9716

ATTACHMENT

35

ATTACHMENT

33

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP2a9geof3453ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:2ID9 #:9717

ATTACHMENT

36

ATTACHMENT

34

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP3a0geof3463ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:3ID0 #:9718

ATTACHMENT

37

ATTACHMENT

35

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP3a1geof3473ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:3ID1 #:9719

ATTACHMENT

38

ATTACHMENT

36

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP3a2geof3483ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:3ID2 #:9720

ATTACHMENT

39

ATTACHMENT

37

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP3a3geof3493ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:3ID3 #:9721

ATTACHMENT

40

ATTACHMENT

38

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP3a4geof4403ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:3ID4 #:9722

ATTACHMENT

41

ATTACHMENT

39

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP3a5geof4413ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:3ID5 #:9723

ATTACHMENT

42

ATTACHMENT

40

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP3a6geof4423ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:3ID6 #:9724

ATTACHMENT

43

ATTACHMENT

41

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP3a7geof4433ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:3ID7 #:9725

ATTACHMENT

44

ATTACHMENT

42

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP3a8geof4443ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:3ID8 #:9726

ATTACHMENT

45

ATTACHMENT

43

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP3a9geof4453ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:3ID9 #:9727

ATTACHMENT

46

ATTACHMENT

44

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP4a0geof4463ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:4ID0 #:9728

ATTACHMENT

47

ATTACHMENT

45

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP4a1geof4473ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:4ID1 #:9729

ATTACHMENT

48

ATTACHMENT

46

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP4a2geof4483ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:4ID2 #:9730

ATTACHMENT

49

ATTACHMENT

47

Case 82:12-cv-00056521-JFSMTO-M-PLJGW DDooccuummeennt t1614F-i1ledF0i1le/d130/1/231/P1a8geP4a3geof4493ofP4a9gePIaDg#e:4ID3 #:9731

ATTACHMENT

50

ATTACHMENT

48

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 597 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:9241

1 Theresa L. Kitay (CA SBN 237311) Attorney at Law
2 tkitay@kitaylaw.net P.O. Box 597
3 Oak Island, NC 28465 Tel: (910) 250-1982
4 Fax: (770) 454-0126

5 Attorney for 51 OWNER DEFENDANTS
(Listed on Appendix A) 6
Counsel for additional OWNER DEFENDANTS 7 as Listed on Signature Page

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10

INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER Case No. 12-CV-00551 FMO (PJWx)

OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a

11

California non-profit corporation; et

al., 12

NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT MOTION OF RULE 19 OWNER

Plaintiffs,

DEFENDANTS FOR JUDGMENT

13

ON THE PLEADINGS

v. 14

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

Hearing Date: November 2, 2017

15

CALIFORNIA, a California municipal Time: 10:00 a.m.

16

corporation; COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF

Courtroom: 6th Floor, Courtroom 6D

17

THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Judge: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin

18

Defendants.

19 20 TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

21 _________________________________!1_________________________________

22

NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT MOTION BY OWNER DEFENDANTS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS CASE NO. 12-CV-00551-FMO (PJWX)

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 597 Filed 10/05/17 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:9242

1

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 2, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon

2 thereafter as the matter may be heard in the above-styled court, located at 350 W. 1st

3 Street, 6th Floor, Courtroom 6D, Los Angeles, CA 90012, the Rule 19 Owner

4 Defendants identified below will move this Court for judgment on the pleadings

5 pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

6

The joint motion is made because, following entry of judgment against the City

7 of Los Angeles and the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los

8 Angeles in favor of the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs have no remaining stated claims for

9 relief against the Rule 19 Owner Defendants. In addition, the Plaintiffs have already

10 achieved complete relief in this matter absent the participation of the Owner

11 Defendants, so that the Owner Defendants were not properly joined pursuant to Rule

12 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

13

This motion is based upon this Notice and Motion, the accompanying

14 Memorandum in Support, and docket entries in the record of this case.

15

This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3,

16 which took place by telephone on September 7, 2017.

17

Respectfully submitted this 5th day of October, 2017.

18

[SIGNATURE ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

19

20

21 _________________________________!2_________________________________

22

NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT MOTION BY OWNER DEFENDANTS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS CASE NO. 12-CV-00551-FMO (PJWX)

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 597 Filed 10/05/17 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:9243

1 WARNE LAW FIRM,

______s/_T__h_er_e_s_a_L_._K__it_a_y____________

2

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Theresa L. Kitay (SBN 237311) Attorney at Law

3

______s/_C__h_r_is_to_p_h_e_r__P_. _W_a_r_n_e_________ By: Christopher P. Warne (SBN 246479) Attorney for Owner Defendants

4

listed in Appendix A

Attorneys for 105 East I Street, LP

5 LARA & DAVIS LLP

6 ______s/_R__o_b_e_rt_o_L__a_ra________________ ______s/_J_o_h_n__R_._B_e_n_s_o_n_____________

7 Roberto Lara (SBN 193741)

John R. Benson (SBN 240855)

8 Attorneys for New Tierra del Sol, LP and Attorney for 901 South Broadway Street

4651 Huntington, LP

LP

9

10 BAKER, KEENER & NAHRA, LLP BAIRD HOLM

11 B__y_:___s/_P__h_il_li_p_A__. _B_a_k_e_r_____________ ______s/_S_c_o_t_t_P_._M__o_o_re______________

Phillip A. Baker (SBN 169571) 12 Derrick S. Lowe (SBN 267998)

Scott P. Moore (Admitted pro hac vice)

13 Attorneys for Penny Lane Centers

Attorneys for Amistad Plaza, LP

14 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
15 By:___s_/M__a_r_k_J_. _A_u_s_ti_n_______________
16 Mark J. Austin (SBN 208880)

17 Attorneys for Imani Fe, LP, a California
limited partnership 18

19

20

21 _________________________________!3_________________________________

22

NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT MOTION BY OWNER DEFENDANTS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS CASE NO. 12-CV-00551-FMO (PJWX)

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 597 Filed 10/05/17 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:9244

1

APPENDIX A

2

RULE 19 OWNER DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED

3

BY THERESA L. KITAY, ATTORNEY AT LAW:

4 1. 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, LP

5 2. Adams 935, LP

6 3. AMCAL Montecito Fund, LP

7 4. Andalucia Senior Apartments, LP

8 5. Ardmore 959 Partners, LP

9 6. Asturias Senior Apartments, LP

10 7. B S Broadway Village II, LP

11 8. Behringer Harvard NoHo, LLC

12 9. Buckingham Senior Apartments, LP

13 10. Cantabria Senior Apartments, LP

14 11. Carondelet Court Partners, LP

15 12. Casa Rampart, LP

16 13. Central Village Apartments, LP

17 14. Decro Orion Apartments, LP

18 15. Decro Osborne Apartments, LP

19 16. East LA Community Corporation

20 17. Eastside Village, LP

21 _________________________________!4_________________________________

22

NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT MOTION BY OWNER DEFENDANTS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS CASE NO. 12-CV-00551-FMO (PJWX)

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 597 Filed 10/05/17 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:9245

1 18. Esperanza Community Housing Corporation

2 19. Eugene Hotel, LP

3 20. FAME West 25th Street, LP

4 21. Far East Building, LP

5 22. 12129 El Dorado Avenue,, LP

6 23. Grandview Nine, LP

7 24. Hart Village, LP

8 25. Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, LP

9 26. Hobart Heights Partners, LP

10 27. Hoover Seniors

11 28. Las Margaritas, LP

12 29. Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc.

13 30. Los Cuatro Vientos, LP

14 31. Morgan Place, LP

15 32. New Genesis Apartments, LP

16 33. NoHo Senior Villas, LP

17 34. O L Hope, L.P.

18 35. P G Housing Partners, LP

19 36. Palm Village Senior Housing Corp.

20 37. Palomar Apartments, LP

21 _________________________________!5_________________________________

22

NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT MOTION BY OWNER DEFENDANTS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS CASE NO. 12-CV-00551-FMO (PJWX)

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 597 Filed 10/05/17 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:9246

1 38. Redrock Noho Residential, LLC

2 39. Renato Apartments, LP

3 40. Rittenhouse Limited Partnership

4 41. Selma-Hudson Community Limited Partnership

5 42. Seven Maples, LP

6 43. Sherman Village Apartments, LP

7 44. Sherman Way Community Housing, LP

8 45. Stovall Housing Corporation

9 46. Vermont Seniors

10 47. WA Court, LP

11 48. Watts/Athens Preservation XVII, LP

12 49. West Angeles Villas, LP

13 50. Western/Carlton II, LP

14 51. Yale Terrace, LP 

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 _________________________________!6_________________________________

22

NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT MOTION BY OWNER DEFENDANTS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS CASE NO. 12-CV-00551-FMO (PJWX)

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 597 Filed 10/05/17 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:9247

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on October 5, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with

3 the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such

4 filing to the email addresses denoted on the Notice of Electronic Filing.

5

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America

6 that the foregoing is true and correct.

7

8

______s/_T__h_er_e_s_a_L_._K__it_a_y________________

Theresa L. Kitay (CA SBN 237311)

9

Attorney at Law

10

Attorney for Owner Defendants listed in

11

Appendix A

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 _________________________________!7_________________________________

22

NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT MOTION BY OWNER DEFENDANTS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS CASE NO. 12-CV-00551-FMO (PJWX)

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 608 Filed 12/13/17 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:9492

1

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (WESTERN DIVISION)
8

9

10

INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF ) Case No.: 12-CV-00551 FMO (PJWx)

11 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al.

)

12

Plaintiffs,

) ) AMENDED JUDGMENT PURSUANT

13 vs.
14
15 CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

) TO CORRECTED SETTLEMENT

) ) )

AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND

) PLAINTIFFS

16

CALIFORNIA, and COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE

) )

17 CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

)

)

18

Defendants.

)

) 19

20

21

WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles, a defendant in this action (the

22 “City”) and the Independent Living Center of Southern California (“ILCSC”), the

23 Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley (“FHC”) and Communities

24 Actively Living Independent and Free (“CALIF”) (collectively referred to herein as

25 “Plaintiffs”) have entered into a Corrected Settlement Agreement; and

26

WHEREAS, the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

27 action, the Plaintiffs, the City, and the Corrected Settlement Agreement; and

28

ILC, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx) AMENDED JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CORRECTED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 608 Filed 12/13/17 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:9493

1

WHEREAS, upon consideration, the Court finds the Corrected

2 Settlement Agreement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate.

3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

4 AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

5

1. For the purposes of this Judgment, the Court adopts the terms

6 and definitions set forth in the Corrected Settlement Agreement, and all terms of

7 the Corrected Settlement Agreement are incorporated herein by reference.

8

2. This Corrected Judgment Pursuant to Settlement completely

9 resolves this civil action between Plaintiffs and the City of Los Angeles but does

10 not resolve this action between Plaintiffs and other defendants, including the

11 CRA/LA, a Designated Local Authority, Successor to Community Redevelopment

12 Agency of the City of Los Angeles.

13

3. In accordance with the terms of the Corrected Settlement

14 Agreement, this Court reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction to interpret

15 and enforce the terms of the Corrected Settlement Agreement during the Settlement

16 Term, and to resolve any disputes that may arise during the Settlement Term.

17

4. The court determines that there is no reason to delay entry of

18 this Judgment Pursuant to the Corrected Settlement Agreement By and Between the

19 City of Los Angeles and Plaintiffs.

20

21

IT IS SO ORDERED and ADJUDGED.

22

23

24 Dated: December 13, 2017 25 26

_________/s/_________________________ Hon. Fernando M. Olguin UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27

28

1
ILC, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx) AMENDED JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CORRECTED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 623 Filed 09/28/18 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:9883

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al.,
12 Plaintiffs,
13 v.
14 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16

) Case No. CV 12-0551 FMO (PJWx) ) ) ) ) ORDER RE: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON ) THE PLEADINGS ) ) ) ) )

17

The court has reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to the Owner

18 Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 597, “Motion”), and concludes that oral

19 argument is not necessary to resolve the Motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15; Willis

20 v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 244 F.3d 675, 684 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001).

21

INTRODUCTION

22

The Independent Living Center of Southern California, Fair Housing Council of San

23 Fernando Valley, and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (collectively, “plaintiffs”)

24 filed this action on January 13, 2012, pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section

25 504”), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Title II” or the “ADA”), the Fair Housing Act

26 (“FHA”) and California Government Code § 11135 (“Section 11135”). (See Dkt. 1, Plaintiffs’

27 Complaint for Injunctive, Declaratory, and Monetary Relief). The Second Amended Complaint for

28 Injunctive, Declaratory, and Monetary Relief (“SAC”), the operative complaint, alleges that

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 623 Filed 09/28/18 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:9884

1 defendants CRA/LA Designated Local Authority, a public entity and successor agency to the

2 Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (“CRA/LA”), and the City of Los

3 Angeles (“City”) (collectively, the “government defendants”)1 engaged in a “pattern or practice” of

4 discrimination against people with disabilities in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination

5 laws. (Dkt. 98, SAC at ¶ 2). The SAC also named as defendants 61 owners of multifamily

6 residential properties in the City of Los Angeles (collectively, the “owner defendants”), who

7 received federal funds from or through the government defendants. (See id. at ¶¶ 3 & 57-116).

8 Plaintiffs do not allege any affirmative claims against the owner defendants; rather, the owner

9 defendants were named pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b) as necessary parties

10 to enforce any injunctive and/or other relief that may be granted by the court.2 (See id. at ¶ 3).

11

After plaintiffs and the government defendants negotiated and filed settlement agreements

12 with the court, (see Dkt. 530, Plaintiffs’ and Defendant City of Los Angeles’s Joint Stipulation for

13 Judgment as Pursuant to Settlement Agreement (“Joint Stipulation with City”); Dkt. 594, Plaintiffs’

14 and Defendant CRA/LA’s Joint Application for and Stipulation to Enter Judgment as Pursuant to

15 Settlement Agreement (“Joint Stipulation with CRA/LA”); Dkt. 595, Plaintiffs’ and Defendant

16 CRA/LA . . . Correct Joint Application for and Stipulation to Enter Judgment [] (“Revised Joint

17 Stipulation with CRA/LA”)), the court entered two separate consent judgments which imposed

18 injunctive relief and other settlement terms on the government defendants. (See Dkt. 532,

19 “Judgment against City”; Dkt. 596, “Judgment against CRA/LA”; Dkt. 608, “Amended Judgment

20 against City”).

21

22

23 1 Plaintiffs also named as a defendant the Oversight Board for the CRA/LA, (see Dkt. 98, SAC
24 at ¶ 1), but the court dismissed all claims against the Oversight Board pursuant to the court’s 25 Order of November 29, 2012 (Dkt. 209).

26

2 “[A] person may be joined as a party [under Rule 19(b)] for the sole purpose of making it

possible to accord complete relief between those who are already parties, even though no present

27 party asserts a grievance against such person.” E.E.O.C. v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 400 F.3d 774,

781 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1150 (2006) (brackets in original) (internal quotation 28 marks omitted).

2

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 623 Filed 09/28/18 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:9885

1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2

The court hereby incorporates the factual background set forth in the Courts’ Orders of

3 September 23, 2014 (Dkt. 406) and July 17, 2015 (Dkt. 458).

4

LEGAL STANDARD

5

“After the pleadings are closed – but early enough not to delay trial – a party may move for

6 judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). “Judgment on the pleadings is proper when

7 the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact

8 remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Hal Roach Studios,

9 Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1989). The court must accept all

10 facts in the complaint as true, and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving

11 party. See Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). “[T]he same standard of review

12 applicable to a Rule 12(b) motion applies to its Rule 12(c) analog,” because the motions are

13 “functionally identical.” Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir.), cert.

14 denied, 493 U.S. 812 (1989).

15

As with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a Rule 12(c) motion should be granted only if the

16 plaintiff fails to proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.

17 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

18 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2011).

19 “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

20 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.

21 at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; see Cook, 637 F.3d at 1004; Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr.,

22 Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 2010). In considering a Rule 12(c) motion, the court “generally

23 is limited to the pleadings and may not consider extrinsic evidence[,]” Shame on You Prods., Inc.

24 v. Banks, 2015 WL 4885221, *10 (C.D. Cal. 2015), but may rely on exhibits attached to the

25 complaint and documents subject to judicial notice. See id. at *10-11.

26

DISCUSSION

27

The owner defendants contend that judgment on the pleadings is appropriate because

28 “Plaintiffs have no remaining stated claims for relief against the Rule 19 Owner Defendants” and

3

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 623 Filed 09/28/18 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:9886

1 “Plaintiffs have already achieved complete relief in this matter absent the participation of the

2 Owner Defendants, so that the Owner Defendants were not properly joined pursuant to Rule 19[.]” 3 (See Dkt. 597, Notice of Motion at 2).3 According to the owner defendants, the fact that plaintiffs’

4 settlement agreements and stipulated judgments with the government defendants exclude the

5 owner defendants, (see Dkt. 597-1, Motion at 5), and “do[] not require [the owner defendants] to

6 take, or to refrain from taking, any action,” (Dkt. 598, Menlo Park’s Joinder at ¶ 1; Dkt. 601, Penny

7 Lane’s Joinder at ¶ 1), proves that the owner defendants were never necessary to the suit in the

8 first place. (See Dkt. 597-1, Motion at 5; Dkt. 598, Menlo Park’s Joinder at ¶ 1; Dkt. 601, Penny

9 Lane’s Joinder at ¶ 1). The owner defendants’ arguments are unavailing.

10

The instant Motion is based on an interpretation of the consent judgments the court entered

11 in this case. (See Dkt. 597-1, Motion at 5). But a motion for judgment on the pleadings under

12 Rule 12(c) attacks the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c);

13 Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2011) (in reviewing dismissal

14 under Rule 12(c), court applies same standard as under Rule 12(b)(6) and inquires whether

15 complaint’s factual allegations, together with all reasonable inferences, state plausible claims for 16 relief), not some other legal document that was entered in the case.4 Here, the owner defendants’

17 Motion does not challenge in any way the operative complaint. (See, generally, Dkt. 597-1,

18 Motion). The SAC, which joined the owner defendants in the instant action, was filed on August

19 20, 2012, (see Dkt. 98, SAC), and it has not been modified since. (See, generally, Dkt.).

20

21

3 Owner defendants Menlo Park (“Menlo Park”) and Penny Lane Center (“Penny Lane”) filed

22 motions to join the Motion, (Dkt. 598, “Menlo Park’s Joinder”; Dkt. 601, “Penny Lane’s Joinder”), asserting, in addition to the grounds stated in the Motion, that: (1) the judgments obtained by

23 plaintiff against the government defendants do not impose any obligation on the owner

defendants; and (2) neither the moving party nor its property are listed in Exhibits A and B to the 24 Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims that purport to list housing developments whose

25

owners may be included in the definition of “Owner” in Section II.20 of the Settlement Agreement. (See Dkt. 598, Menlo Park’s Joinder at 2; Dkt. 601, Penny Lane’s Joinder at 2).

26 4 While the court may rely on documents subject to judicial notice in considering a Rule 12(c)
27 motion, see Shame on You Prods., Inc., 2015 WL 4885221, at *10, the owner defendants have not asked the court to take judicial notice of the consent judgments or any other document. (See,
28 generally, Dkt. 597-1, Motion).

4

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 623 Filed 09/28/18 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:9887

1 Moreover, the owner defendants did not challenge their Rule 19 joinder at the time they were

2 joined, nor at any point during the five years of active litigation. (See, generally, Dkt.).

3

Further, because a Rule 12(c) motion is intended to challenge the sufficiency of the

4 allegations in the operative complaint, the owner defendants’ challenge to their joinder or to any

5 of the allegations in the SAC should have been made by the dispositive motion deadline. The

6 deadline for filing dispositive motions was March 23, 2017, (see Dkt. 566, Court’s Order of

7 December 22, 2016, at 2), and the instant Motion was filed on October 5, 2017, nearly six months

8 late. The owner defendants make no attempt to explain why they could not have filed the instant

9 Motion by the deadline to file dispositive motions. (See, generally, Dkt. 597-1, Motion).

10

Finally, even assuming it was proper for the owner defendants to base their Motion on the

11 consent judgments – instead of on the operative SAC – the court would still deny the Motion. The

12 judgments explicitly require the government defendants to take actions that implicate the owner

13 defendants’ properties. For example, the City’s judgment obligates it to inspect the owner

14 defendants’ properties, (see, e.g., Dkt. 608, Amended Judgment against City, Exhibit (“Exh.”) 1,

15 Corrected Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims at 12-13), and this court has jurisdiction

16 to resolve disputes as to whether the City is meeting that obligation. See Peacock v. Thomas, 516

17 U.S. 349, 356, 116 S.Ct. 862, 868 (1996) (describing “federal court’s inherent power to enforce

18 its judgments”). Without the owner defendants, the court might not be able to adjudicate whether

19 an owner defendant must permit the City to inspect its property or take other steps necessary to

20 remediate any inaccessibility it discovers upon inspection. Thus, granting the motion would

21 undermine the court’s ability to “accord complete relief” between plaintiffs and the government

22 defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(A). Indeed, it is precisely now, as the remedy ordered

23 by the court begins to take shape and the process of making thousands of affordable housing units

24 accessible to Los Angeles residents begins, that the Rule 19 owner defendants – joined to ensure

25 “complete relief” among the parties, see id. – are most needed.

26

CONCLUSION

27

This Order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or

28 submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis.

5

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 623 Filed 09/28/18 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:9888

1

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

2

1. The Joint Motion of Rule 19 Owner Defendants for Judgment on the Pleadings

3 (Document No. 597) is denied.

4

2. Menlo Park’s Joinder (Document No. 598) and Penny Lane’s Joinder (Document No.

5 601) are denied as moot.

6 Dated this 28th day of September, 2018.

7

8

/s/

Fernando M. Olguin

9

United States District Judge

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 663 Filed 12/19/19 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:14375

1

2 12/19/2019
3

4

CW

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al.,
12 Plaintiffs,
13 v.
14 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16

) Case No. CV 12-551 FMO (PJWx) ) ) ) ) ORDER RE: FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ) ) ) ) ) )

17

Pursuant to the hearing held on December 12, 2019, regarding plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce,

18 (see Dkt. 643, Plaintiffs ILCSC and CALIF’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Enforce; Dkt. 644,

19 Plaintiffs CALIF and ILCSC’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Notice of 20 Motion and Motion to Enforce (“Motion”)), IT IS ORDERED as follows:1

21

1. The motion (Document No. 643) is tentatively granted for the reasons stated on the

22 record.

23

2. On December 20, 2019,2 the parties and the Monitor shall meet and confer to discuss,

24 at minimum, the following issues to assist the court in preparing an Amended Consent Decree:

25

26

1 To the extent that there is any conflict between the requirements set forth in this Order and

the court’s statements during the hearing, this Order shall control.

27 2 Counsel may agree to meet and confer at another time without seeking court approval for

28 such an agreement, provided the joint status report is filed by January 13, 2020.

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 663 Filed 12/19/19 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:14376

1

A. Deadlines Re: Certification of Accessible Housing Units: The parties and

2

Monitor shall, at minimum, attempt to agree on a set of interim deadlines for certifying 4000

3

units of housing as accessible.

4

B. Accessibility surveys and LCM Architects: The parties and Monitor shall discuss

5

the implementation of the standards set forth in the Uniform Federal Accessibility

6

Standards (“UFAS”) for the remainder of the Decree. In addition, the parties and Monitor

7

shall attempt to agree on new requirements for documenting the compliance of surveyed

8

units, including taking measurements and photographs of relevant features. Relatedly, the

9

parties and Monitor shall discuss whether LCM Architects should be replaced in light of

10

inaccurate compliance issues discovered with units that LCM Architects purportedly

11

surveyed as well as LCM’s resistance to measures (e.g., photographing purportedly

12

compliant features) designed to ensure compliance with the court’s order.

13

C. Policy Implementation, Training and Monitoring: The parties and Monitor shall

14

discuss the Monitoring, Compliance, and Enforcement Plan (“Plan”). The parties and

15

Monitor shall discuss any outstanding issues with regard to the MCE Plan, including but

16

not limited to: (1) whether the MCE Plan is complete and, if not, what else needs to be

17

included in the Plan; (2) the City’s obligation to train the relevant individuals about disability

18

rights and associated legal obligations, including the setting of a deadline for the City to

19

complete all such training; (3) how and when audits will be performed; (4) how data will

20

be collected into a comprehensive database to reliably inform the court and Monitor

21

regarding compliance with the Amended Consent Decree; (5) development and

22

implementation of uniform marketing and leasing policies; (6) the development of a needs

23

assessment and staffing plan necessary to implement the Amended Consent Decree; and

24

(7) the development and implementation of a grievance and complaint system to be

25

overseen by the Monitor.

26

D. Record-Keeping and Reporting: The parties and Monitor shall discuss the City’s

27

record-keeping practices and its obligation to create and maintain a comprehensive

28

database. The parties and Monitor shall discuss which data points the database must

2

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 663 Filed 12/19/19 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:14377

1

contain so that the court and Monitor have sufficient information to ensure that the City is

2

complying with the court’s order. To the extent the parties fail to agree on data points to

3

be included, formatting, or any other issue regarding the City’s record-keeping obligations,

4

the parties shall submit these disputes to the Monitor and the Monitor shall rule on them.

5

In the joint report discussed below, the parties and Monitor shall inform the court of the

6

nature of any disputes that the Monitor resolved and how the dispute was resolved. The

7

parties and the Monitor shall also discuss the Internet Housing Registry and what needs

8

to be done to make it fully compliant. A deadline for completion of the Registry shall be

9

set.

10

E. Enhanced Sensory Program: The parties and the Monitor shall discuss the

11

Enhanced Sensory Program in existing developments, including whether the court should

12

incorporate into the Amended Consent Decree the relevant provisions from the Voluntary

13

Compliance Agreement (“VCA”) between the City and the U.S. Department of Housing and

14

Urban Development (“HUD”). The parties and the Monitor shall also attempt to reach

15

agreement on an interim deadline or deadlines for completing the requirements of the

16

Enhanced Sensory Program.

17

F. Monitor: The parties and Monitor shall discuss all other issues the Monitor

18

believes need to be addressed to ensure compliance with the Amended Consent Decree.

19

Also, the parties shall discuss the role of the Monitor for the remainder of the Consent

20

Decree term. The court intends to give more discretion and authority to the Monitor to

21

resolve any disputes between the parties. The parties shall discuss and propose language

22

regarding the Monitor’s future role in the case.

23

G. Attorney’s Fees and Costs: The parties shall discuss attorney’s fees for

24

plaintiffs’ counsel, including whether plaintiffs’ counsel should receive a flat annual fee or

25

should be paid an hourly rate moving forward. In addition, the parties shall propose

26

language to ensure that payment for attorney’s fees – whether by lodestar or flat fee – are

27

paid on a formula tied to the amount of work put in by each attorney. Additionally, the

28

parties shall attempt to reach an agreement on additional payment for plaintiffs’ counsel

3

Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 663 Filed 12/19/19 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:14378

1

for work already completed in monitoring and implementing the settlement. To the extent

2

the parties cannot reach agreement on some or all of the attorney’s fees issues, the court

3

will entertain a motion for attorney’s fees from plaintiffs’ counsel. The parties shall propose

4

a schedule for the filing of such a motion.

5

H. Monetary Sanctions: The parties and the Monitor shall discuss the appropriate

6

daily monetary sanction that will be imposed against the City for failure to comply with any

7

of the deadlines that will be set forth in amended Consent Decree.

8

3. The parties and the Monitor shall file a joint status report with the court no later than

9 January 13, 2020. In the joint status report, the parties and the Monitor shall inform the court of

10 the results of their meet and confer efforts on each of the above issues. To the extent there are

11 outstanding disputes on any issues, the parties and the Monitor shall provide the court with their

12 respective positions on the issue. In the attorney’s fees section of the joint status report, plaintiffs

13 shall inform the court whether they will be filing a motion for attorney’s fees.

14

4. No later than January 13, 2020, the parties shall email the Deputy Clerk a copy of the

15 Consolidated Settlement Agreement (“CSA”) in WordPerfect (the court’s preference) or Word

16 format.

17

5. After reviewing the joint status report, the court will issue an Amended Consent Decree

18 as well as an order scheduling the next status conference with the parties, the City’s Settlement

19 Coordinator, and the Monitor.

20 Dated this 19th day of December, 2019.

21

/s/

Fernando M. Olguin

22

United States District Judge

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

 
 (PJWx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,PROTORD,STAYED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12−cv−00551−FMO−PJW

Independent Living Center of Southern California et al v. City of Los Angeles California et al Assigned to: Judge Fernando M. Olguin Referred to: Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh Cause: 42:12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/13/2012 Date Terminated: 09/07/2017 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Independent Living Center of Southern California a California non−profit corporation

represented by Adam R Pulver US Department of Labor 200 Constitution Ave NW N−2474 Washington, DC 20210 202−693−5740 Email: pulver.adam.r@dol.gov TERMINATED: 10/07/2013

Amethyst R Thormann Disability Rights Legal Center 1541 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−736−1031 Fax: 213−736−1428 Email: amethyst.thormann@drlcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Autumn M Elliott Disability Rights California 350 South Bixel Street, Suite 290 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−213−8000 Fax: 213−213−8001 Email: Autumn.Elliott@disabilityrightsca.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher H Knauf Disability Rights Legal Center 1541 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−736−1031 x1195 Fax: 213−736−1428 Email: ck@drlcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

D Scott Chang Housing Rights Center Inc 3255 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1150 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213 387−8400 x1116 Fax: 213 381−8555 Email: schang@housingrightscenter.org TERMINATED: 03/24/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dara L Schur Protection and Advocacy Oakland Legal Office 1330 Broadway, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612−2509

510−267−1200 Email: dara.schur@disabilityrightsca.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Grant Geffen David Geffen Law Firm 1717 4th Street 3rd Floor Santa Monica, CA 90401 310−434−1111 Fax: 310−434−1115 Email: david@davidgeffenmediation.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jamie L Crook ACLU of Northern California ACLU of Northern California 39 Drumm Street San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94111 United Sta 4156212493 Email: jcrook@aclunc.org TERMINATED: 05/07/2014
Jean M Zachariasiewicz Relman Dane and Colfax PLLC 1225 Ninteenth Street NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 202−728−1888 Fax: 202−728−0848 Email: jzachariasiewicz@relmanlaw.com TERMINATED: 10/09/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Jennifer I Klar Relman Dane and Colfax PLLC 1225 Ninteenth Street NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 202−728−1888 Fax: 202−728−0848 Email: jklar@relmanlaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John P Relman Relman Dane and Colfax PLLC 1225 Ninteenth Street NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 202−728−1888 Fax: 202−728−08748 Email: jrelman@relmanlaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Michael Bayley 2339 Galbreth Road Pasadena, CA 91104 213−537−5229 Email: kevin@askewity.com TERMINATED: 03/19/2013
Laura Gaztambide−Arandes Relman Dane and Colfax PLLC 1225 − 19th Street NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036

202−728−1888 Fax: 202−728−0848 Email: larandes@relmanlaw.com TERMINATED: 05/07/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maronel Barajas Disability Rights Legal Center 350 South Grand Avenue Suite 2010 Los Angeles, CA 90071 626−389−8277 Fax: 213−736−1428 Email: maronel.barajas@drlcenter.org TERMINATED: 11/26/2019
Michael G Allen Relman Colfax PLLC 1225 19th Street NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 202−728−1888 Fax: 202−728−0848 Email: mallen@relmanlaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Uzeta Law Office of Michelle Uzeta 710 South Myrtle Avenue No 306 Monrovia, CA 91016 Email: uzetalaw@gmail.com TERMINATED: 11/26/2013
Panchalam Seshan Srividya California Department of Justice 300 S. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 213−269−6496 Fax: 213−897−2801 Email: srividya.panchalam@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paula D Pearlman Department of Fair Employment and Housing Legal Division 2218 Kausen Drive Suite 100 Elk Grove, CA 95758 213−439−6799 Fax: 888−382−5293 Email: Paula.Pearlman@dfeh.ca.gov TERMINATED: 09/03/2014
Rebecca Anne Craemer Disability Rights Legal Center 800 South Figueroa Street Suite 1120 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−736−1496 TERMINATED: 04/23/2012
Reed N Colfax Relman Dane and Colfax PLLC 1225 19th Street NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 202−728−1888 Fax: 202−728−0848

Plaintiff
Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley a California non−profit corporation

Email: rcolfax@relmanlaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawna L Parks Law Office of Shawna L. Parks 4470 W. Sunset Blvd. Ste. 107 #347 Los Angeles, CA 90027 323.389.9239 Fax: 323.389.9239 Email: sparks@parks−law−office.com TERMINATED: 03/07/2012
Timothy M Smyth Relman Dane and Colfax PLLC 1225 − 19th Street NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 202−728−1888 Fax: 202−728−0848 Email: tsmyth@relmanlaw.com TERMINATED: 05/06/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Umbreen Bhatti Disability Rights Legal Center 800 South Figueroa Street Suite 1120 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−252−7406 Fax: 213−736−1428 Email: umbreen.bhatti@lls.edu TERMINATED: 09/21/2012
Zachary Genduso Disability Rights Legal Center 1541 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−716−1031 Fax: 213−736−1428 Email: zachary.genduso@drlcenter.org TERMINATED: 03/31/2020
represented by David O Iyalomhe David Iyalomhe and Associates 880 West First Street Suite 313 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−626−4100 Fax: 213−626−6900 Email: david@doialaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Odion L Okojie Law Offices of Odion L Okojie 880 West First Street Suite 313 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−626−4100 Fax: 213−626−6900 Email: okojielaw@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam R Pulver (See above for address)

TERMINATED: 10/07/2013
Autumn M Elliott (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
D Scott Chang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/24/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dara L Schur (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Grant Geffen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jamie L Crook (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2014
Jean M Zachariasiewicz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/09/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Jennifer I Klar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John P Relman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Michael Bayley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2013
Laura Gaztambide−Arandes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maronel Barajas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/26/2019
Michael G Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Uzeta (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/26/2013

Plaintiff
Communities Actively Living Independent and Free a California non−profit corporation

Panchalam Seshan Srividya (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paula D Pearlman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/03/2014
Rebecca Anne Craemer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/23/2012
Reed N Colfax (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawna L Parks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2012
Timothy M Smyth (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/06/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Umbreen Bhatti (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/21/2012
represented by Adam R Pulver (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2013
Amethyst R Thormann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Autumn M Elliott (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher H Knauf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
D Scott Chang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/24/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dara L Schur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Grant Geffen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jamie L Crook

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2014
Jean M Zachariasiewicz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/09/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Jennifer I Klar (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John P Relman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Michael Bayley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2013
Laura Gaztambide−Arandes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maronel Barajas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/26/2019
Michael G Allen (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Uzeta (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/26/2013
Panchalam Seshan Srividya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paula D Pearlman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/03/2014
Rebecca Anne Craemer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/23/2012
Reed N Colfax (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawna L Parks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2012
Timothy M Smyth (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/06/2015 PRO HAC VICE

V.
Defendant
City of Los Angeles California a California municipal corporation TERMINATED: 08/04/2016

Umbreen Bhatti (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/21/2012
Zachary Genduso (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2020
represented by Deborah J Breithaupt Los Angeles City Attorney's Office City Hall East 200 North Main Street 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−978−7965 Fax: 213−978−7957 Email: deborah.breithaupt@lacity.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffery Christopher Elder Los Angeles City Attorneys Office 200 North Spring Street 21st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−922−8557 Fax: 213−978−7957 Email: jeffery.elder@lacity.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer L Derwin Byrne and Nixon LLP 888 West Sixth Street Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−620−8003 Fax: 213−620−8012 Email: jenniferderwin@byrnenixon.com TERMINATED: 10/07/2015
Komal Jitendra Mehta Law Offices of Steven Goldsobel 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1750 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 552−4848 Fax: (310) 695−3860 Email: kommehta@gmail.com TERMINATED: 10/07/2015
Mark Andrew Byrne Byrne and Nixon LLP 888 West Sixth Street Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−620−8003 Fax: 213−620−8012 Email: markbyrne@byrnenixon.com TERMINATED: 10/07/2015
Melissa T Daugherty Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP 633 West 5th Street Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−250−1800

Defendant
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles a public entity

Fax: 213−250−7900 Email: melissa.daugherty@lewisbrisbois.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael C Heinrichs Office of Los Angeles City Attorney 200 North Main Street 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−978−7966 Email: michael.heinrichs@lacity.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J Irwin Los Angeles City Attorney's Office City Hall East 200 North Main Street 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012−4130 213−978−8235 Fax: 213−978−2211 Email: michael.irwin@lacity.org TERMINATED: 06/19/2012
Robert Michael Collins Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP 633 West Fifth Street Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−680−5167 Fax: 213 250 7900 Email: robert.collins@lewisbrisbois.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert P Moore Los Angeles City Attorney's Office 200 North Main Street City Hall East 9th Floor, Room 966 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−978−4097 Fax: 213−978−7714 Email: robert.p.moore@lacity.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Juliet A Antoun The California State University Office of the Chancellor 401 Golden Shore Long Beach, CA 90802 562−951−4538 Fax: 562−951−4890 Email: jantoun@calstate.edu TERMINATED: 10/10/2013
Kelsey Elizabeth Scherr Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP 633 West 5th Street Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−250−1800 Email: kelsey.fisher@lewisbrisbois.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin E Gilbert Orbach, Huff, Suarez & Henderson 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 1630

Defendant 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP a California limited partnership
Defendant Adams 935 LP a California limited partnership
Defendant Alexandria House Apartments LP a California limited partnership TERMINATED: 06/01/2012 Defendant Ardmore 959 Partners LP a California limited partnership
Defendant Asturias Senior Apartments LP a California limited partnership
Defendant

Oakland, CA 94612 510.999.7908 Fax: 510.999.7918 Email: kgilbert@ohshlaw.com TERMINATED: 05/21/2012
Kimberly E Colwell Meyers Nave Riback Silver and Wilson 555 12th Street Suite 1500 Oakland, CA 94607 510−808−2000 Fax: 510−444−1108 TERMINATED: 05/21/2012
Melissa T Daugherty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Michael Collins Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP 221 North Figueroa Street Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−250−1800 Fax: 213 250 7900 Email: robert.collins@lewisbrisbois.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay P O Box 597 Oak Island, NC 28465 910−250−1982 Fax: 770−454−0126 Email: tkitay@kitaylaw.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

B S Broadway Village II LP a California limited partnership
Defendant Bronson Court Apartments LP a California limited partnership TERMINATED: 06/01/2012
Defendant Cantabria Senior Apartments LP a California limited partnership
Defendant Carondelet Court Partners LP a California limited partnership
Defendant Central Village Apartments LP a California limited partnership
Defendant CFLT−2618 West 7th Street LLC a Delaware limited liability company TERMINATED: 06/01/2012
Defendant Charles Cobb Apartments LP a California limited partnership TERMINATED: 04/05/2012
Defendant Decro Orion Apartments LP a California limited partnership
Defendant Decro Osborne Apartments LP a California limited partnership
Defendant Esperanza Community Housing Corporation a California corporation
Defendant Eugene Hotel LP a California limited partnership

represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address)

Defendant Fame West 25th Street LP a California limited partnership
Defendant Hart Village LP a California limited partnership
Defendant Hobart Heights Partners LP a California limited partnership
Defendant Hoover Seniors LP a California limited partnership
Defendant Imani FE LP a California limited partnership
Defendant Morgan Place LP a California limited partnership
Defendant New Tierra Del Sol LP a California limited partnership

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark Jason Austin Rutan & Tucker 611 Anton Blvd, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626−1931 714−641−5100 Email: maustin@rutan.com TERMINATED: 11/27/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Megan Kathleen Garibaldi Rutan and Tucker LLP 611 Anton Boulevard Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714−662−4622 Fax: 714−546−9035 Email: mgaribaldi@rutan.com TERMINATED: 11/27/2018
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Roberto Lara Lara Ibarra and Davis LLP 445 South Figueroa Street Suite 3100

Defendant P G Housing Partners LP a California limited partnership Defendant Palm Village Senior Housing Corp a California corporation Defendant Penny Lane Centers a California corporation
Defendant Redrock NoHo Residential LLC a Delaware limited liability company

Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−623−2600 Fax: 213−623−2616 Email: rlara@lidlegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Kyle Mosqueda Baker Keener and Nahra LLP 633 West Fifth Street Suite 5500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−241−0900 Fax: 213−241−0990 Email: cmosqueda@bknlawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Derrick S Lowe Baker Keener and Nahra LLP 633 West 5th Street Suite 5500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−241−0900 Fax: 213−241−0990 Email: dlowe@bknlawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R Jeffrey Neer Baker Keenr and Nahra LLP Library Tower 633 West 5th Street Sute 5500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−241−0900 Email: jneer@bknlawyers.com TERMINATED: 03/25/2015
Phillip A Baker Baker Keener and Nahra LLP 633 West Fifth Street Suite 5500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−241−0900 Fax: 213−241−0990 Email: pbaker@bknlawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alice Chu

Defendant Rittenhouse Limited Partnership a California limited partnership
Defendant SF No Ho LLC a California limited liability company
Defendant Vermont Seniors a California corporation
Defendant Views At 270 LP a California limited partnership TERMINATED: 06/01/2012
Defendant WA Court LP a California limited partnership
Defendant Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP a California limited partnership
Defendant Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership a California limited partnership
Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority a public entity and successor agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of

Greenberg Traurig LLP 1900 University Avenue Fifth Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303 650−328−8500 Fax: 650−328−8508 Email: chua@gtlaw.com TERMINATED: 01/17/2017
William Jeffrey Goines Greenberg Traurig LLP 1900 University Avenue 5th Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303 650−328−8500 Fax: 650−328−8508 Email: goinesw@gtlaw.com TERMINATED: 01/17/2017
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kelsey Elizabeth Scherr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

the City of Los Angeles
Defendant Oversight Board for the CRA LA Designated Local Authority a public entity TERMINATED: 11/29/2012
Defendant 105 East I Street, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant 4651 Huntington, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant 901 South Broadway Street Limited Partnership a California limited partnership
Defendant Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership a California limited partnership

Melissa T Daugherty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Michael Collins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Ross Varner & Brandt LLP 3750 University Avenue Suite 610 Riverside, CA 92501 951−274−7777 Fax: 951−274−7770 Email: andrew.ross@varnerbrandt.com
represented by Christopher P Warne Warne Law Firm, A Professional Corporation 20929 Ventura Boulevard Suite 47130 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 310−359−9448 Fax: 424−277−2565 Email: cw@warnelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Roberto Lara (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John R Benson Law Office of John R. Benson 316 West 2nd Street Suite 1110 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−905−9364 Email: jrb@attorneyjohnrbenson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Scott Parrish Moore Baird Holm LLP 1500 Woodmen Tower 1700 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68102−2068

Defendant Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant East LA Community Corporation a California corporation
Defendant Eastside Village, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant Far East Building, L.P. a California limited partnership

402−636−8268 Fax: 402−344−0588 Email: spmoore@bairdholm.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Domenic Todero Baird Holm LLP 1500 Woodmen Tower 1700 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68102−2068 402−344−0500 Fax: 402−344−0588 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barry Clifford Snyder Snyder Burnett Egerer LLP 5383 Hollister Avenue Suite 240 Santa Barbara, CA 93111 805−692−2800 Fax: 805−692−2801 Email: bsnyder@sbelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David P Kennison Baird Holm LLP 1500 Woodmen Tower 1700 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68102 402−636−8243 Fax: 402−344−00588 Email: dkennison@bairdholm.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address)

Defendant Grandview Nine, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant Korean Family Housing Corporation a California corporation TERMINATED: 08/11/2016
Defendant Las Margaritas, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant Los Angeles Housing Partnership a California corporation
Defendant Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership a California limited partnership
Defendant New Genesis Apartments, L.P. a California limited partnership

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dimitrios Peter Biller LDT Consulting 906 Kagawa Street Paficia Palisades Los Angeles, CA 90272 310−459−9870 Fax: 310−459−9879 Email: biller_ldtconsulting@verizon.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Leo D Plotkin Levy Small and Lallas 815 Moraga Dr Los Angeles, CA 90049−1633 310−471−3000 Fax: 310−471−7990 Email: lplotkin@lsl−la.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Noho Senior Villas, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant Ol Hope, L.P. a California limited partnershp
Defendant Palomar Apartments, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership a California limited partnership Erroneously Sued As Casa Rampart, L.P. Defendant Renato Apartments, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership a California limited partnership
Defendant Seven Maples, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant Sherman Village Apartments, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant Stovall Housing Corporation a California corporation

represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address)

Defendant West Angeles Villas, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant Western Carlton II, L.P. a California limited partnership
Defendant Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC
Defendant Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership Erroneously Sued As Casa Rampart, L.P. Cross Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority
Cross Defendant 105 East I Street, L.P. Cross Defendant 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP
Cross Defendant 4651 Huntington, L.P.
Cross Defendant 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P.
Cross Defendant 901 South Broadway Street Limited Partnership

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Melissa T Daugherty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Michael Collins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Roberto Lara (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Defendant Adams 935 LP
Cross Defendant Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P.
Cross Defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership
Cross Defendant Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P.
Cross Defendant Ardmore 959 Partners LP
Cross Defendant Asturias Senior Apartments LP
Cross Defendant B S Broadway Village II LP
Cross Defendant Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC
Cross Defendant Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P.
Cross Defendant

represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anthony Domenic Todero (See above for address)
David P Kennison (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cantabria Senior Apartments LP
Cross Defendant Carondelet Court Partners LP
Cross Defendant Central Village Apartments LP
Cross Defendant Decro Orion Apartments LP
Cross Defendant East LA Community Corporation
Cross Defendant Eastside Village, L.P.
Cross Defendant Esperanza Community Housing Corporation
Cross Defendant Eugene Hotel LP
Cross Defendant Fame West 25th Street LP
Cross Defendant Far East Building, L.P.

represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Defendant Grandview Nine, L.P.
Cross Defendant Hart Village LP
Cross Defendant Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P. Cross Defendant Hobart Heights Partners LP
Cross Defendant Hoover Seniors LP Cross Defendant Imani FE LP Cross Defendant Korean Family Housing Corporation TERMINATED: 08/11/2016 Cross Defendant Las Margaritas, L.P.
Cross Defendant Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc.
Cross Defendant Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P.
Cross Defendant Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership Cross Defendant Morgan Place LP

represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Defendant New Genesis Apartments, L.P.
Cross Defendant New Tierra Del Sol LP Cross Defendant Noho Senior Villas, L.P.
Cross Defendant OL Hope, LP a California limited partnership
Cross Defendant P G Housing Partners LP
Cross Defendant Palm Village Senior Housing Corp
Cross Defendant Palomar Apartments, L.P.
Cross Defendant Penny Lane Centers
Cross Defendant Redrock NoHo Residential LLC

represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Phillip A Baker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alice Chu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Jeffrey Goines (See above for address)

Cross Defendant Renato Apartments, L.P.
Cross Defendant Rittenhouse Limited Partnership
Cross Defendant Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership
Cross Defendant Seven Maples, L.P.
Cross Defendant Sherman Village Apartments, L.P.
Cross Defendant Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P.
Cross Defendant Stovall Housing Corporation Cross Defendant Vermont Seniors Cross Defendant WA Court LP
Cross Defendant Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP
Cross Defendant West Angeles Villas, L.P.

TERMINATED: 01/17/2017
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Cross Defendant Western Carlton II, L.P.
Cross Defendant Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership Mediator Bill Lann Lee Cross Claimant City of Los Angeles California a California municipal corporation TERMINATED: 08/04/2016
V. Cross Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles

Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah J Breithaupt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer L Derwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2015
Mark Andrew Byrne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2015
Melissa T Daugherty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J Irwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/19/2012
Robert Michael Collins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Juliet A Antoun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2013
Kevin E Gilbert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/21/2012
Kimberly E Colwell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/21/2012

Cross Claimant CRA LA Designated Local Authority
V. Cross Defendant Carondelet Court Partners LP
Cross Defendant Central Village Apartments LP
Cross Defendant Decro Orion Apartments LP
Cross Defendant Decro Osborne Apartments LP a California limited partnership
Cross Defendant East LA Community Corporation
Cross Defendant Eastside Village, L.P.
Cross Defendant Esperanza Community Housing Corporation

Melissa T Daugherty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Michael Collins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Melissa T Daugherty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Michael Collins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Cross Defendant Eugene Hotel LP
Cross Defendant Fame West 25th Street LP Cross Defendant Far East Building, L.P. a California limited partnership
Cross Defendant 105 East I Street, L.P. Cross Defendant 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P.
Cross Defendant 901 South Broadway Street Limited Partnership Cross Defendant Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P.
Cross Defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership
Cross Defendant Ardmore 959 Partners LP
Cross Defendant B S Broadway Village II LP
Cross Defendant

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anthony Domenic Todero (See above for address) David P Kennison (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC
Cross Defendant Grandview Nine, L.P.
Cross Defendant Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P. Cross Defendant Hobart Heights Partners LP
Cross Defendant Hoover Seniors LP Cross Defendant Imani FE LP Cross Defendant Las Margaritas, L.P.
Cross Defendant Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc.
Cross Defendant Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P.
Cross Defendant Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership Cross Defendant New Genesis Apartments, L.P.
Cross Defendant New Tierra Del Sol LP Cross Defendant

represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noho Senior Villas, L.P.
Cross Defendant OL Hope, LP a California limited partnership
Cross Defendant P G Housing Partners LP
Cross Defendant Palm Village Senior Housing Corp
Cross Defendant Palomar Apartments, L.P.
Cross Defendant Penny Lane Centers
Cross Defendant Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership a California limited partnership Erroneously Sued As Casa Rampart, L.P. Cross Defendant Redrock NoHo Residential LLC
Cross Defendant Renato Apartments, L.P.

represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Phillip A Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alice Chu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Jeffrey Goines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2017
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address)

Cross Defendant Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership
Cross Defendant Seven Maples, L.P.
Cross Defendant Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P.
Cross Defendant Stovall Housing Corporation Cross Defendant Vermont Seniors Cross Defendant Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP
Cross Defendant West Angeles Villas, L.P.
Cross Defendant Western Carlton II, L.P.
Cross Defendant Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa Lynne Kitay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/13/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Defendents 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, Adams 935 LP, Alexandria House Apartments LP, Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, B S Broadway Village II LP, Bronson Court Apartments LP, CFLT−2618 West 7th Street LLC, Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, Charles Cobb Apartments LP, City of

01/13/2012
01/13/2012 01/13/2012 01/17/2012 01/19/2012 01/19/2012 01/19/2012 01/20/2012

Los Angeles California, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Hart Village LP, Hobart Heights Partners LP, Hoover Seniors LP, Imani FE LP, Morgan Place LP, New Tierra Del Sol LP, P G Housing Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Penny Lane Centers, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, SF No Ho LLC, Vermont Seniors, Views At 270 LP, WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP and Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership. Case assigned to Judge Josephine Staton Tucker for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman.(Filing fee $ 350 Paid). Jury Demanded. Filed by Plaintiffs Independent Living Center of Southern California, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free.(lwag) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 as to Defendants 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, Adams 935 LP, Alexandria House Apartments LP, Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, B S Broadway Village II LP, Bronson Court Apartments LP, CFLT−2618 West 7th Street LLC, Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, Charles Cobb Apartments LP, City of Los Angeles California, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Hart Village LP, Hobart Heights Partners LP, Hoover Seniors LP, Imani FE LP, Morgan Place LP, New Tierra Del Sol LP, P G Housing Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Penny Lane Centers, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, SF No Ho LLC, Vermont Seniors, Views At 270 LP, WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP and Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership. (lwag) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
2 CERTIFICATION and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and Independent Living Center of Southern California, (lwag) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
3 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and Independent Living Center of Southern California. Related Case(s): 2:07−cv−08262−MMM(JWJx). (lwag) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
4 NOTICE OF FILING FEE DUE on Pro Hac Vice Application mailed to Michael G. Allen for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 G−64 Application, # 2 G−64 Proposed Order) (lwag) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
5 INITIAL STANDING ORDER for cases assigned to Judge Josephine Staton Tucker. (Guerrero, Terry) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
6 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, upon Defendant City of Los Angeles California served on 1/13/2012, answer due 2/3/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Maria Vizcarra, Deputy City Clerk, Authorized to Accept Service of Process in compliance with statute not specified by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
7 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California, upon Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles served on 1/13/2012, answer due 2/3/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Judy Prado Cordova, Records Clerk, Authorized to Accept Service of Process in compliance with statute not specified by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
8 NOTICE RE INTRA−DISTRICT TRANSFER by Clerk of Court Due to Clerical Error in Assignment of Case filed. Pursuant to GO 349A, case transferred to the Western Division. Case has been reassigned to Judge S. James Otero for all further

01/25/2012 01/27/2012 02/02/2012 02/03/2012 02/03/2012
02/06/2012 02/06/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 03/06/2012
03/07/2012
03/15/2012

proceedings. Any matters previously referred are transferred to Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. New Case Number CV 12−00551 SJO(PJWx). Original file transferred. (rn) (Entered: 01/23/2012)
9 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08−05 (Related Case) filed. Transfer of case declined by Judge Margaret M. Morrow, for the reasons set forth on this order. Related Case No. CV 07−08262 MMM(JWJx) (rn) (Entered: 01/25/2012)
10 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to City of Los Angeles California answer now due 2/29/2012, re Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles California.(Irwin, Michael) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
11 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO Judge S. James Otero. Read This Order Carefully. It Controls This Case and Differs in Some Respects From the Local Rules. (See Order for Details). (sch) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
12 APPLICATION for attorney Michael G. Allen to Appear Pro Hac Vice(PHV Fee of $325 receipt number 0973−9882441 paid.) filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Chang, D) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
13 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles answer now due 3/5/2012, re Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by Defendant Independent Living Center of Southern California; Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley; Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles; Communities Actively Living Independent and Free.(Colwell, Kimberly) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
14 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California, re Order 11 Initial Standing Order For Cases Assigned To Judge S. James Otero served on 2/3/12. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
15 ORDER by Judge S. James Otero: granting 12 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Michel G. Allen on behalf of Plaintiff, designating Paula D. Pearlman as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 02/07/2012)
16 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery) 1 , CROSSCLAIM against Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles filed by defendant and cross claimant City of Los Angeles California.(lc) (lc). (Entered: 03/01/2012)
17 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by defendant and cross claimant City of Los Angeles California, (lc) (lc). (Entered: 03/01/2012)
18 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 City of Los Angeles California, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
19 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Shawna L Parks counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California.Shawna L. Parks is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California et al. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
20 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Maria Michelle Uzeta counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern

03/16/2012
03/22/2012
03/27/2012 03/28/2012 04/03/2012 04/03/2012 04/04/2012
04/04/2012 04/05/2012 04/05/2012

California. Adding Maria Michelle Uzeta as attorney as counsel of record for Independent Living Center of Southern California et al. for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California et al. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
21 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge S. James Otero : Scheduling Conference set for 4/23/12 8:30 AM; Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 4/9/12 ; in order to assist counsel, court has included a schedule form for pretrial dates to be completed by counsel and submitted in conjunction with their rule 26(f) report; if case is part of ADR program, counsel must confer and jointly complete ADR Pilot Program Questionnaire and to file it concurrently with the Joint Rule 26(f) report; plaintiff counsel directed to give notice of scheduling conference to all parties. (lc) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
22 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Scheduling Conference from April 23, 2012 to June 25, 2012 City of Los Angeles California, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Michael G. Allen in Support of Joint Application and Stipulation Continuing Scheduling Conference and Extending Time for Plaintiffs to File First Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 03/22/2012)
24 ORDER re Stipulation to Continue 22 by Judge S. James Otero.The Court Denies this. application to continue the scheduling10 conference and to allow plaintiff to file a first amended complaint. The Court changes the hearing to a Status/Scheduling Conference on April 23, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. All parties are Ordered to appear. (lom) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
23 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Autumn M Elliott counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Changing address to 350 South Bixel Street, Suite 290, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Changing fax number to 213−213−8001. Filed by plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. (Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
25 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles.(Colwell, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
26 ANSWER to Answer to Complaint (Discovery), Crossclaim 16 filed by Defendant and Cross−Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles.(Colwell, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
27 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los An geles Answer to Complaint (Discovery), Answer to Complaint (Discovery) 25 , Answer to Crossclaim 26 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 7.1−1 No Certification of Interested Parties. 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. (lc) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
28 of Interested Parties filed by Defendant and Cross−Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, identifying None. (Colwell, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
29 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL filed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free pursuant to FRCP 41a(1) as to Charles Cobb Apartments LP. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Notice of Dismissal)(Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
30 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Deborah J Breithaupt counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles California, Cross Claimant City of Los Angeles California. Adding Deborah Breithaupt as attorney as counsel of record for

04/05/2012 04/09/2012 04/10/2012 04/18/2012 04/20/2012 04/23/2012 04/23/2012 04/23/2012
04/24/2012

Defendant and Cross Claimant City of Los Angeles for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendant/Cross Claimant City of Los Angeles (Breithaupt, Deborah) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
33 ORDER by Judge S. James Otero, re Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Party(ies) (Pursuant to FRCP 41a(1))29] Charles Cobb Apartments LP is dismissed without prejudice. (lc) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
31 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial Plaintiffs: 12−15 days, Defendants: 2 months, filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles California, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California.. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
32 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles California, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. correcting Joint Report Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan, Joint Report Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan 31 (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
34 REQUEST for Leave of David Geffen to Appear for Telephonic filed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. Request set for hearing on 4/23/2012 at 08:30 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Geffen, David) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
35 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER Denying Request for Leave to Appear Telephonically 34 by Judge S. James Otero. Mr. David Geffens Law Office may have other attorney to appear on his behalf for Mondays hearing. If Mr. Geffens presence is absolutely necessary for the Scheduling Conference on Monday, the hearing can be continued. This point has been relayed by the courtroom deputy to Mr. Geffens secretary. (sch) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
36 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 4/23/2012 to 4/23/2012 Court Smart (CS). Transcript portion requested: Category: Expedited. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (mo) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
37 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Rebecca Anne Craemer counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California.Rebecca A. Craemer is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff ILCSC et al. (Craemer, Rebecca) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
45 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge S. James Otero:The parties designate attorney Michael Allen as lead−counsel. The Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by Monday, June 1, 2012. Amended Complaint mustname all defendants and complaint shall be served by not later than August 4, 2012. The Court advises the parties that they required to comply with the Local Rules regarding related cases. Defendant may not bring a 12B6 motion without permission of the court. The Court orders the CRA to disclose and to provide the City with copies of all contracts with builders and 25 owners that are the subject of the litigation, along with any insurance contracts that the City may be in possession of. This shall be accomplished within five days from today'sdate.The Court sets a Status Conference on Monday, September 17, 2012 8:30 a.m.Court Recorder: CS 4/23/12. (lc) (Entered: 05/07/2012)
38 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings April 23, 2012 to April 23, 2012 as to Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Miriam Becker−Cohen at mbecker−cohen@relmanlaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: Status/Scheduling Conference (4/23/12). Category: Expedited. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 04/24/2012)

04/25/2012 04/26/2012
04/26/2012 05/02/2012 05/07/2012
05/07/2012 05/08/2012 05/10/2012 05/14/2012
05/21/2012 05/30/2012 06/01/2012

39 APPLICATION of Registered Legal Services Attorney Umbreen Bhatti to practice before the Court filed by plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
40 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Kevin E Gilbert counsel for Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Cross Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. Adding Kevin E. Gilbert as attorney as counsel of record for Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendant/Cross−Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
41 ORDER by Judge S. James Otero: granting 39 Application for Registered Legal Services Attorney Umbreen Bhatti to Practice Before the Court and participate in the above entitled action. (ak) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
42 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Kevin Michael Bayley on behalf of Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California (Bayley, Kevin) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
43 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on April 23, 2012; 8:54 a.m. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Exceptional Reporting Services, Inc., phone number 361 949−2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 5/28/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/7/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/5/2012. (mw) (Entered: 05/07/2012)
44 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings April 23, 2012; 8:54 a.m. (mw) (Entered: 05/07/2012)
46 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Related Case(s): 11−CV−07774 SVW−E (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 05/08/2012)
47 REQUEST to Substitute attorney Melissa T. Daugherty in place of attorney Kimberly Colwell and Kevin Gilbert filed by Defendant/Cross−Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Request For Approval of Substitution of Attorney)(Daugherty, Melissa) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
48 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 4/23/12 to 4/23/12 re: Transcript Order Form (AO−435) 36 , as to Defendant City of Los Angeles California Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Deborah Breithaupt at deborah.breithaupt@lacity.org with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Testimony of: Entire Court appearence. Other: 4/23/12. Category: Daily. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Breithaupt, Deborah) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
49 ORDER by Judge S. James Otero: granting 47 Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles Request to Substitute Attorneys Melissa Daugherty and Juliet A Antoun in place and instead of Attorneys Kimberly E Colwell and Kevin E Gilbert. (lc) Modified on 5/22/2012 (lc). (Entered: 05/22/2012)
50 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08−05 (Related Case) filed. Transfer of case declined by Judge Stephen V. Wilson, for the reasons set forth on this order. Related Case No. CV 11−07774 SVW(Ex) (rn) (Entered: 05/30/2012)
51 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants City of Los Angeles California, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, CRA/LA Designated Local Authority successor agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Oversight Board for the CRA/LA Designated Local Authority, 105 East "I" Street, L.P., 12129 El Dorado Avenue, L.P., 4651 Huntington, L.P., 505

06/01/2012
06/15/2012 06/15/2012

Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., 901 South Broadway Street Limited Partnership, Adams 935, L.P., Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners, L.P., Asturias Senior Apartments, L.P., B S Broadway Village II, L.P., Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., Cantabria Senior Apartments, L.P., Carondelet Court Partners, L.P., Central Village Apartments, L.P., Decro Orion Apartments, L.P., Decro Osborne Apartments, L.P., East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel, L.P., Fame West 25th Street, L.P., Far East Building, L.P., Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village, L.P., Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P., Hobart Heights Partners, L.P., Hoover Seniors, L.P., Imani FE, LP, Korean Family Housing Corporation, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership, Morgan Place, L.P., New Genesis Apartments, L.P., New Tierra Del Sol, L.P., Noho Senior Villas, L.P., Ol Hope, L.P., P G Housing Partners, L.P., Palm Village Senior Housing Corp., Palomar Apartments, L.P., Penny Lane Centers, Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, Redrock NoHo Residential, LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., SF No Ho LLC, Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., Stovall Housing Corporation, Vermont Seniors, WA Court, L.P., Watts/Athens Preservation XVII, L.P., West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western/Carlton II, L.P. and Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership; Party CFLT−2618 West 7th Street LLC, Views At 270 LP, Alexandria House Apartments LP and Bronson Court Apartments LP terminated; amending Complaint 1 ; with Jury Demand filed by Plaintiffs Independent Living Center of Southern California, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. (gk) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/5/2012: # 1 issued summons) (lc). (Entered: 06/04/2012)
21−Day Summons Issued re First Amended Complaint 51 as to Defendants City of Los Angeles California, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, CRA/LA Designated Local Authority successor agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Oversight Board for the CRA/LA Designated Local Authority, 105 East "I" Street, L.P., 12129 El Dorado Avenue, L.P., 4651 Huntington, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., 901 South Broadway Street Limited Partnership, Adams 935, L.P., Amca l Montecito Fund, L.P., Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners, L.P., Asturias Senior Apartments, L.P., B S Broadway Village II, L.P., Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., Cantabria Senior A partments, L.P., Carondelet Court Partners, L.P., Central Village Apartments, L.P., Decro Orion Apartments, L.P., Decro Osborne Apartments, L.P., East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene H otel, L.P., Fame West 25th Street, L.P., Far East Building, L.P., Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village, L.P., Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P., Hobart Heights Partners, L.P., Hoover Seniors, L.P., Imani FE, LP, Korean Family Housing Corporation, La s Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership, Morgan Place, L.P., New Genesis Apartments, L.P., New Tierra Del Sol, L.P., Noho Senior Villas, L.P., Ol Hope, L.P., P G Hous ing Partners, L.P., Palm Village Senior Housing Corp., Palomar Apartments, L.P., Penny Lane Centers, Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, Redrock NoHo Residential, LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, Selma− Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., SF No Ho LLC, Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., Stovall Housing Corporation, Vermont Seniors, WA Court, L.P., Watts/Athens Preservation XVII, L.P., West An geles Villas, L.P., Western/Carlton II, L.P. and Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership. (gk) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
52 REQUEST to Substitute attorney Mark A. Byrne in place of attorney Deborah J. Breithaupt & Michael J. Irwin filed by Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Request for Approval of Substitution of Attorney)(Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
53 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to City of Los Angeles California answer now due 7/16/2012, re Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,,, 51 filed by Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California. (Attachments: # 1

06/15/2012 06/18/2012 06/19/2012 06/28/2012 06/28/2012 06/29/2012 07/05/2012 07/10/2012 07/11/2012
07/12/2012 07/13/2012

Proposed Order Extending Time to Respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint)(Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
54 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,,, 51 filed by Defendant and Cross Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles.(Daugherty, Melissa) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
55 ORDER granting Stipulation 53 that the City of Los Angeles shall have up to and including July 16, 2012, to file its responsive pleading to Plaintiffs FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge S. James Otero (lc) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
56 ORDER by Judge S. James Otero: granting 52 Request to Substitute Attorney Mark A. Byrne in place and instead of Attorneys Deborah J Breithaupt and Mark Andrew Byrne. (lc) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
57 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plaintiffs Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. upon Decro Orion Apartments LP waiver sent by Plaintiff on 6/15/2012, answer due 8/14/2012. Waiver of Service signed by James P. Shaner. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
58 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plaintiffs Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. upon Decro Osborne Apartments LP waiver sent by Plaintiff on 6/15/2012, answer due 8/14/2012. Waiver of Service signed by James P. Shaner. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
59 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plaintiffs Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. upon Ol Hope, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 6/15/2012, answer due 8/14/2012. Waiver of Service signed by Robert M. Buente. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
60 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plaintiffs Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. upon Noho Senior Villas, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 6/15/2012, answer due 8/14/2012. Waiver of Service signed by James Bonar. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
61 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plaintiffs Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. upon Imani FE LP waiver sent by Plaintiff on 6/15/2012, answer due 8/14/2012. Waiver of Service signed by Aron Hansen. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/10/2012)
62 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 4/23/2012 to 4/23/2012 as to Plaintiff Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Alysia. A. Globe at aglobe@lsl−la.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: 04/23/2012. Category: Ordinary. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Plotkin, Leo) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
63 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge S. James Otero. The Court sets a telephonic status conference on Friday, July 13, 2012 @ 10:30 a.m. The court clerk shall initiate telephonic conference. Counsel shall provide the clerk by e−mail (victor_cruz@cacd.uscourts.gov) direct dial telephone numbers where they can be reached. (sch) (Entered: 07/12/2012)
67 MINUTES OF Telephonic Status Conference held before Judge S. James Otero. Hearing held. The Court Orders Plaintiff to serve all named defendants by August 4, 2012. The Court sets a further Status Conference on Monday, August 20, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. The parties shall file a joint status report limited to ten pages by August 13, 2012. The Court will determine when to extend the date by Defendant City of Los Angeles to respond at the Status Conference. The Status Conference set September 17, 2012 is taken off the Court's calendar. Court Recorder: CS 7/13/12. (sch) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/20/2012 07/23/2012 07/25/2012 07/31/2012 07/31/2012 07/31/2012 07/31/2012 07/31/2012 07/31/2012

64 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plaintiffs Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. upon 105 East I Street, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 6/15/2012, answer due 8/14/2012. Waiver of Service signed by Gwendy Silver Egnater. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
65 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plaintiffs Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. upon Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership waiver sent by Plaintiff on 7/9/2012, answer due 9/7/2012. Waiver of Service signed by Scott Parrish Moore. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
66 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plaintiffs Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. upon Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership waiver sent by Plaintiff on 7/24/2012, answer due 9/22/2012. Waiver of Service signed by Leo D. Plotkin. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/25/2012)
68 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California, upon Defendant 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P. served on 7/23/2012, answer due 8/13/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Sanjay Chad, American Communities, Person Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
69 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California, upon Defendant 901 South Broadway Street Limited Partnership served on 7/23/2012, answer due 8/13/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Monica Harutunian, Person Authorized to Accept Service of Process in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
70 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California, upon Defendant Ardmore 959 Partners LP served on 7/23/2012, answer due 8/13/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Sanjay Chad, American Communities, Person Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
71 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California, upon Defendant Carondelet Court Partners LP served on 7/23/2012, answer due 8/13/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Sanjay Chand, American Communities, Person Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
72 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California, upon Defendant Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P. served on 7/23/2012, answer due 8/13/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Charlette Williams, Manager, Person Authorized to Accept Service of Process in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
73 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California, upon Defendant Hobart Heights Partners LP served on 7/23/2012, answer due 8/13/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Sanjay Chand, American Communities, Person Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2012)

07/31/2012 07/31/2012 07/31/2012 07/31/2012 07/31/2012 07/31/2012 08/01/2012 08/01/2012 08/01/2012

74 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California, upon Defendant Hoover Seniors LP served on 7/25/2012, answer due 8/15/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Leticia Marques, John Stewart Company, Person Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
75 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California, upon Defendant Korean Family Housing Corporation served on 7/23/2012, answer due 8/13/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julia Moore, Person Authorized to Accept Service of Process in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity. Original Summons NOT returned. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
76 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California, upon Defendant Penny Lane Centers served on 7/23/2012, answer due 8/13/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Carmen N. Delvalle, Person Authorized to Accept Service of Process in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity. Original Summons NOT returned. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
77 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California, upon Defendant Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership served on 7/24/2012, answer due 8/14/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Marvin Mandelbaum, Person Authorized to Accept Service of Process in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
78 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California, upon Defendant Stovall Housing Corporation served on 7/23/2012, answer due 8/13/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Noel Sweitzner, HDSI Management, Person Authorized to Accept Service of Process in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity. Original Summons NOT returned. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
79 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California, upon Defendant Vermont Seniors served on 7/23/2012, answer due 8/13/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Rebecca Jackson, Person Authorized to Accept Service of Process in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity. Original Summons NOT returned. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
80 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plaintiffs Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. upon New Tierra Del Sol LP waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/1/2012, answer due 9/30/2012. Waiver of Service signed by Roberto Lara. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
81 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plaintiffs Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. upon 4651 Huntington, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/1/2012, answer due 9/30/2012. Waiver of Service signed by Roberto Lara. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
82 REQUEST for Leave to Name and Serve Behringer Harvard NoHo LLC as a Defendant filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair

08/02/2012 08/02/2012 08/03/2012
08/03/2012 08/03/2012

Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of D. Scott Chang)(Chang, D) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
83 NOTICE Stipulation Accepting Service of Summons & Complaint for CRA/LA Designated Local Authority filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Chang, D) (Entered: 08/02/2012)
84 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Proposed Order re REQUEST for Leave to Name and Serve Behringer Harvard NoHo LLC as a Defendant 82 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Chang, D) (Entered: 08/02/2012)
85 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. upon 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Adams 935 LP waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Asturias Senior Apartments LP waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; B S Broadway Village II LP waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Cantabria Senior Apartments LP waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Central Village Apartments LP waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; East LA Community Corporation waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Eastside Village, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Esperanza Community Housing Corporation waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Eugene Hotel LP waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Fame West 25th Street LP waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Far East Building, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Grandview Nine, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Hart Village LP waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Las Margaritas, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Los Angeles Housing Partnership waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Morgan Place LP waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; New Genesis Apartments, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; P G Housing Partners LP waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Palm Village Senior Housing Corp waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Palomar Apartments, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Redrock NoHo Residential LLC waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Renato Apartments, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Rittenhouse Limited Partnership waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Seven Maples, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Sherman Village Apartments, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; WA Court LP waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; West Angeles Villas, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Western Carlton II, L.P. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012; Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/2/2012, answer due 10/1/2012. Waiver of Service signed by Theresa L. Kitay. (Chang, D) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
86 First STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Imani FE LP answer now due 9/13/2012, re Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,,, 51 filed by Defendant Imani FE LP.(Austin, Mark) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
87 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California, upon Defendant Oversight Board for the CRA LA Designated Local Authority served on 8/1/2012, answer due 8/22/2012. Service of the

08/03/2012
08/07/2012 08/07/2012 08/09/2012 08/09/2012 08/09/2012 08/10/2012 08/13/2012 08/16/2012 08/20/2012 08/20/2012

Summons and Complaint were executed upon Sophia Sao, Risk Management/Custodian of Records in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity. Original Summons NOT returned. (Bayley, Kevin) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
88 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California, upon Defendant Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Sophia Sao, Risk Management/Custodian of Records in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity. Original Summons NOT returned. (Bayley, Kevin) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
89 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to re Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,,, 51 filed by Defendant Noho Senior Villas, L.P..(Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 08/07/2012)
90 ORDER by Judge S. James Otero: Plaintiffs' Application for leave to name and serve Behringer Harvard NoHO LLC 82 is GRANTED, Plaintiff shall name and serve Behringer Harvard NoHo LLC as a defendant by 8/27/12. (ir) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
91 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Penny Lane Centers answer now due 9/12/2012, re Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,,, 51 filed by defendant Penny Lane Centers.(Baker, Phillip) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
92 NOTICE of Change of address by Mark Andrew Byrne attorney for Cross Claimant City of Los Angeles California, Defendant City of Los Angeles California. Changing attorneys address to 888 West Sixth Street, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Filed by Cross Claimant City of Los Angeles California, Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
93 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to 105 East I Street, L.P. answer now due 9/13/2012, filed by Defendant 105 East I Street, L.P..(Warne, Christopher) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
94 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Decro Orion Apartments LP answer now due 9/13/2012; Decro Osborne Apartments LP answer now due 9/13/2012, re Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,,, 51 filed by Defendants Decro Orion Apartments LP; Decro Osborne Apartments LP.(Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
95 STATUS REPORT (Joint) filed by Defendants CRA LA Designated Local Authority, City of Los Angeles California, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 08/13/2012)
96 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Oversight Board for the CRA LA Designated Local Authority answer now due 9/21/2012, filed by defendant Oversight Board for the CRA LA Designated Local Authority.(Ross, Andrew) (Entered: 08/16/2012)
97 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 8/20/12 to 8/20/12 Court Smart (CS). Transcript portion requested: Other: Status Conf 8/20/12. Category: Expedited. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (ml) (Entered: 08/20/2012)
98 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants 105 East I Street, L.P., 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, 4651 Huntington, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., 901 South Broadway Street Limited Partnership, Adams 935 LP, Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, B S Broadway Village II LP, Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, City of Los Angeles California, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza

08/20/2012
08/20/2012 08/20/2012

Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Far East Building, L.P., Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village LP, Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P., Hobart Heights Partners LP, Hoover Seniors LP, Imani FE LP, Korean Family Housing Corporation, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership, Morgan Place LP, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., New Tierra Del Sol LP, Noho Senior Villas, L.P., Ol Hope, L.P., Oversight Board for the CRA LA Designated Local Authority, P G Housing Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Palomar Apartments, L.P., Penny Lane Centers, Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, SF No Ho LLC, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., Stovall Housing Corporation, Vermont Seniors, WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC amending First Amended Complaint 51 Jury demand,filed by plaintiffs Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California (lc) Modified on 8/21/2012 (lc). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/22/2012: # 1 issued summons) (lc). (Entered: 08/21/2012)
21 DAY Summons Issued re Second Amended Complaint,,,,,,,, 98 as to defendants 105 East I Street, L.P., 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, 4651 Huntington, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., 901 South Broadway Street Limited Partnership, Adams 935 LP, Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, B S Broadway Village II LP, Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC, Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, City of Los Angeles California, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Far East Building, L.P., Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village LP, Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P., Hobart Heights Partners LP, Hoover Seniors LP, Imani FE LP, Korean Family Housing Corporation, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership, Morgan Place LP, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., New Tierra Del Sol LP, Noho Senior Villas, L.P., Ol Hope, L.P., Oversight Board for the CRA LA Designated Local Authority, P G Housing Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Palomar Apartments, L.P., Penny Lane Centers, Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, SF No Ho LLC, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., Stovall Housing Corporation, Vermont Seniors, WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership. (lc) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
100 MINUTES OF Status Conference held before Judge S. James Otero:The Court orders the DLA and the City to file a joint motion to dismiss,and the Oversight Board to file a unilateral motion to dismiss, by 9/21/12, set for hearing on Monday, November 5, 2012 10:00 a.m. Opposition shall be filed by 10/5/12; Reply due 10/12/12. The joint motion memorandum is limited to 25 pages and Oversight's memorandum is limited to 20 pages. The Court sets a Scheduling Conference on Monday, November 26, 2012 8:30 a.m.The parties shall file a rule 26 joint report by November 13, 2012.The Court orders a seven−day copy of the transcript of today's proceedings. The cost to be shared by all parties.Court Recorder: CS 8/20/12. (lc) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
21 DAY Summons Issued re Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 as to defendants 105 East I Street, L.P., 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, 4651 Huntington, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., 901 South Broadway Street Limited Partnership, Adams 935 LP, Alexandria House Apartments LP, Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, B S Broadway Village II LP, Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC, Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., CRA LA Designated

08/21/2012 08/23/2012 08/27/2012 08/27/2012
08/28/2012 08/29/2012

Local Authority, Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, City of Los Angeles California, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Far East Building, L.P., Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village LP, Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P., Hobart Heights Partners LP, Hoover Seniors LP, Imani FE LP, Korean Family Housing Corporation, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership, Morgan Place LP, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., New Tierra Del Sol LP, Noho Senior Villas, L.P., Ol Hope, L.P., Oversight Board for the CRA LA Designated Local Authority, P G Housing Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Palomar Apartments, L.P., Penny Lane Centers, Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, SF No Ho LLC, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., Stovall Housing Corporation, Vermont Seniors, WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership. (lc) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
99 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 8/20/2012 to 8/20/2012 as to Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Miriam Becker−Cohen at mbecker−cohen@relmanlaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: Status Conference (8/20/2012). Category: 14 Day. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
101 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California, upon Defendant Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC served on 8/21/2012, answer due 9/11/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Becky De George, CSC−Lawyers Inc., Service Agent Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity. Original Summons NOT returned. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
102 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to re Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 filed by Defendant Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC.(Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
103 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 08.20.2012 to 08.20.2012 re: Status Conference,, 100 , as to Defendant/Cross−Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Melissa T. Daugherty at daugherty@lbbslaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Opinion of the Court on Status Conference 8/20/2012. Other: Status Conference 8/20/2012. Category: Expedited. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Daugherty, Melissa) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
104 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 08/20/2012 to 08/20/2012 as to Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Jennifer L. Derwin at jenniferderwin@byrnenixon.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: 08/20/2012 Status Conference. Category: Expedited. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Derwin, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/28/2012)
105 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 filed by Defendant Imani FE LP.(Austin, Mark) (Entered: 08/29/2012)

08/29/2012 09/05/2012 09/05/2012 09/06/2012 09/07/2012 09/10/2012
09/10/2012 09/11/2012

106 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply 105 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct specific event is: Stipulation: to extend time to answer 30 days or less. Note: Wrong event extended NO time to answer the amended complaint. 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. (lc) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
107 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 8/20/12 9:00 a.m. & 9:35 a.m. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: EXCEPTIONAL REPORTING SERVICES, INC, phone number (361) 949−2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 9/26/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/6/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/4/2012. (ha) (Entered: 09/05/2012)
108 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 8/20/12 9:00 a.m. & 9:35 a.m re Transcript 107 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(ha) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/05/2012)
109 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings August 20, 2012 to August 20, 2012 re: Transcript (CV), Transcript (CV), Transcript (CV) 107 , as to defendant Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Heidi Petrilli at hpetrilli@lsl−la.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Category: Ordinary. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Plotkin, Leo) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
110 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to 11/6/12 re Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,,, 51 filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Extension of Time)(Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 09/07/2012)
111 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to November 6, 2012 re Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 , Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,,, 51 filed by Defendants 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., Adams 935 LP, Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, B S Broadway Village II LP, Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC, Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Far East Building, L.P., Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village LP, Hobart Heights Partners LP, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Morgan Place LP, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., Noho Senior Villas, L.P., P G Housing Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Palomar Apartments, L.P., Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint)(Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
112 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Penny Lane Centers answer now due 10/10/2012, re Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 filed by defendant Penny Lane Centers.(Baker, Phillip) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
113 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer 111 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. the attached proposed orders signature line re Court title and Judges name is obliterated and or the letters are not aligned correctly. 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

09/13/2012 09/13/2012 09/14/2012
09/20/2012 09/20/2012 09/21/2012 09/21/2012
09/21/2012 09/21/2012
09/21/2012

deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 09/11/2012)
114 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 filed by Defendant 105 East I Street, L.P..(Warne, Christopher) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
115 ORDER on stipulation 112 that Defendant Amistad Plaza Partners LP may havean additional 30 days within which to file a pleading responsive toPlaintiffs First Amended Complaint. Defendants responsive pleading will now bedue on or before October 6, 2012. (lc) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
116 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: 105 East I Street, L.P.. Answer to Complaint 114 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 7.1−1 No Certification of Interested Parties. 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. (lc) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
117 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss defendant OVERSIGHT BOARD filed by defendant Oversight Board for the CRA LA Designated Local Authority. Motion set for hearing on 11/5/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memo in Support, # 2 Exhibit Judicial Notice, # 3 Affidavit Service Proof)(Ross, Andrew) (Entered: 09/20/2012)
118 First STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Novermber 12, 2012 filed by Defendant 4651 Huntington, L.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed order re extend time to respond to complaint)(Lara, Roberto) (Entered: 09/20/2012)
119 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Maria Michelle Uzeta counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Filed by plaintiffs Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
120 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE:Oversight Board for the CRA LA Designated Local Authority. MOTION to Dismiss defendant OVERSIGHT BOARD 117 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 7.1−1 No Certification of Interested Parties. 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. (lc) (Main Document 120 replaced on 9/21/2012) (lc). (Entered: 09/21/2012)
121 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Re: Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G−112) re defendant Oversight Boards lack of Certificate of interested party 120 , the incomplete G112 form was replaced with a complete and correct form, a copy of which is also attached to this notice for reference. (Attachments: # 1 G112 re Oversight Bd.) (lc) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
122 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case (Second Amended Complaint) filed by defendants City of Los Angeles California, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on 11/5/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Joint Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Ex. A to Request for Judicial Notice Declaration of Melissa T. Daugherty, # 3 Exhibit Ex. B to Request for Judicial Notice Declaration of Melissa T. Daugherty, # 4 Exhibit Ex. C to Request for Judicial Notice Declaration of Melissa T. Daugherty)(Daugherty, Melissa) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
123 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Joint MOTION for Order for Joint Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by defendants City of Los Angeles California, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on 11/5/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Daugherty, Melissa) (Entered: 09/21/2012)

09/24/2012
09/24/2012 09/24/2012 09/24/2012 09/28/2012 10/04/2012 10/05/2012
10/05/2012 10/05/2012 10/05/2012 10/05/2012

124 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Joint MOTION for Order for Joint Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint 123 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event and incorrect procedure selected. Pdf is Only a proposed order re motion # 122. Proposed orders are not e−filed in themselves, but to be submitted as a separate attachment. 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. (lc) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
125 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 Answer of Menlo Park, A California Limited Partnership to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed by defendant Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership.(Plotkin, Leo) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
126 Certificate of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership, identifying Menlo Park and its partners. (Plotkin, Leo) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
127 NOTICE OF LODGING filed (Proposed) Order re Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case (Second Amended Complaint)Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case (Second Amended Complaint)Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case (Second Amended Complaint) 122 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re Joint Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint)(Daugherty, Melissa) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
128 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Roberto Lara counsel for Defendant 4651 Huntington, L.P.. Changing Firm Name to Lara & Ibarra LLP. Changing e−mail to rlara@laraibarra.com. Adding Roberto Lara as attorney as counsel of record for 4651 Huntington L.P.; NEW Tierra del Sol L.P. for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendants 4651 Huntington LP and NEW Tierra de Sol LP (Lara, Roberto) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
129 ORDER DENYING Stipulation to Extend Time for Defendants 4651 Huntington, L.P. and New Tierra Del Sol, L.P. within which to file a pleading responsive to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint to Answer 118 by Judge S. James Otero. (lom) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
130 OPPOSITION to Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case (Second Amended Complaint)Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case (Second Amended Complaint)Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case (Second Amended Complaint) 122 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Declaration Diana C. Bruno, # 3 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
131 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss 1st [sic] Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
132 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss 1st [sic] Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
133 REQUEST for Order for Proposed Order Denying Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss 1st [sic] Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Request set for hearing on 11/5/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
134 DECLARATION of Dara L. Schur In Opposition to Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss the 1st [sic] Amended Complaint REQUEST for Order for Proposed Order Denying Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss 1st [sic] Amended Complaint REQUEST for Order for Proposed Order Denying Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss 1st [sic] Amended Complaint 133 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council

10/05/2012
10/08/2012 10/08/2012 10/10/2012 10/10/2012 10/10/2012 10/10/2012

of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Dara L Schur, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B to Declaration of Dara L Schur, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C to Declaration of Dara L Schur, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D to Declaration of Dara L Schur, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E to Declaration of Dara L Schur, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F to Declaration of Dara L Schur, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G to Declaration of Dara L Schur)(Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
135 DECLARATION of Dara L. Schur in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss 1st [sic] Amended Complaint REQUEST for Order for Proposed Order Denying Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss 1st [sic] Amended Complaint REQUEST for Order for Proposed Order Denying Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss 1st [sic] Amended Complaint 133 filed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit H to Declaration of Dara L. Schur in Support of Opposition to Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss 1st [sic] Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit I to Declaration of Dara L. Schur in Support of Opposition to Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss 1st [sic] Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit J to Declaration of Dara L. Schur in Support of Opposition to Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss 1st [sic] Amended Complaint, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit K to Declaration of Dara L. Schur in Support of Opposition to Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss 1st [sic] Amended Complaint, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit L to Declaration of Dara L. Schur in Support of Opposition to Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss 1st [sic] Amended Complaint, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit M to Declaration of Dara L. Schur in Support of Opposition to Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss 1st [sic] Amended Complaint, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit N to Declaration of Dara L. Schur in Support of Opposition to Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss 1st [sic] Amended Complaint, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit O to Declaration of Dara L. Schur in Support of Opposition to Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss 1st [sic] Amended Complaint)(Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
136 NOTICE Notice of Errata re: Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Oversight Board for the CRA/LA's Motion to Dismiss the First [sic] Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 10/08/2012)
137 Corrected Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Oversight Board for the CRA/LA's Motion to Dismiss the First [sic]Amended Complaint Opposition to Defendant Oversight Board for the CRA/LA's Motion to Dismiss the first [sic] Amended Complaint re: MOTION to Dismiss defendant OVERSIGHT BOARD 117 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 10/08/2012)
138 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 Demand for Jury Trial filed by defendant Imani FE LP.(Austin, Mark) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
139 Certificate and Notice of Interested Parties filed by defendant Imani FE LP, (Austin, Mark) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
140 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Megan Kathleen Garibaldi counsel for Defendant Imani FE LP. Adding Megan K. Garibaldi as attorney as counsel of record for Imani Fe, L.P. for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by defendant Imani Fe, L.P. (Garibaldi, Megan) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
141 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Errata 136 . The following error was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Civil − Miscellaneous Filings − Errata. 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. (ir) (Entered: 10/10/2012)

10/10/2012 10/10/2012 10/12/2012 10/12/2012 10/17/2012
10/23/2012
11/02/2012 11/02/2012 11/02/2012 11/02/2012
11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012

142 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 filed by Defendant Penny Lane Centers.(Baker, Phillip) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
143 Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Penny Lane Centers, identifying Penny Lane Centers. (Baker, Phillip) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
144 REPLY in support MOTION to Dismiss defendant OVERSIGHT BOARD 117 filed by Defendant Oversight Board for the CRA LA Designated Local Authority. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Ross, Andrew) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
145 REPLY to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Joint Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Cross Claimant City of Los Angeles California, Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
146 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: REQUEST for Order for Proposed Order Denying Defendant Oversight Board's Motion to Dismiss 1st [sic] Amended Complaint 133 . pdf is Not a request, but a proposed order. The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event and incorrect procedure selected re proposed orders. erroneous Hearing set on Judges motion calendar (Note Clerk has termed this erroneous hearing). Proposed order should have been submitted as a separate attachment. 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. (lc) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
147 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge S. James Otero: The Court finds these matters suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacates the hearings re the MOTION to Dismiss defendant OVERSIGHT BOARD filed by defendant Oversight Board for the CRA LA Designated Local Authority. 117 , the Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case (Second Amended Complaint) filed by defendants City of Los Angeles California, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. 122 , and the Joint MOTION for Order for Joint Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by defendants City of Los Angeles California, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. 123 , set for November 5, 2012. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). (jre) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
148 ANSWER to Second Amended Complaint filed by defendant New Tierra de Sol L.P. and filed by defendant 4651 Huntington, L.P..(Lara, Roberto) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
149 Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant 4651 Huntington, L.P., identifying 4651 Huntington LP. (Lara, Roberto) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
150 Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant New Tierra Del Sol LP, identifying New Tierra del Sol LP. (Lara, Roberto) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
151 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Answer to Complaint 148 , Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties 149 . The following error(s) was found: Document linked to only 1 of 2 defendants (not linked to New Tierra) and answer was not linked to the 2nd amended complaint. 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. (lc) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
152 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, identifying None. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
153 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, identifying Western Community Housing, Inc. 12129 El Dorado Ave., LLC, Sunamerica Housing Fund 1434. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
154 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Adams 935 LP, identifying Western Community Housing, Inc., Adams 935, LLC, Meta General LLC. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)

11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012
11/06/2012 11/06/2012

155 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., identifying Western Community Housing, Inc., Andalucia Senior Apartments, LLC, RBC Tax Credit Equity National Fund−10, LP, RBC Tax Credit Manager II, Inc.. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
156 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Asturias Senior Apartments LP, identifying Western Community Housing, Inc., Asturias Senior Apartments, LLC, RSEP Holding, LLC, Red Stone Equity Manager, LLC. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
157 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC, identifying Behringer Harvard NoHo REIT, LLC, Behringer Harvard NoHo Venture, LLC. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
158 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant B S Broadway Village II LP, identifying Deep Green Housing and Community Development, Apollo CA Tax Credit Fund − XXIII, LP, RBC Tax Credit Fund Manager II, Inc.. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
159 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., identifying WCH Affordable V, LLC, Buckingham Senior Apartments, LLC, Red Stone Fund 12 Limited Partnership, Red Stone Equity Manager, LLC. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
160 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, identifying Western Community Housing, Inc., Cantabria Senior Apartments, LLC, RSEP Holding, LLC, Red Stone Equity Manager, LLC. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
161 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Central Village Apartments LP, identifying Deep Green Housing and Community Development, Oppenheim Housing Development, LLC, Apollo Tax Credit Fund−61, LP, RBC Tax Credit Fund Manager II, Inc.. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
162 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Decro Orion Apartments LP, identifying Decro Orion, LLC, VP Orion LLC, NEF Assignment Corporation. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
163 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Decro Osborne Apartments LP, identifying Decro Osbone, LLC, VP Osborne, LLC, Hudson Osborne LLC, Hudson SLP LLC. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
164 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Eastside Village, L.P., identifying Mothers−In−Action, Inc., PRG Eastside GP LLC, Phoenix Realty Tax Credit Fund VII LP. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
165 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Eugene Hotel LP, identifying SRO Housing Corp.. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
166 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Fame West 25th Street LP, identifying FAME Housing Corporation, Multi−Housing Tax Credit Partners XXVII. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
167 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Far East Building, L.P., identifying LTSC Community Development Corporation, NEF Assignment Corporation. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
168 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Grandview Nine, L.P., identifying Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment, Lotus Construction & Property Maintenance Company, Sunnyland Development, Inc., JER HUDSON SLP LLC, JER HUDSON HOLDINGS LP, HUDSON HOUSING TAX CREDIT FUND X LP. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
169 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Hart Village LP, identifying Abode Communities, Boston Financial Institutional Tax Credits XXXI, LP. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
170 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Morgan Place LP, identifying Abode Communities, U.S. Bancorp Community Development, Inc.. (Kitay,

11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012
11/06/2012

Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
171 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Noho Senior Villas, L.P., identifying Clifford Beers Housing, Inc., PATH Ventures, Inc., Raymond James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
172 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant P G Housing Partners LP, identifying Century Affordable Development, Inc., MFPA, Inc., MMA Pico Gramercy, LLC, MMA Special Limited Partner, Inc.. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
173 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, identifying None. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
174 of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Palomar Apartments, L.P., identifying Hollywood Community Housing Corporation, Community Housing Alliance LP. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
175 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Renato Apartments, L.P., identifying SRO Housing Corp.. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
176 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, identifying Rittenhouse Square, LLC, Housing Corporation of America, Union Bank of California, N.A.. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
177 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, identifying Hollywood Community Housing Corporation, California Equity Fund 1997 Limited Partnership. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
178 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., identifying SCH Affordable VII, LLC, Sherman Village Apartments, LLC, Wachovia Affordable Housing Community Development Corp.. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
179 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., identifying Abode Communities, Union Bank of California, N.A.. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
180 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant WA Court LP, identifying Western Community Housing, Inc., Affordable Multi−Family, LLC, Multi−Housing Tax Credit Partners XXVII. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
181 of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Western Carlton II, L.P., identifying Hollywood Community Housing Corporation, MBA Urban Development Co., Sunamerica Housing Fund 1041. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
182 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 filed by Rule 19 Defendants 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., Adams 935 LP, Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, B S Broadway Village II LP, Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC, Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Far East Building, L.P., Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village LP, Hobart Heights Partners LP, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Morgan Place LP, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., Noho Senior Villas, L.P., P G Housing Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Palomar Apartments, L.P., Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership.(Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
183 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,,, 51 and Affirmative Defenses filed by Defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership.(Todero, Anthony) (Entered:

11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012
11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/08/2012 11/08/2012
11/08/2012
11/08/2012 11/13/2012

11/06/2012)
184 REQUEST to Substitute attorney William J. Goines in place of attorney Theresa L. Kitay filed by Defendant Redrock NoHo Residential LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Goines, William) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
185 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 filed by Defendant Redrock NoHo Residential LLC.(Goines, William) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
186 Certificate of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, identifying Redrock Noho LLC; Redrock REIT Sub, LLC; Santa Monica Apartments, L.P., Redwood Holdings, Inc.; and Rockwood VII REIT, Inc.. (Goines, William) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
187 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Ardmore 959 Partners LP, identifying Central Valley Coalition for Affordable Housing, Ardmore 959 Developers, LLC. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
188 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Hobart Heights Partners LP, identifying Central Valley Coalition for Affordable Housing, Hobart Heights Developers, LLC. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
189 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., identifying Central Valley Coalition for Affordable Housing, 505 Bonnie Brae Developers, LLC. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
190 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Carondelet Court Partners LP, identifying Central Valley Coalition for Affordable Housing, Carondelet Court Developers, LLC. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
191 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Los Angeles Housing Partnership, identifying Bronson Court Apartments, LP, Hudson SLP, LLC, Hudson Bronson LLC. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
192 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Seven Maples, L.P., identifying Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc., Hudson SLP, LLC, Hudson Seven Maples, LLC. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
193 of Interested Parties filed by Defendant East LA Community Corporation, identifying None. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
194 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Las Margaritas, L.P., identifying East LA Community Corporation, Las Margaritas, LLC. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
195 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., identifying East LA Community Corporation, Los Cuatro Vientos, LLC. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
196 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant New Genesis Apartments, L.P., identifying Skid Row Housing Trust. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
197 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, identifying WCH Affordable III, LLC, VH Baldwin, LLC, Apollo Housing Manager, Inc., Nationwide Affordable Housing Fund V − Apollo Tax Credit Fund XXI Limited Partnership. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
198 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant West Angeles Villas, L.P., identifying West Angeles Community Development Corporation, VH Baldwin, LLC, RBC Tax Credit Manager II, Inc., Nationwide Affordable Housing Fund VI − Apollo Tax Credit Fund XXVII. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
199 ORDER by Judge S. James Otero: granting 184 REDROCK NOHO RESIDENTIAL, LLC Request to Substitute Attorney William J. Goines in place and instead of Theresa L. Kitay. (lc) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
200 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 Answer to Second Amended Complaint filed by defendant Korean Family Housing Corporation.(Biller, Dimitrios) (Entered:

11/13/2012
11/14/2012 11/14/2012 11/15/2012 11/16/2012 11/21/2012 11/27/2012 11/27/2012 11/29/2012

11/13/2012)
201 JOINT REPORT of CONFERENCE OF PARTIES filed by Defendants 105 East I Street, L.P., 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, 4651 Huntington, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, B S Broadway Village II LP, Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC, Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, City of Los Angeles California, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Far East Building, L.P., Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village LP, Imani FE LP, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership, Morgan Place LP, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., New Tierra Del Sol LP, Noho Senior Villas, L.P., Oversight Board for the CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Palomar Apartments, L.P., Penny Lane Centers, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
202 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Korean Family Housing Answer to Complaint (Discovery) 200 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 7.1−1 No Certification of Interested Parties. 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. (lc) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
203 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: plaintiffs Report 201 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Joint Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan. 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. (lc) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
204 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,,, 51 filed by defendant 901 South Broadway Street Limited Partnership.(Benson, John) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
205 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE:901 South Broadway Street Answer to Complaint (Discovery) 204 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 7.1−1 No Certification of Interested Parties. 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. (lc) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
206 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge S. James Otero: The Court continues the Scheduling Conference to Monday, 12/17/2012 08:30 AM. (lc) (Entered: 11/21/2012)
207 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 filed by Defendant Ol Hope, L.P..(Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
208 Notice and Certification of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Ol Hope, L.P., identifying 1010 Development Corp.. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
209 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge S. James Otero: The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motions 117 , 122 , 123 . The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs' claims under the FHA as to DLA and the City, and DISMISSES all of Plaintiffs' Claims as to the Board. The remaining claims shall

12/11/2012 12/14/2012 12/14/2012 12/14/2012 12/14/2012 12/17/2012
12/17/2012
12/17/2012 12/18/2012 12/19/2012 12/20/2012

proceed accordingly. (lc) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
210 Joint STIPULATION to Clarify Corporate Status of Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley CRA LA Designated Local Authority, City of Los Angeles California, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California.(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
211 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Leave to to Participate in Scheduling Conference by Telephone filed by Defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
212 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 filed by Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California.(Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
213 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 (Second Amended Complaint) filed by Defendant/Cross−Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles.(Daugherty, Melissa) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
214 City of Los Angeles' CrossClaim for Contribution Indemnity and Declaratory Relief (Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
215 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: City of Los Angeles Miscellaneous Document 214 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event and Incorrect procedure selected. PDF is an initiating document, a Crossclaim. Per L.R. 3−2 Attorneys are NOT TO E−FILE INITIATING DOCUMENTS*, but to MANUALLY FILE IT WITH CIVIL INTAKE.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. (lc) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
225 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge S. James Otero. Case called. Appearances made. Hearing held. Court and plaintiff's counsel confer regarding proper service to defendants and the building owner defendants who have not yet answered. Plaintiffs are ordered to move for entry of default on or before February 11, 2013, on any defendants who have received proper service but have not answered. The Court designates Theresa L. Kitay as lead counsel for the building owner defendants to coordinate and file motions on behalf of the building owner defendants. Last Day to File a Motion or Stipulation to Amend or Add Parties: 01/17/2013; Discovery Cut−Off: 09/03/2013; Motion Hearing Cut−Off: 10/07/2013 at 10:00 AM. Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/18/2013 at 09:00 AM. Jury Trial set for 12/3/2013 at 09:00 AM. Court Recorder: CS 12/17/2012. (cch) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
226 ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 3 by Judge S. James Otero. 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 October 4, 2013. A mediator is to be selected no later than January 31, 2013. (cch) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
216 NOTICE of Unavailability of Counsel filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
217 ** DOCUMENT STRICKEN PURSUANT TO ORDER BY JUDGE S. JAMES OTERO 219 . Application of Non−Resident Attorney to Appear in Specific Cast filed by Defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Snyder, Barry) Modified on 12/21/2012 (lt). (Entered: 12/19/2012)
218 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Miscellaneous Document 217 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected.Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. The correct event is: Applications/Appear Pro Hac Vice. Other error(s) with document(s): No signature on Application. Applicant did not sign the application. See LR 11−1 Notice of appearance was not filed for local counsel and due to incorrect event being used, payment was not made. 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

12/20/2012
12/21/2012 12/26/2012 12/27/2012 12/27/2012 12/27/2012

deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lt) (Entered: 12/20/2012)
220 AMENDED CROSSCLAIM 16 against cross defendantsBehringer Harvard Noho, LLC, Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, Korean Family Housing Corporation, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Penny Lane Centers, Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Eastside Village, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., Stovall Housing Corporation, Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, WA Court LP, Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P., 105 East I Street, L.P., 4651 Huntington, L.P., Adams 935 LP, Hobart Heights Partners LP, Imani FE LP, Western Carlton II, L.P., Central Village Apartments LP, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., New Tierra Del Sol LP, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Eugene Hotel LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Far East Building, L.P., 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, Palomar Apartments, L.P., Noho Senior Villas, L.P., Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., Vermont Seniors, Renato Apartments, L.P., Hoover Seniors LP, P G Housing Partners LP, 901 South Broadway Street Limited Partnership, East LA Community Corporation, Las Margaritas, L.P., Decro Orion Apartments LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., Ol Hope, L.P., Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership, Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, Morgan Place LP, Hart Village LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Seven Maples, L.P., Decro Osborne Apartments LP, Grandview Nine, L.P.,filed by cross claimant City of Los Angeles California (lc) (lc). (Main Document 220 replaced on 12/26/2012) (lc). (Entered: 12/21/2012)
219 ORDER by Judge S. James Otero: 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 217 , for the following reasons: Incorrect event selected. Correct event is Applications/Appear Pro Hac Vice; No signature on Application. Applicant did not sign the application. See LR 11−1 Notice of appearance was not filed for local counsel and due to incorrect event being used, payment was not made on PHV application.; (lt) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
221 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error incorrect pdf was attached and replaced with correct pdf this date. Copy of correct pdf is attached to this notice for reference Re: City of Los Angeles Amended Crossclaim 220 (Attachments: # 1 City of Los Angeles amd crsclm) (lc) (Entered: 12/26/2012)
222 APPLICATION for attorney Scott Parrish Moore to Appear Pro Hac Vice(PHV Fee of $325 receipt number 0973−11445289 paid.) filed by defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Snyder, Barry) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
223 NOTICE filed by defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership. [of Entry and Appearance] (Snyder, Barry) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
224 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Amended Crossclaim,,,,,,, 220 filed by Cross−Defendants 105 East I Street, L.P., 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, 4651 Huntington, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., Adams 935 LP, Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, B S Broadway Village II LP, Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC, Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Far East Building, L.P., Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village LP, Hobart Heights Partners LP, Imani FE LP, Korean Family Housing Corporation, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership, Morgan Place LP, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., New Tierra Del Sol LP, Noho Senior Villas, L.P., Ol Hope, L.P., P G Housing

12/30/2012 12/30/2012 01/04/2013
01/07/2013 01/07/2013 01/11/2013 01/11/2013 01/11/2013

Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Palomar Apartments, L.P., Penny Lane Centers, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
227 ORDER granting Stipulation 224 of Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles and the Rule 19 Owner Defendants Group, the members of which are identified in thestipulation, it is hereby ORDERED that these Cross−Defendants may have anextension of time to respond to the City of Los Angeles cross−complaint. Theresponse to the cross−complaint will now be due on or before February 4, 2013.In the event the any of the Rule 19 Owner Defendants elects to respond via motion to dismiss, they shall file a joint motion by Judge S. James Otero (lc) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
228 ORDER by Judge S. James Otero: granting 222 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, designating Barry Clifford Snyder as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
230 CROSSCLAIM against cross defendants Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Far East Building, L.P., 105 East I Street, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., 901 South Broadway Street Limited Partnership, Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, Ardmore 959 Partners LP, B S Broadway Village II LP, Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC, Grandview Nine, L.P., Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P., Hobart Heights Partners LP, Hoover Seniors LP, Imani FE LP, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc., Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., New Tierra Del Sol LP, Noho Senior Villas, L.P., OL Hope, LP, P G Housing Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Palomar Apartments, L.P., Penny Lane Centers, Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership(a California limited partnership), Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., Stovall Housing Corporation, Vermont Seniors, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, filed by crossclaimant CRA LA Designated Local Authority.(lc) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
229 ANSWER to Amended Crossclaim,,,,,,, 220 filed by Defendant/Cross−Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles.(Daugherty, Melissa) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
234 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice (Other) 223 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Appearance. 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. (lom) (Entered: 01/16/2013)
231 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 filed by Defendant Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership(a California limited partnership).(Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
232 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, identifying Casa Rampart, L.P., Casa Rampart, Inc., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Edison Capital Housing Partners XI L.P.. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
233 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Crossclaim,,,,,, 230 filed by Cross−Defendants B S Broadway Village II LP, Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC, Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, Decro Orion Apartments LP,

01/17/2013
01/18/2013
01/25/2013
01/25/2013 01/25/2013 01/25/2013 01/31/2013 02/04/2013

Decro Osborne Apartments LP, East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Far East Building, L.P.(a California limited partnership), Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village LP, Hobart Heights Partners LP, 105 East I Street, L.P., 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, 4651 Huntington, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., 901 South Broadway Street Limited Partnership, Adams 935 LP, Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, Imani FE LP, Korean Family Housing Corporation, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc., Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership, Morgan Place LP, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., New Tierra Del Sol LP, Noho Senior Villas, L.P., OL Hope, LP(a California limited partnership), P G Housing Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Palomar Apartments, L.P., Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
235 ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUDGE (#12−037) approved by Chief Judge George H. King. Pursuant to the recommended procedure adopted by the Court for the CREATION OF CALENDAR of Judge Fernando M. Olguin, this case is transferred from Judge S. James Otero to the calendar of Judge Fernando M Olguin for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge CV 12−00551 FMO(PJWx). (rn) (Entered: 01/17/2013)
236 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Chambers of Judge Fernando M. Olguin. This matter has been reassigned to District Judge Fernando M. Olguin. All newly filed pleadings in this matter should contain the case number and the newly assigned judges initials to ensure proper routing of documents. All dates and deadlines previously set will remain as calendared at this time. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(vdr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/18/2013)
237 ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR STIPULATING RULE 19 OWNER DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO CRA/LAS CROSS−CLAIM 233 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin that these Cross−Defendants may have an extension of time to respond to the CRA's cross−complaint. The response to the cross−complaint will now be due on or before February 4, 2013. In the event the any of the Rule 19 Owner Defendants elects to respond via motion to dismiss, they shall file a joint motion. (jp) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
238 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 filed by Defendants Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P., Stovall Housing Corporation.(Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
239 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P., identifying Heavenly Vision Economic Development Corporation. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
240 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Stovall Housing Corporation, (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
241 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Notice of Selection of Mediator CRA LA Designated Local Authority, City of Los Angeles California, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
242 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA filed by Cross−Defendants B S Broadway Village II LP, Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC, Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Far East Building, L.P.(a California limited partnership),

02/04/2013
02/04/2013 02/11/2013 02/11/2013

Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village LP, Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P., Hobart Heights Partners LP, 105 East I Street, L.P., 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, 4651 Huntington, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., Adams 935 LP, Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, Imani FE LP, Korean Family Housing Corporation, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc., Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership, Morgan Place LP, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., New Tierra Del Sol LP, Noho Senior Villas, L.P., OL Hope, LP(a California limited partnership), P G Housing Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Palomar Apartments, L.P., Penny Lane Centers, Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., Stovall Housing Corporation, WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership. Motion set for hearing on 3/21/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Crossclaims, # 2 Declaration of Theresa L. Kitay, # 3 Exhibit A − Common Terms Excerpts, # 4 Exhibit B − Miami Valley FHC v. Campus Village Wright State, # 5 Exhibit C − US v. The Bryan Company, # 6 Exhibit E − US v. Murphy Development LLC, # 7 Proposed Order)(Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
243 NOTICE of Filing Additional Exhibit to Declaration filed by Cross−Defendants B S Broadway Village II LP, Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC, Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Far East Building, L.P.(a California limited partnership), Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village LP, Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P., Hobart Heights Partners LP, 105 East I Street, L.P., 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, 4651 Huntington, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., Adams 935 LP, Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, Imani FE LP, Korean Family Housing Corporation, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc., Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership, Morgan Place LP, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., New Tierra Del Sol LP, Noho Senior Villas, L.P., OL Hope, LP(a California limited partnership), P G Housing Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Palomar Apartments, L.P., Penny Lane Centers, Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., Stovall Housing Corporation, WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D to Declaration − US v. Gambone Brothers Dev Co)(Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
244 ORDER by Judge Fernando M. Olguin, re Stipulation Regarding Extension of Tiem to Select a Mediator 241 , and good cause appearing therefore, that parties shall have an additional two weeks or until 2/14/2013 to select a mediator. (jp) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
245 REQUEST for Clerk to Enter Default against Defendant Hoover Seniors LP filed by plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Michelle Uzeta In Support of Request to Enter Default Against Defendant Hoover Seniors L.P.)(Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
246 First REQUEST for Clerk to Enter Default against Defendant Vermont Seniors filed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michelle Uzeta in Support of Request to Enter Default Against Defendant Vermont Seniors)(Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 02/11/2013)

02/12/2013 02/12/2013 02/12/2013 02/12/2013 02/13/2013 02/13/2013 02/14/2013
02/25/2013 02/28/2013 02/28/2013

247 Notice of Withdrawal of Request for Clerk to Enter Default, 246 , Request for Clerk to Enter Default, 245 filed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michelle Uzeta in Support of Withdrawal of Request for Entry of Default Against Defendant Hoover Seniors L.P. and Vermont Seniors, a California Corporation)(Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
248 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Chambers of Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Pursuant to the Withdrawal 247 , filed on 2/12/2013, the Requests 245 and 246 for Clerk to Enter Default are terminated as moot. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(vdr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/12/2013)
249 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,,,,,,,, 98 filed by Defendants Hoover Seniors LP, Vermont Seniors.(Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
250 JOINDER in MOTION to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA 242 filed by Cross Defendants Hoover Seniors LP, Vermont Seniors. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
251 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Hoover Seniors LP, (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
252 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Vermont Seniors, (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
253 NOTICE of Joint Selection of Private Mediator Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC, Bronson Court Apartments LP, Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., CFLT−2618 West 7th Street LLC, CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, Charles Cobb Apartments LP, City of Los Angeles California, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Fame West 25th Street LP, Far East Building, L.P., Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village LP, Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P., 105 East I Street, L.P., 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, 4651 Huntington, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., 901 South Broadway Street Limited Partnership, Adams 935 LP, Alexandria House Apartments LP, Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, B S Broadway Village II LP, Hobart Heights Partners LP, Hoover Seniors LP, Imani FE LP, Independent Living Center of Southern California, Korean Family Housing Corporation, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership, Morgan Place LP, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., New Tierra Del Sol LP, Noho Senior Villas, L.P., Ol Hope, L.P., P G Housing Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Palomar Apartments, L.P., Penny Lane Centers, Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership(a California limited partnership), Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., Stovall Housing Corporation, Vermont Seniors, Views At 270 LP, WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 02/14/2013)
254 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA 242 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 02/25/2013)
255 OPPOSITION re: MOTION to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA 242 filed by Cross Claimant CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Cross Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority. (Daugherty, Melissa) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
256 OPPOSITION re: MOTION to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA 242 filed by Cross Claimant City of Los Angeles California, Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jennifer L. Derwin in Support of City's

03/07/2013
03/19/2013 03/20/2013 03/22/2013 03/22/2013 03/25/2013 04/03/2013 04/05/2013

Opposition, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
257 REPLY In Support of MOTION to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA 242 filed by Cross Defendants B S Broadway Village II LP, Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC, Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Far East Building, L.P., Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village LP, Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P., Hobart Heights Partners LP, 105 East I Street, L.P., 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, 4651 Huntington, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., Adams 935 LP, Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, Hoover Seniors LP, Imani FE LP, Korean Family Housing Corporation, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc., Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership, Morgan Place LP, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., New Tierra Del Sol LP, Noho Senior Villas, L.P., OL Hope, LP, P G Housing Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Palomar Apartments, L.P., Penny Lane Centers, Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., Stovall Housing Corporation, Vermont Seniors, WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 03/07/2013)
258 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Autumn M Elliott counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California.Kevin Bayley is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. (Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
259 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Chambers of Judge Fernando M. Olguin. On the Court's own motion, the MOTION to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA 242 , previously set for 3/21/2013, is hereby continued to 4/11/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(vdr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/20/2013)
260 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Discovery from Defendant City of Los Angeles filed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley. Motion set for hearing on 4/29/2013 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
261 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION to Compel Discovery from Defendant City of Los Angeles 260 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles California, Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Michael Allen Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits 1−8 to Michael Allen Declaration, # 3 Declaration Mark Byrne Declaration, # 4 Declaration Jennifer Derwin Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Exhibits 9−15 to Mark Byrne and Jennifer Derwin Declarations)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
262 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley. correcting MOTION to Compel Discovery from Defendant City of Los Angeles 260 Docket Entry Hearing Date Should Match Motion as April 19, 2013, at 11:00 a.m. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
263 REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN HEARING ON CROSS−DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS BY TELEPHONE filed by Defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Todero, Anthony) Modified on 4/4/2013 (vdr). (Entered: 04/03/2013)
264 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel Discovery from Defendant City of Los Angeles 260 Memorandum of Law filed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 04/05/2013)

04/05/2013 04/08/2013 04/09/2013 04/12/2013 04/18/2013 04/24/2013 04/24/2013
04/24/2013 05/02/2013 05/20/2013

265 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Compel Discovery from Defendant City of Los Angeles 260 Supplemental filed by Cross Claimant City of Los Angeles California, Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jennifer L. Derwin in Opposition to Motion to Compel Discovery, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Derwin, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
266 DENIED ORDER by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: denying Motion 263 for Leave to Appear by Telephone. (vdr) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
267 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Chambers of Judge Fernando M. Olguin. On the Court's own motion, the motion to dismiss 242 , previously set for 4/11/2013, is hereby continued to 4/18/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(vdr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/09/2013)
268 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Chambers of Judge Fernando M. Olguin. On the Court's own motion, the motion to dismiss 242 , currently set for hearing on 4/18/2013, is taken off calendar and under submission. An order will issue. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(vdr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/12/2013)
269 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Chambers of Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: The hearing on the motion to compel discovery (Document #260) set to be heard on Friday, April 19, 2013 has been taken off calendar. A minute order will be issued as soon as possible. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(ca) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
270 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Protective Order for Allowing the City to respond to Plaintiff's Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition by written interrogatory response filed by Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California. Motion set for hearing on 5/17/2013 at 11:00 AM before Judge Patrick J. Walsh. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re City's Motion for Protective Order)(Derwin, Jennifer) Modified on 4/25/2013 (vdr). (Entered: 04/24/2013)
271 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION for Protective Order for Allowing the City to respond to Plaintiff's Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition by written interrogatory response 270 filed by Cross Claimant City of Los Angeles California, Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jennifer L. Derwin with Exhibits, # 2 Declaration of Rushmore Cervantes, # 3 Declaration of Rhonda Gaston, # 4 Declaration of Teresa Abraham, # 5 Declaration of Dara Schur, # 6 Declaration of Autumn Elliott, # 7 Exhibit 1 to Autumn Elliott Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 2 to Autumn Elliott Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 3 to Autumn Elliott Declaration, # 10 Exhibit 4 to Autumn Elliott Declaration, # 11 Exhibit 5 to Autumn Elliott Declaration, # 12 Exhibit 6 to Autumn Elliott Declaration)(Derwin, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
272 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Protective Order for Allowing the City to respond to Plaintiff's Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition by written interrogatory response filed by Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California. Motion set for hearing on 5/17/2013 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re City's Motion for Protective Order)(Derwin, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
273 NOTICE of Taking Off Calendar Motion for Protective Order filed by Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California. (Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 05/02/2013)
274 MINUTE ORDER RE: Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley's Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant City of Los Angeles (Doc. No. 260) by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley moves to compel Defendant City of Los Angeles to produce documents, create a privilege log, make available certain documents for inspection, provide complete and separate responses to several interrogatories, and answer requests for admissions, 260 . For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to produce all responsive documents to various requests or certifythat all documents have been produced. (Joint Stipulation ("JS") at 2.) It appears that some or most of the responsive documents have been produced and that some are still outstanding but that Defendant is attempting to gather and produce them. Counsel

06/04/2013 06/19/2013 06/19/2013
06/26/2013 06/26/2013 07/08/2013
07/11/2013

are ordered to meet and confer again and figure outwhat the status of the production is and call the clerk (Celia 213−894−8958) if further assistance is needed after the meet and confer. Plaintiff 's motion to compel Defendant to copy and produce those responsive documents is denied. (JS at 74.)(SEE DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS) (ca) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
275 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Srividya Seshan Panchalam counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Filed by Plaintiff Disability Rights California. (Panchalam, Srividya) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
276 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Protective Order for for Allowing the City to respond to Plaintiff's Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition by written interrogatory response filed by Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California. Motion set for hearing on 7/10/2013 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re City's Motion for Protective Order)(Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
277 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION for Protective Order for for Allowing the City to respond to Plaintiff's Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition by written interrogatory response 276 filed by Cross Claimant City of Los Angeles California, Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jennifer L. Derwin with Exhibits, # 2 Declaration of Rushmore Cervantes, # 3 Declaration of Rhonda Gaston, # 4 Declaration of Teresa Abraham, # 5 Declaration of Dara Schur, # 6 Declaration of Autumn Elliott, # 7 Exhibit 1 to Autumn Elliott Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 2 to Autumn Elliott Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 3 to Autumn Elliott Declaration, # 10 Exhibit 4 to Autumn Elliott Declaration, # 11 Exhibit 5 to Autumn Elliott Declaration, # 12 Exhibit 6 to Autumn Elliott Declaration)(Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
278 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Protective Order for for Allowing the City to respond to Plaintiff's Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition by written interrogatory response 276 Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Opposition to City of Los Angeles' Motion for Protective Order Re Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
279 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION for Protective Order for for Allowing the City to respond to Plaintiff's Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition by written interrogatory response 276 Supplemental Memo filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Derwin, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
280 MINUTE ORDER RE: Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 276) by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: Defendant City of Los Angeles moves for a protective order to allow it to respond to a notice of deposition through interrogatories, 276 . The notice seeks testimony regarding the documents produced by Defendant, its document retention policies, and its computer system. (Joint Stip. at 7−11.) Defendant contends that it would need to designate six to nine people for the deposition because the requested information varies by department. (Joint Stip. at 1, 6.) Plaintiffs have offered to receive the information through other means. (Plaintiffs' Supp. Memo. at 4.) The Court orders Defendant to respond through declarations. Thereafter, if Plaintiffs are unsatisfied, counsel are ordered to meet and confer and, if the issue is still unresolved, to call the clerk (Celia Anglon−Reed at 213−894−8958) to schedule a telephonic conference with the Court. The hearing on July 10, 2013 is taken off calendar. (ca) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
281 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to 1/24/2014 filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Motion set for hearing on 8/8/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion to Extend Scheduling Deadlines, # 2 Declaration of Michael Allen In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Scheduling Deadlines, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16

07/12/2013 07/16/2013
07/17/2013
07/18/2013 07/19/2013 07/22/2013
07/22/2013 07/24/2013

Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Proposed Order Extending Scheduling Deadlines)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
282 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to AMEND MOTION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to 1/24/2014 281 filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Motion set for hearing on 8/8/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
283 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to AMEND MOTION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to 1/24/2014 281 282 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Notice of Motion − under Category − Responses, Replies and Other Motion Related Document. Other error(s) with document(s): Clerk has terminated the Motion event created by Document #282, which was just Notice of Motion. 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. (jp) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
284 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS Order Re: Plaintiffs Motion to Extend Scheduling Deadlines by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: The court is in receipt of and has reviewed plaintiffs' MOTION to Extend SchedulingDeadlines 281 and noticed for hearing on 8/8/2013. IT ISORDERED as follows:(1) The hearing set for 8/8/2013, is hereby vacated.(2) Any Opposition or Notice of Non−Opposition to plaintiffs' Motion must be filed and served by defendants no later than 7/22/2013. Defendants are warned that failure to timely file an Opposition to the Motion may result in plaintiffs' Motion being granted in its entirety. Local Rule 7−12. (3) Plaintiffs shall file and serve a Reply Memorandum no later than 7/24/2013. (jp) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
285 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Telephonic Status Conference is set for 7/24/2013 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Please call in using the call−in information sent to you by email. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(afe) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/18/2013)
286 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. The previously scheduled telephonic status conference hearing scheduled for 07/24/13 at 10:00 am has been rescheduled to 7/24/2013 at 12:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Please call in using the call−in information that was originally provided to you by email. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(afe) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/19/2013)
287 OPPOSITION re: MOTION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to 1/24/2014 281 filed by Cross Claimant City of Los Angeles California, Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mark A. Byrne in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Scheduling Deadlines, # 2 Exhibit A to M. Byrne Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B to M. Byrne Declaration, # 4 Exhibit C to M. Byrne Declaration, # 5 Exhibit D to M. Byrne Declaration, # 6 Exhibit E to M. Byrne Declaration, # 7 Exhibit F to M. Byrne Declaration, # 8 Exhibit G to M. Byrne Declaration, # 9 Declaration of Jennifer L. Derwin in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Scheduling Dates)(Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
288 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to 1/24/2014 281 filed by Defendants CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert M. Collins, # 2 Exhibit A−B to Declaration of Robert M. Collins)(Collins, Robert) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
289 TRANSCRIPT ORDER re: Scheduling Conference, Set/Reset Hearing,,,,,, 225 , as to Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Andrew Waks at awaks@relmanlaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: 12/17/2012. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/24/2013)

07/24/2013 07/24/2013 07/24/2013 07/26/2013 07/26/2013 07/29/2013 08/09/2013 08/09/2013
08/12/2013 08/20/2013
08/21/2013

290 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Case called and appearances made. Court and counsel discuss outstanding discovery issues. (See Order for complete details) Court Recorder: XTR 07/24/13. (afe) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
291 REPLY in support of MOTION to AMEND MOTION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to 1/24/2014 281 282 (Reply to City of Los Angeles Opposition) filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael Allen and Exhibits Thereto)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
292 REPLY in support of MOTION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to 1/24/2014 281 (Reply to CRA/LA Opposition) filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael Allen and Exhibits Thereto)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
293 ORDER EXTENDING SCHEDULING DEADLINES by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: granting Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery 281 . The Scheduling Order is amended as reflected in this Order. Please read carefully. (jloz) (Entered: 07/26/2013)
294 REQUEST for Protective Order STIPULATION and [Proposed] Consent Confidentiality and Protective Order City of Los Angeles California. (Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 07/26/2013)
295 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh GRANTING REQUEST for Protective Order, 294 . (ca) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
296 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California Court Reporter. Transcript portion requested: Other: 12/17/2012 Scheduling Conference. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
297 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Transcript Designation and Ordering Form (G−120), 296 . The following error(s) was found: Please efile transcript request under COURT SMART event. Also, correct name of Judge in box 12 of order form − it should be Judge Otero. You must electronically refile the above referenced Request for Transcript in this case to correct this deficiency. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ha) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/12/2013)
298 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California Court Smart (CS). Transcript portion requested: Other: 12/17/2012 Scheduling Conference. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
299 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Clarification Regarding the Scope of Discovery filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Motion set for hearing on 9/19/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Judge Olguin Concerning the Scope of Discovery, # 2 Declaration of Michael Allen, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit 16, # 19 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
300 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY MOTION by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The hearing set for September 19, 2013 is hereby vacated. Any Opposition or Notice of Non−Opposition to plaintiffs Motion must be filed and served by defendants no later than Monday, August 26, 2013. Defendants are warned that failure to timely file an Opposition to the Motion may result in plaintiffs Motion being granted in its entirety. Local Rule 7−12. Plaintiffs may file and serve a Reply Memorandum no later than Wednesday, August 28, 2013. Unless the court orders otherwise, the Motion will be deemed submitted, without oral argument, on either: (a) the day the opposition or notice of non−opposition is filed, or due and not filed; or (b)

08/26/2013
08/26/2013 08/26/2013 08/26/2013 08/28/2013 08/28/2013 09/03/2013
09/19/2013 10/07/2013

the day plaintiffs' reply is filed, or due and not filed. The court may order further briefing or other proceedings, at any time, as appropriate. (jloz) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
301 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 12/17/12 8:49 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Exceptional Reporting Services, Inc., phone number (361) 949−2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 9/16/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/26/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/24/2013. (mo) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
302 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 12/17/12 8:49 a.m. re Transcript 301 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (mo) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/26/2013)
303 OPPOSITION Opposition to Plaintiff's re: MOTION for Order for Clarification Regarding the Scope of Discovery 299 filed by Cross Claimant CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Cross Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Robert M. Collins In Support of Opposition, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Robert M. Collins in Support of Opposition)(Daugherty, Melissa) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
304 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Order for Clarification Regarding the Scope of Discovery 299 Opposition filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mark Byrne, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Mark Byrne, # 3 Exhibit B − E to Declaration of Mark Byrne, # 4 Declaration of Jennifer Derwin)(Derwin, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
305 REPLY in Support of MOTION for Order for Clarification Regarding the Scope of Discovery 299 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 08/28/2013)
306 AMENDED DOCUMENT filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Amendment to Reply (Motion related), 305 to City's and CRA/LA's Oppositions to Motion Regarding the Scope of Discovery (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 08/28/2013)
307 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Adam R Pulver counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Adding Adam R. Pulver as attorney as counsel of record for Independent Living Center of Southern California, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Independent Living Center of Southern California, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. (Pulver, Adam) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
308 ORDER Re: CROSS−DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT the Joint Motion of Rule 19 Owner Defendants to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA (Document No. 242) is granted. The Citys and CRA/LAs crossclaims are dismissed with prejudice. Dated this 19th day of September, 2013. 242 (See Order for further details) Motion to Dismiss (yl) (Entered: 09/20/2013)
309 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Michael G Allen counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Adam R. Pulver is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Independent Living Center of Southern California, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/07/2013)

10/08/2013 10/10/2013
10/22/2013 10/23/2013
11/13/2013 11/15/2013 11/26/2013 12/17/2013
12/17/2013

310 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION CONCERNING SCOPE OF DISCOVERY by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Plaintiff's Motion to Judge Olguin Concerning the Scope of Discovery, pursuant to referral by Magistrate Judge Walsh 299 is granted. The scope of discovery in this action shall extend to the entire housing portfolio, including projects not yet completed, of the CRA/LA and the City. Any further discovery objections or disputes, such as those relating to third−party privacy rights, shall be presented to Judge Walsh for his consideration. (jloz) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
311 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Melissa T Daugherty counsel for Cross Claimant CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Cross Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority. Juliet Antoun is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant/Cross−Defendant/Cross−Complainant CRA/LA, A DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, SUCCESSOR TO COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (ABx1 26). (Daugherty, Melissa) (Entered: 10/10/2013)
312 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Allowing Copying of Blueprints filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Motion set for hearing on 11/20/2013 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
313 ORDER Granting Motion for Order Allowing Copying of Blueprints by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: Having considered Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for an order allowing the copying of blueprints, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiffs shall be allowed to make copies of any blueprints, schematics, or drawings related to any of the CRA Federally−Assisted Properties as defined herein at the Los Angeles Department of Building & Safety and the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department. A list of names and addresses of the CRA Federally−Assisted Properties is attached as Exhibit 1. Any copies of blueprints, schematics, or drawings shall be subject to the Protective Order entered in this case, 312 . IT IS SO ORDERED. (ca) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
314 APPLICATION for attorney Timothy M. Smyth to Appear Pro Hac Vice (PHV FEE NOT PAID.) filed by Attorney for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Cert of Good Standing − State of CT, # 2 Proposed Order on Application of Non−Resident Atty to Appear)(Srividya, Panchalam) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
315 ORDER by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: granting 314 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Timothy M. Smyth on behalf of Plaintiffs, designating Srividya S. Panchalam as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
316 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Maria Michelle Uzeta counsel for Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. Michelle Uzeta is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
317 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to 7/24/2014 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Motion set for hearing on 1/16/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Unopposed Motion to Extend Scheduling Deadlines, # 2 Declaration of Michael Allen, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Proposed Order Extending Scheduling Deadlines)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
318 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendant/Cross−Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority, CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los

12/18/2013 12/23/2013 12/26/2013 01/02/2014
01/02/2014
01/13/2014 01/31/2014 02/04/2014

Angeles, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on 1/16/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert Collins, # 2 Proposed Order)(Attorney Melissa T Daugherty added to party CRA LA Designated Local Authority(pty:crc), Attorney Melissa T Daugherty added to party CRA LA Designated Local Authority(pty:crd), Attorney Melissa T Daugherty added to party CRA LA Designated Local Authority(pty:dft))(Daugherty, Melissa) Modified on 12/18/2013 (vdr). (Entered: 12/17/2013)
319 NOTICE ERRATA RE ECF DOC 318 AND 318−1 filed by Defendant/Cross Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. (Daugherty, Melissa) (Entered: 12/18/2013)
320 ORDER EXTENDING SCHEDULING DEADLINES by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: granting Motion 317 . Jury trial continued to 3/3/2015 at 8:30 AM; pretrial conference to 2/13/2015 at 10:00 AM. *See order for deadlines continued.* (vdr) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
321 OPPOSITION re: MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings 318 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 12/26/2013)
322 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Maronel Barajas counsel for Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. Adding Maronel Barajas as attorney as counsel of record for Independent Living Center of Southern California for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attorney Maronel Barajas added to party Independent Living Center of Southern California(pty:pla))(Barajas, Maronel) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
323 REPLY in support MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings 318 filed by Cross Claimant CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Cross Defendants CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Defendants CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. (Attorney Robert Michael Collins added to party CRA LA Designated Local Authority(pty:crc), Attorney Robert Michael Collins added to party CRA LA Designated Local Authority(pty:crd), Attorney Robert Michael Collins added to party CRA LA Designated Local Authority(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Michael Collins added to party Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles(pty:dft), Attorney Robert Michael Collins added to party Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles(pty:crd))(Collins, Robert) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
324 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Chambers of Judge Fernando M. Olguin. On the court's own motion, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 318 , previously set for hearing on 1/16/2014, is taken off calendar and placed under submission. No appearances are required on 1/16/2014.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vdr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/13/2014)
325 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh, Telephone Conference re: Discovery Disputes set for 2/4/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. The call−in information is as follows: Call−in Number:213.894.0800, Meeting ID: 1112#, User Password:5730#.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (lmh) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/31/2014)
327 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh:The Court met with the parties on the phone to discuss discovery issues pertaining to Electronically Stored Information (ESI) and the appropriate scope for parties' searches. The parties agree that there are approximately five issues in dispute with respect to the ESI order. No later than Tuesday, February 11, 2014, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants (who choose to)are to submit briefs, ten pages or less, addressing each ESI issue in dispute and providing proposed language. The parties may also submit briefs if they so choose. With respect to the search terms, the parties informed the Court that they are not in dispute. There is, however, a dispute about the process, i.e., how the searches are to be conducted, the appropriate custodians, and the entities/branches that should conduct the searches. The Court ordersthat counsel to Plaintiffs send Defendants' counsel a proposal as to the appropriate scope of the search

02/06/2014 02/11/2014 02/11/2014 02/11/2014
02/11/2014 02/18/2014 02/19/2014

no later than Tuesday, February 11, 2014. By Tuesday, February 18, 2014, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants are to submit briefs to the Court on this issue. Finally, Defendants have requested additional information as to how Plaintiffs currently store their ESI. No later than February 18, 2014, Mr. Smyth and his client's IT personnel are to confer with Defendants' counsel and Defendants. The counsel for both sides are to meet on the phone (or in person) with their IT people and discuss all outstanding ESI issues and come to a resolution as to how to proceed.Court Recorder: XTR 02/04/2014. (ca) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
326 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Alice Chu on behalf of Cross Defendants Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Defendant Redrock NoHo Residential LLC (Attorney Alice Chu added to party Redrock NoHo Residential LLC(pty:crd), Attorney Alice Chu added to party Redrock NoHo Residential LLC(pty:crd), Attorney Alice Chu added to party Redrock NoHo Residential LLC(pty:dft))(Chu, Alice) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
328 BRIEF filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Re: Proposed ESI Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
329 BRIEF filed by Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California. City's Position re Proposed Order Re Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Derwin, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
330 BRIEF filed by Defendant 105 East I Street, L.P., 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, 4651 Huntington, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., Adams 935 LP, Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, B S Broadway Village II LP, Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC, Bronson Court Apartments LP, Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Far East Building, L.P., Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village LP, Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P., Hobart Heights Partners LP, Hoover Seniors LP, Imani FE LP, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Morgan Place LP, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., New Tierra Del Sol LP, Noho Senior Villas, L.P., Ol Hope, L.P., P G Housing Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Palomar Apartments, L.P., Penny Lane Centers, Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., Stovall Housing Corporation, Vermont Seniors, WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership. Owner Defendants' Response to Proposed ESI Orders regarding Telephone Conference,,,,,, 327 . (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
331 BRIEF filed by defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority, CRA LA Designated Local Authority. Regarding Proposed Order Governing the Production of Electronically Stored Information (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B")(Collins, Robert) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
332 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh; Telephone Conference set for 2/19/2014 at 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. The call−in information is as follows: Call−in Number:213.894.0800, Meeting ID: 7002#, User Password: 4644# THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/18/2014)
333 MINUTES OF Telephone Telephonic Hearing Re: Disputed ESI Issues held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: Case called and appearances made. The Court met with the parties on the telephone to discuss disputes regarding a proposed order on electronically stored information. With respect to the language relating to production of privilege and redaction logs and passwords and encryptions, the Court ordered the parties to use the language proposed by the City of Los Angeles. The Court further

02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/24/2014 02/25/2014 02/25/2014 02/28/2014 03/03/2014 03/04/2014 03/04/2014

ordered that Defendants produce the discovery on a rolling basis, beginning March 14, 2014, and continuing every other Friday until production is complete. Plaintiffs counsel was instructed to let the Court know if there are any issues regarding production.Plaintiffs have requested that Defendants be ordered to create cross reference and load files for the electronically stored information Defendants produce at Defendants' expense. The Court concludes that Defendants have no obligation to create things in discovery. Nevertheless, the Court will require Defendants to create the cross reference and load files if Plaintiffs pay the approximate cost for producing these files prior to Defendants commencing work on them.The Court will not order cost shifting at this time, but will leave the issue on the table for resolution at a later date. The parties may file motions requesting cost shifting after the close of discovery. Both sides are admonished to keep in mind when propounding discovery that they may haveto pay the other sides cost of production. Finally, the Court agreed with the individual Defendant owners, without objection from Plaintiff, that the discovery preservation date will be the date of service of the Complaint.Court Recorder: XTR 02/19/2014. (ca) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
334 BRIEF filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Regarding Plaintiffs' Proposed ESI Search Parameters (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
335 BRIEF filed by Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California. Re Plaintiffs' Proposed Search Terms/Parameters (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jennifer Derwin, # 2 Declaration of Scott Cooper, CMC, # 3 Declaration of Minh Ong, # 4 Declaration of Greg Kung, # 5 Declaration of Janet West, # 6 Declaration of Kerry Hirahara)(Derwin, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
336 City's Notice of Clarification BRIEF filed by Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California. regarding Brief (non−motion non−appeal), 335 . (Derwin, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
337 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: A telephonic hearing as been set for 02/25/2014 at 4:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Please dial the telephone number 888−439−7617; Pass code: 480604. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ca) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/25/2014)
338 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh:The Court and counsel discussed the parties proposed search terms and parameters for discovery after reviewing the briefs filed by Plaintiffs and DefendantCity of Los Angeles. The Court will issue a separate written decision.Court Recorder: XTR 02/25/2014. (ca) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
339 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: The Court has set a telephonic hearing on 03/03/2014 at 12:00 PM to discuss the tentative order. Please dial the telephone number listed below during the reservation date and time: 888−439−7617; pass code: 480604. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ca) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/28/2014)
341 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh:The Court gave counsel an opportunity to address the tentative order on search terms and parameters for discovery. The Court heard counsels arguments andwill issue a separate written order.Court Recorder: XTR 03/03/2014. (ca) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
340 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh previously: A further telephonic hearing has been set for March 14, 2014 at 12:00 PM. Please dial the telephone number below during the reservation date and time. Call−in Number:213−894−0800; Meeting ID: 7002#; User Password:2073#. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ca) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/04/2014)
342 MINUTE ORDER Re: Discovery of Electronically Stored Information by City of LosAngeles IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: In January 2012, Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant City of Los Angeles and theCommunity

03/14/2014 03/18/2014 03/19/2014 03/26/2014 04/14/2014
04/15/2014
05/07/2014
05/08/2014

Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles, alleging that they had engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against disabled people by failing to take steps to insure that housing projects receiving state and federal funding were accessible to disabled people. The parties are now involved ina dispute over the scope of discovery of electronically stored information (ESI). Having read and considered the parties' briefs and the arguments of counsel, the Court sets out the following orders that will govern the initial phase of electronic discovery. (See document for complete details) (ca) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
343 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Case called and appearances made. The Court met with counsel on the telephone to discuss outstanding discovery issues. Court Recorder: XTR 03/14/14. (afe) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
344 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh; Telephone Conference set for 3/19/2014 12:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Please dial the telephone number below during the reservation date and time. Call−in Number:213−894−0800. Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below.Meeting ID: 1112# User Password: 3411#. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jy) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/18/2014)
345 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: Case called and appearances made. The Court met with counsel on the telephone to discuss outstanding discovery issues.Court Recorder: XTR 3/19/14. (jy) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
346 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Komal Jitendra Mehta counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles California. Filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attorney Komal Jitendra Mehta added to party City of Los Angeles California(pty:dft))(Mehta, Komal) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
347 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: Before the Court is counsel's request to address Plaintiff's scheduling of Rule 30(b)(6)depositions scheduled for April 16−18, 2014. Counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles contends that Plaintiffs unilaterally noticed the depositions and seeks an order from the Court taking those dates off−calendar, while Plaintiffs argue that the City has been dilatory in scheduling the depositions. The Court orders that the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions in contention be completed no later than May 16, 2014. Counse's request that the Court hold a telephonic hearing to address the scheduling of these depositions is declined. (jy) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
348 Notice of Electronic Filing re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held 347 e−mailed to Attorney Komal Jitendra Mehta at kmehta@byrnenixon.com bounced due to invalid email. Primary e−mail address corrected. Notice of Electronic Filing resent addressed to komalmehta@byrnenixon.com. Pursuant to Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ir) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/15/2014)
349 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Jamie L Crook counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Jamie L. Crook is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Crook, Jamie) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
350 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Allowing Copying of Blueprints filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Motion set for hearing on 6/5/2014 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Unopposed Motion for Amended Order Allowing Copying of Blueprints, # 2 Proposed Order Allowing Copying of Blueprints)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 05/08/2014)

05/20/2014
05/21/2014 05/22/2014 05/22/2014 05/28/2014 05/29/2014 05/30/2014 05/30/2014

351 AMENDED ORDER ALLOWING COPYING OF BLUEPRINTS by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: granting 350 ; Having considered Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for an amended order allowing the copying of blueprints at any of the housing projects in the CRA Housing Portfolio, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiffs shall be allowed to make copies of any blueprints, schematics, or drawings related to any of the housing projects in the CRA Housing Portfolio as defined herein at Los Angeles Department of Building & Safety ("LADBS"), Los Angeles Housing &Community Investment Department ("LAHCID") or such other place as they may be found, blueprints relating to the entire CRA Housing Portfolio. A list of namesand addresses of the CRA Housing Portfolio is attached as Exhibit 1. Any copiesof blueprints, schematics, or drawings shall be subject to the Protective Orderentered in this case and Plaintiffs shall pay a fee of $1 per page for any copies made at LADBS. T IS SO ORDERED. (jy) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
352 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: Telephone Conference set for 5/22/2014 at 3:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Please dial the telephone number below during the reservation date and time. Call−in Number:213−894−0800. Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below. Meeting ID: 1112# User Password: 0771#. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jy) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 05/21/2014)
353 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh:Case called and appearances made. The Court met with counsel on the telephone to discuss outstanding discovery issues. The Court ordered that Defendants produce the Cervantes emails, to the extent that they have been reviewed, to Plaintiffs no later than Wednesday, May 28, 2014, at 3:00 p.m. The Court set a follow−up hearing for next Friday, May 30, 2014 at 12:00 p.m. and ordered that counsel meet and confer prior to the hearing.Court Recorder: XTR 5/22/14. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff brief, # 2 Defendant brief) (jy) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
354 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Telephone Conference set for 5/30/2014 at 12:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Please dial the telephone number below during the reservation date and time. Call−in Number:213−894−0800. Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below. Meeting ID: 7002# User Password: 1672#. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jy) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 05/22/2014)
355 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Esther Kim at ekim@relmanlaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Chang, D) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
356 AMENDED ORDER RE: Telephonic Status Conference Re: Discovery Issues OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: Case called and appearances made. The Court met with counsel on the telephone to discuss outstanding discovery issues. The Court ordered that Defendants produce the Cervantes emails, to the extent that they have been reviewed, to Plaintiffs no later than Wednesday, May 28, 2014, at 3:00 p.m. The Court further ordered Defendants to produce the IDIS reports requested by Plaintiffs. The Court seta follow−up hearing for next Friday, May 30, 2014 at 12:00 p.m. and ordered that counsel meet and confer prior to the hearing.Court Recorder: XTR 5/22/14. (jy) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
357 APPLICATION for attorney Jennifer I. Klar to Appear Pro Hac Vice (PHV FEE NOT PAID.) filed by Attorney for Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Srividya, Panchalam) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
358 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: APPLICATION for attorney Jennifer I. Klar to Appear Pro Hac Vice (PHV FEE NOT PAID.) 357 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. Other error(s) with document(s): Fee not paid. See LR 83−2.1.3.3(c). In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to

05/30/2014
06/02/2014 06/02/2014
06/02/2014
06/02/2014 06/05/2014 06/06/2014 06/11/2014 06/11/2014 06/12/2014

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. (lt) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
360 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh:Case called and appearances made. The Court met with counsel on the telephone to discuss outstanding discovery issues and the possibility of shifting to a predictive coding approach for Defendants' future production. The Court set a follow−up hearing for next Friday, June 6, 2014 at 12:00 p.m. and ordered that the parties meet and confer prior to the hearing.Court Recorder: XTR 5/30/14. (jy) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
359 ORDER by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: granting 357 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Jennifer I. Klar on behalf of Plaintiffs, designating Srividya S. Panchalam as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
361 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Telephone Conference set for 6/6/2014 at 12:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Please dial the telephone number below during the reservation date and time. Call−in Number:213−894−0800. Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below. Meeting ID: 7002# User Password: 4640#. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jy) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/02/2014)
362 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 5/22/14 2:11 p.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: EXCEPTIONAL REPORTING SERVICES, INC, phone number (361) 949−2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 6/23/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/3/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/31/2014. (ha) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
363 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 5/22/14 2:11 p.m. re Transcript 362 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ha) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/03/2014)
364 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California Court Smart (CS). Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Derwin, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
365 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Having reviewed the case file in the above−captioned matter, the court on its own motion hereby orders that all pretrial calendering is referred to Judge Walsh. (vdr) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
366 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Telephone Conference set for 6/12/2014 at 3:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Please dial the telephone number below during the reservation date and time. Call−in Number:213−894−0800. Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below.Meeting ID: 1112# User Password: 3170#. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jy) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/11/2014)
367 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh:Case called and appearances made. The Court continued to discuss with counsel the possibility of shifting to a predictive coding approach for the City's remaining production. The Court set a followup hearing for June 13, 2014. That hearing has been re−scheduled to Thursday, June 12 at 3:00 p.m.Court Recorder: XTR 6/6/14. (jy) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
368 TRANSCRIPT ORDER re: Telephone Conference, 360 , as to plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Esther Kim at ekim@relmanlaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Chang, D) (Entered: 06/12/2014)

06/12/2014 06/12/2014 06/13/2014 06/17/2014 06/24/2014 06/25/2014 06/26/2014 07/09/2014 07/09/2014 07/09/2014

369 TRANSCRIPT ORDER re: Telephone Conference, 367 , as to plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Esther Kim at ekim@relmanlaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Chang, D) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
370 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Transcript Designation and Ordering Form (G−120), 369 . The following error(s) was found: HEARING IN CHAMBERS − NO COURT REPORTER PRESENT − NO AVAILABLE TRANSCRIPT− SEE MINUTE ORDER. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ha) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/12/2014)
371 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh:Case called and appearances made. The Court ordered the City of Los Angeles to use a predictive coding system for identifying the 10,000 most relevant documents in its databases and, after reviewing them for privilege, etc., producing them to Plaintiffs. The Court anticipates that the entire process can be accomplished in six weeks, i.e., by July 31, 2014. See minute order for further details.Court Recorder: XTR 6/12/14. (jy) (Entered: 06/16/2014)
372 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Telephone Conference set for 6/24/2014 at 12:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Please dial the telephone number below during the reservation date and time. Call−in Number:213−894−0800. Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below.Meeting ID: 7002# User Password: 7664#.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jy) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/17/2014)
374 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh:Case called and appearances made. The Court addressed disputes that arose this week over the predictive coding protocol for the City's production. Having heard argument from counsel, the Court orders Plaintiffs to be involved and play an active role during both the Assessment Phase and Iterative Training Phase of the Equivio predictive coding process. See minute order for further details.Court Recorder: XTR 6/24/14. (jy) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
373 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Telephone Conference set for 6/26/2014 at 1:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Please dial the telephone number below during the reservation date and time. Call−in Number:213−894−0800. Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below.Meeting ID: 1116# User Password: 2401#. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jy) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/25/2014)
375 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh:Status Conference re: Quality Assurance in Predictive Coding Regimen forCitys Production. See minute order for details.Court Recorder: XTR 6/26/14. (jy) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
376 TRANSCRIPT ORDER re: Telephone Conference, 367 , as to Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California Court Smart (CS). Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Derwin, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
377 TRANSCRIPT ORDER re: Telephone Conference,, 371 , as to Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California Court Smart (CS). Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Derwin, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
378 TRANSCRIPT ORDER re: Telephone Conference,, 374 , as to Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California Court Smart (CS). Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Derwin, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/09/2014)

07/09/2014 07/10/2014 07/10/2014
07/11/2014
07/11/2014 07/18/2014 07/18/2014 07/25/2014 07/31/2014 07/31/2014

379 TRANSCRIPT ORDER re: Telephone Conference 375 , as to Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California Court Smart (CS). Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Derwin, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
380 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Telephone Conference set for 7/10/2014 at 2:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Please dial the telephone number below during the reservation date and time. Call−in Number:213−894−0800. Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below.Meeting ID: 1116# User Password: 7750#. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jy) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/10/2014)
383 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh:Case called and appearances made. During the Court's last status conference, it ordered that the City employ quality assurance but that Plaintiffs pay one−half of the City's costs and fees in performing that step. Plaintiffs now request that the Court set a cap for the total permissible cost for the qualityassurance process, and suggests that $1600, or eight hours of work at $200 per hour, would be a reasonable cap for the Plaintiffs' portion of the costs. The City objects that the total costs are unknown and it should not be limited to a figure upfront. Without further order from the Court, the City may incur up to $5,000 in the quality assurance process, which should represent approximately ten hours of work at the cost of $500 per hour. Per the Courts prior order, Plaintiffs will be responsible for paying half of those costs and fees. Should the City approach the $5,000 limit and find that the quality assurance process is incomplete, it should contact the Court for approval of additional time before incurring further costs.Court Recorder: XTR 7/10/14. (jy) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
381 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 5/30/14 3:56 p.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: EXCEPTIONAL REPORTING SERVICES, INC., phone number (361) 949−2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/1/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/11/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/9/2014. (ha) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
382 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 5/30/14 3:56 p.m. re Transcript 381 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ha) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/11/2014)
384 TRANSCRIPT ORDER re: Telephone Conference,, 371 , as to plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Esther Kim at ekim@relmanlaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Chang, D) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
385 TRANSCRIPT ORDER re: Telephone Conference 375 , as to plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Esther Kim at ekim@relmanlaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Chang, D) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
386 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Telephone Conference set for 7/31/2014 at 2:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Please dial the telephone number below during the reservation date and time. Call−in Number:213−894−0800. Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below.Meeting ID: 7002#. User Password: 2726#. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jy) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/25/2014)
387 Letter Brief re Plaintiff's Production filed by Plaintiff. (jy) (Entered: 07/31/2014)
388 Letter Brief re Defendant's Production filed by Defendant. (jy) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014 08/06/2014 08/27/2014 08/27/2014 08/27/2014 08/27/2014 08/27/2014 09/02/2014 09/02/2014

389 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh:Case called and appearances made. Before the Court are letter briefs from counsel regarding disputes that have arisen over Plaintiff's ESI production. In particular, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' discovery requests regarding Plaintiffs' allocation of resources are too broad, given that Plaintiffs intendto prove damages through the "opportunity costs" method rather than by attempting to show any actual redistribution of resources. See minute order for details.Court Recorder: XTR 7/31/14. (jy) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
390 TRANSCRIPT ORDER re: Telephone Conference,, 389 , as to Defendant/Cross−Claimant City of Los Angeles California Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Komal J. Mehta at komalmehta@byrnenixon.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Mehta, Komal) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
397 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 6/26/14 11:37 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: EXCEPTIONAL REPORTING SERVICES, phone number (361) 949−2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 9/29/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/9/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/7/2014. (ha) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
398 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 6/24/14 11:37 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: EXCEPTIONAL REPORTING SERVICES INC., phone number (361) 949−2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 9/29/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/9/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/7/2014. (ha). (Entered: 09/08/2014)
399 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 6/12/14 11:37.am.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: EXCEPTIONAL REPORTING SERVICES, INC., phone number (361) 949−2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 9/29/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/9/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/7/2014. (ha) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
400 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 6/6/14 11:387 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: EXCEPTIONAL REPORTING SERVICES, INC, phone number (361) 949−2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 9/29/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/9/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/7/2014. (ha) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
401 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 6/26/14; 6/24/14; 6/12/14; & 6/6/14 re Transcript 397 , 398 , 400 , 399 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ha) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/08/2014)
391 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Telephone Conference set for 9/3/2014 at 12:15 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Please dial the telephone number below during the reservation date and time. Call−in Number: 213−894−3669. Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below.Conference Password: 129663. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jy) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/02/2014)
392 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh previously scheduled for 9/3/14 12:15 has been rescheduled. Telephone Conference set for 9/4/2014 12:15

09/03/2014
09/03/2014 09/03/2014 09/03/2014 09/04/2014
09/10/2014 09/18/2014

PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Please dial the telephone number below during the reservation date and time. Call−in Number: 213−894−3669. Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below.Conference Password: 129663. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jy) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/02/2014)
393 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Maronel Barajas counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Adding Maronel Barajas as attorney as counsel of record for Independent Living Center of Southern California, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California; Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley; Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. (Attorney Maronel Barajas added to party Communities Actively Living Independent and Free(pty:pla), Attorney Maronel Barajas added to party Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley(pty:pla))(Barajas, Maronel) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
394 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Maronel Barajas counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Paula Dee Pearlman is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plainitff Independent Living Center of Southern California; Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley; Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. (Barajas, Maronel) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
395 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Maronel Barajas counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Paula Dee Pearlman is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Brent Pilgreen, Judy Griffin, Mark Willits. (Barajas, Maronel) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
396 NOTICE filed by plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Stipulation Regarding Diversion of Resources)(Chang, D) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
410 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh:Case called and appearances made. The Court held a telephonic status conference to address outstanding discovery disputes. In particular, the Court set a briefing schedule for the dispute over the reports created by ADAAG Consulting Services, LLC, in case counsel remain unable to resolve their differences after another week of discussion: Deadline for Plaintiffs' portion of the joint stipulation September 11, 2014 Deadline for Defendants' portion of the joint stipulation October 6, 2014 Deadline for Plaintiffs to file joint stipulation October 7, 2014 Deadline for any supplemental briefing October 14, 2014. The Court sets a hearing on the motion for October 16, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.Court Recorder: XTR 9/4/14. (jy) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
402 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Melissa T Daugherty counsel for Cross Claimant CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Cross Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority. Karen A. Feld is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant CRA/LA. (Daugherty, Melissa) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
403 TRANSCRIPT ORDER re: Telephone Conference,, 389 , as to plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Esther Kim at ekim@relmanlaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Chang, D) (Entered: 09/18/2014)

09/18/2014
09/18/2014 09/23/2014 10/06/2014 10/07/2014 10/08/2014 10/08/2014 10/08/2014 10/08/2014
10/08/2014

404 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on July 31, 2014. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: EXCEPTIONAL REPORTING SERVICES, INC., phone number 877−670−7774. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 10/9/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/19/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/17/2014. (kch) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
405 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings JULY 31, 2014 re Transcript 404 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kch) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/19/2014)
406 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: PENDING MOTION by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The CRA/LA's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c) as to the Amended Cross−claim of City for Indemnity and Contribution of the City of Los Angeles 318 is granted. The City's Amended Crossclaim 220 is dismissed with prejudice. (vdr) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
407 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Esther Kim at ekim@relmanlaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Chang, D) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
408 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Cross Claimant City of Los Angeles California, Defendant City of Los Angeles California of (1) Under Seal Ex Parte Application for Order Allowing In Camera Filing of the Declaration of Mark A. Byrne in Support of Opposition Set Forth in Joint Stipulation Re Motion to Compel Production of Documents Related to Consultant Services; (2) Under Seal [Proposed] Order Granting Ex Parte Application; (3) In Camera Declaration of Mark A. Byrne. (Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
409 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Cross Claimant City of Los Angeles California, Defendant City of Los Angeles California of AMENDED NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING (1) Ex Parte Application for Order Allowing In Camera Filing of The Declaration of Mark A. Byrne in Support of Opposition Set Forth in Joint Stipulation Re Motion to Compel Production of Documents Related to Consultant Services; (2) [Proposed] Order Granting Ex Parte Application; (3) In Camera Declaration of Mark A. Byrne. (Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
411 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Discovery from Defendant City of Los Angeles filed by plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. Motion set for hearing on 10/16/2014 at 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Chang, D) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
412 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION to Compel Discovery from Defendant City of Los Angeles 411 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles and filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9)(Chang, D) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
413 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on September 4, 2014. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: BABYKIN COURTHOUSE SERVICES, phone number 626−963−0566. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 10/29/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/8/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2015. (kch) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
414 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings September 4, 2014 re Transcript 413 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kch) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/09/2014)

10/09/2014 10/14/2014 10/14/2014 10/15/2014 10/16/2014 10/16/2014
10/17/2014 10/17/2014
10/20/2014

415 OBJECTIONS to Notice of Manual Filing (G−92), 408 , Notice of Manual Filing (G−92), 409 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Chang, D) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
416 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel Discovery from Defendant City of Los Angeles 411 Memorandum In Opposition filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mark A. Byrne in Support of The City's Supplemental Memorandum, # 2 Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Mark A. Byrne, # 3 Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Mark A. Byrne, # 4 Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Mark A. Byrne, # 5 Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Mark A. Byrne)(Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
417 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel Discovery from Defendant City of Los Angeles 411 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Chang, D) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
418 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Telephone Conference set for 10/16/2014 at 1:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Please dial the telephone number below during the reservation date and time. Call−in Number:213−894−0800. Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below.Meeting ID: 1112#. User Password: 2476#. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jy) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/15/2014)
419 TRANSCRIPT ORDER re: Text Only Scheduling Notice, 418 , as to plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Esther Kim at ekim@relmanlaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Chang, D) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
420 MINUTES OF Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant City ofLos Angeles; Additional Discovery Disputes (Doc. No. 411 .); Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: Case called and appearances made. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to compel DefendantCity of Los Angeles to produce measurements and photographs created by the City's consulting expert, ADAAG Consulting Services, LLC. (Doc. No. 411 .) The City contends that the information is work product and, therefore, not discoverable. For the following reasons, the motion is denied. See minute order for further details.Court Recorder: XTR 10/16/14. (jy) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
421 TRANSCRIPT ORDER re: Text Only Scheduling Notice, 418 , as to Defendant City of Los Angeles California Court Smart (CS). Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Mehta, Komal) (Entered: 10/17/2014)
424 ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING THE IN CAMERA FILING OF THE DECLARATION OF MARK A. BYRNE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION SET FORTH IN JOINT STIPULATION RE: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR DEFENDANT, THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant City of Los Angeles's Ex Parte Application for an Order that the Byrne Declaration, proffered in Support of the Opposition of the City of Los Angeles Set Forth in the Joint Stipulation re: Motion to Compel Production of Documents Related to Consultant Services for Defendant, be filed and accepted for review in camera is DENIED. NOTE CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT. re Notice of Manual Filing (G−92) 408 . (kl) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
422 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on October 16, 2014, 10:36 a.m. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: EXCEPTIONAL REPORTING SERVICES, Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 11/10/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/20/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for

10/20/2014 10/29/2014 10/30/2014
10/30/2014
10/31/2014 10/31/2014 10/31/2014 11/10/2014 11/13/2014

1/18/2015. (mwo) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
423 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings October 16, 2014, 10:36 a.m. re Transcript 422 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (mwo) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/20/2014)
425 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Telephone Conference set for 10/30/2014 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Please dial the telephone number below during the reservation date and time.Call−in Number: 213−894−3669. Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below. Conference Password: 129663#.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jy) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/29/2014)
426 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Review of Minute Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant City of Los Angeles re Order on Motion to Compel,,, Telephone Conference,, 420 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Motion set for hearing on 12/4/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Review of Minute Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant City of Los Angeles, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
431 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh:Case called and appearances made. The Court held a telephonic hearing to address the following outstanding discovery disputes. First, there is a dispute over the Court's prior order regarding which party is to choose which ofPlaintiffs' opportunity cost witnesses Defendants will depose first. Over Plaintiffs' objection, the Court will allow Defendants to decide the first three witnesses, one from each organization, that they will depose. These depositions are to occur during the month of November. Second, there is a dispute regarding the scope of Plaintiffs' production of documents on theissue of opportunity costs. Having heard argument on this issue, the Court orders both Plaintiffs and Defendants to provide the three best cases to support their understanding of the meaning of opportunity costs and what Plaintiffs have to show on this issue. The Court will then decide whether to order additional production by Plaintiffs. Finally, the Court orders that all production, by both Plaintiffs and Defendants, be complete by December 31, 2014.Court Recorder: XTR 10/30/14. (jy) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
427 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Esther Kim at ekim@relmanlaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Chang, D) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
428 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 10−30−14 11:00 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: JAMS Certified Transcription, phone number (661) 609−4528. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 11/21/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/1/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/29/2015. (ha) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
429 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 10/30/14 11:00 a.m. re Transcript 428 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ha) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/05/2014)
430 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendant City of Los Angeles California Court Smart (CS). Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Mehta, Komal) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
432 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Review of Minute Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant City of Los Angeles re Order on Motion to

11/20/2014 11/20/2014 11/21/2014 12/01/2014 12/16/2014 12/19/2014
01/21/2015 01/21/2015 01/22/2015 01/22/2015

Compel,,, Telephone Conference,, 420 426 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit to Opposition)(Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
433 APPLICATION for attorney John P. Relman to Appear Pro Hac Vice(PHV Fee of $325 receipt number 0973−14810170 paid.) filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Srividya, Panchalam) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
434 REPLY in Support of MOTION for Review of Minute Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant City of Los Angeles re Order on Motion to Compel,,, Telephone Conference,, 420 426 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
435 ORDER by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: granting 433 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney John P. Relman on behalf of Plaintiffs, designating Srividya S. Panchalam as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
436 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Chambers of Judge Fernando M. Olguin. On the court's own motion, the Motion for Review of Minute Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery 426 is taken off the 12/4/2014 calendar and placed under submission. No appearances are required on 12/4/2014. An order will issue. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vdr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/01/2014)
437 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh:Case called and appearances made. The Court held a telephonic hearing to address a conflict that has arisen during the deposition of one of the opportunity cost witnesses, Sharon Kinlaw. See minute order for details.Court Recorder: XTR 12/16/14. (jy) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
438 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: Before the Court are Plaintiffs' and the City's request for a 45 day extension of time in which to complete document production. Previously, the Court had ordered that production be complete no later than December 31, 2014. (Doc. No. 431 .)For good cause shown, the parties' requests are granted. The document production deadline for all parties is now February 15, 2015. The Court is not inclined to extend it again beyond that date. In addition, no later than January 15, 2015, the parties are to meet and confer and agree to a proposed discovery schedule, complete with all deadlines. The stipulated schedule should be submitted to the Court by January 20, 2015. (jy) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
439 APPLICATION for attorney Jean M. Zachariasiewicz to Appear Pro Hac Vice(PHV Fee of $325 receipt number 0973−15087071 paid.) filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Srividya, Panchalam) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
442 ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Pursuant to the request of Plaintiffs and the City, and good cause appearingtherefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the discovery deadlines previously set by theCourt at Docket Number 438 are hereby extended by ninety days. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jy) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
440 ORDER by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: granting 439 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Jean M. Zachariasiewicz on behalf of Plaintiffs, designating Srividya S Panchalam as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
441 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: APPLICATION for attorney Jean M. Zachariasiewicz to Appear Pro Hac Vice(PHV Fee of $325 receipt number 0973−15087071 paid.) 439 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below: Submitted Good Standing Certificates that are over 30 days old. Certificate from DC was issued on 12/17/14 and certificate from NY was issued on 12/18/14. Application was filed on 1/21/15. See Local Rule 83−2.1.3.3. See also, Instructions for Applicants (1) (G−64). In response to

02/11/2015 02/11/2015 02/25/2015 03/17/2015 03/19/2015
03/25/2015 03/26/2015
04/02/2015 04/22/2015 05/06/2015

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. (lt) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
443 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Chambers of Judge Fernando M. Olguin. On the court's own motion, the Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/13/2015 is taken off calendar, pending further order of the court. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vdr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/11/2015)
444 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Roberto Lara counsel for Cross Defendant 4651 Huntington, L.P.. Changing Firm Name to Lara, Ibarra & Davis LLP. Filed by Defendant 4651 Huntington LP. (Attorney Roberto Lara added to party 4651 Huntington, L.P.(pty:crd))(Lara, Roberto) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
445 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Chambers of Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Jury Trial previously set for 3/3/2015 is taken off calendar pending further order of the court. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vdr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/25/2015)
446 (Breithaupt, Deborah) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
447 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G−123) 446 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below 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: 03/19/2015)
448 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Phillip A Baker counsel for Defendant Penny Lane Centers, Cross Defendants Penny Lane Centers, Penny Lane Centers. Filed by Defendant/Cross−Defendant Penny Lane Centers. (Attorney Phillip A Baker added to party Penny Lane Centers(pty:crd), Attorney Phillip A Baker added to party Penny Lane Centers(pty:crd))(Baker, Phillip) (Entered: 03/25/2015)
449 NOTICE of Change of address by Melissa T Daugherty attorney for Cross Claimant CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Cross Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority. Changing attorneys address to 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90071. Filed by Cross Claimant CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Cross Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority. (Daugherty, Melissa) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
450 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Robert P Moore counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles California. Adding Robert Phillip Moore and Michael Heinrichs as attorney as counsel of record for City of Los Angeles for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES. (Attorney Robert P Moore added to party City of Los Angeles California(pty:dft))(Moore, Robert) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
451 ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINES by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. The Scheduling Order is amended as follows: Deadline to Meet and Confer regarding Proposed Discovery Schedule: June 24, 2015; Deadline to Submit Stipulated Discovery Schedule to the Court: July 1, 2015; Deadline for Production of ESI: July 8, 2015. (im) (Entered: 04/23/2015)
452 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Michael G Allen counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Timothy M. Smyth 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 Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley, and Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 05/06/2015)

06/10/2015 06/19/2015
07/01/2015 07/10/2015
07/10/2015 07/17/2015 07/27/2015
07/30/2015
08/10/2015 08/11/2015

453 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh − Telephone Conference Re Settlement set for 6/19/2015 at 2:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Call−in Number:213−894−0800. Meeting ID:7002# User Password:5435# THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (im) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/10/2015)
454 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs' counsel and will allow the settlement discussions to continue until July 8, 2015. Thereafter, Plaintiffs' counsel will inform the Court and all counsel as to the status of the settlement talks. The Court will hold a hearing on the telephone on July 10, 2015 at 12:00 p.m. and, assuming that the parties have not reached an agreement, will set dates for completing the work that needs to be done before trial. (See document for further details). Court Recorder: XTR 06/19/15. (sbou) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2015: # 1 Supplement Email) (im). (Entered: 06/23/2015)
455 NOTICE of Filing Stipulated Proposed Schedule filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
456 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED PROPOSED SCHEDULE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh 455 . July 8, 2015 − Deadline for production of electronically storedinformation. January 8, 2016 − Deadline to complete fact discovery. January 29, 2016 − Expert reports due. February 29, 2016 − Rebuttal expert reports due. March 25, 2016 − Responses to rebuttal expert reports due (if any). April 15, 2016 − Deadline to complete expert discovery. May 6, 2016 − Deadline to file any dispositive motions. May 27, 2016 − Opposition to dispositive motions due. June 10, 2016 − Replies to dispositive motions due. (im) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
457 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Case called and appearances made. The Court held a telephonic status conference to discuss next steps now that the July 8, 2015 deadline has passed and the parties have not reached a settlement agreement. (See document for further details). Court Recorder: XTR 07/10/15. (sbou) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
458 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 426 FOR REVIEW by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Plaintiffs' motion is granted. The referral to Judge Walsh for pretrial proceedings is vacated. The court adopts the deadlines set forth in the order of 7/10/2015. Defendant shall produce the the discovery no later than 7/31/2015. (vdr) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
459 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Laura Gaztambide−Arandes on behalf of Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California (Attorney Laura Gaztambide−Arandes added to party Communities Actively Living Independent and Free(pty:pla), Attorney Laura Gaztambide−Arandes added to party Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley(pty:pla), Attorney Laura Gaztambide−Arandes added to party Independent Living Center of Southern California(pty:pla))(Gaztambide−Arandes, Laura) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
460 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Maronel Barajas counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Changing address to 256 S. Occidental Blvd., Suite B, Los Angeles, CA 90057. Changing e−mail to maronel.barajas@drlcenter.org. Filed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California; Communities Actively Living Independent and Free; Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley. (Barajas, Maronel) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
461 Joint STIPULATION for Order Allowing Blueprints to Be Provided Pursuant to Subpoena filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Chang, D) (Entered: 08/10/2015)
462 ORDER ALLOWING BLUEPRINTS TO BE PROVIDED PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. (See document for further details).

10/06/2015 10/07/2015 10/09/2015
11/03/2015 11/04/2015 11/04/2015
11/06/2015
11/10/2015 11/25/2015

re Stipulation for Order, 461 (sbou) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
463 REQUEST TO WITHDRAW ATTORNEY Mark A. Byrne, Jennifer L. Derwin and Komal J. Mehta as counsel of record filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles City of Los Angeles California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re Request for Approval for Withdrawal of Counsel) (Byrne, Mark) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
464 ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL by Judge Fernando M. Olguin that the request of Mark A. Byrne, Jennifer L. Derwin and Komal J. Mehta of Byrne and Nixon LLP to withdrawal as counsel of record for the City of Los Angeles 463 is hereby granted. The City of Los Angeles will continue to be represented by the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office. (jp) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
465 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Michael G Allen counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Jean Zachariasiewicz 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 Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley, and Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
467 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION ALLOWING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh 466 . (1) Plaintiffs are allowed to take 29 depositions. (2) Defendant City of Los Angeles is allowed to take 20 depositions. (im) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
466 STIPULATION for Leave to Take Additional Depositions by Plaintiffs and Defendant City of Los Angeles filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
468 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS Plaintiffs' E−mail Request of Extra Time for Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: Before the Court is Plaintiffs' request to extend a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition beyond the seven−hour limitation contained in Rule 30. The Court understands from Defendants that the parties intend to meet and confer after the seven hours have elapsed to discuss whether Plaintiffs should get additional time. Given the nature of this case and the areas to be covered in the 30(b)(6) deposition, the Court is inclined to grant Plaintiffs more time, but will not do so until the parties meet and confer after the first day is complete. The parties should therefore meet and confer and, if they are unable to reach an agreement, they should call Chambers on Friday evening and the Court will issue a decision. (Attachments: # 1 Emails) (im) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
469 MINUTES OF Telephonic Conference − Plaintiffs' Request for Extra Time for Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: Before the Court is Plaintiffs' request to extend a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition beyond the seven−hour limitation contained in Rule 30. The parties were previously ordered to meet and confer, and, if they were unable to reach an agreement, to contact Chambers. The Court heard argument from both sides and concluded that the additional time was warranted. The Court ordered the deposition to continue Monday, November 9, 2015 at 10:45 a.m. Plaintiffs will have a maximum of seven hours on Monday to conduct the second portion of the deposition. If any issues arise on Monday, the parties should call Chambers.Court Reporter: Kylie Shepherd. (im) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
470 NOTICE of Change of address by David Grant Geffen attorney for Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. Changing attorneys address to 1717 4th Street, 3rd Floor, Santa Monica, CA 90401. Filed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Geffen, David) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
471 NOTICE of Filing Stipulated Proposed Schedule filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 11/25/2015)

12/01/2015
12/02/2015 12/03/2015 12/03/2015 12/03/2015 12/21/2015 12/22/2015 12/23/2015 12/23/2015
01/05/2016 01/05/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016
01/26/2016

472 ORDER Re Stipulated Proposed Schedule by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh 471 . December 9, 2015 Deadline to complete fact discovery; January 29, 2016 Plaintiffs' expert disclosure(s) and expert report(s) related to damages due; February 25, 2016 Plaintiffs' remaining expert disclosure(s) and expert report(s) due; March 25, 2016 Defendants' expert disclosure(s) and expert report(s) due; April 15, 2016 Deadline to complete expert discovery. SEE ORDER. (im) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
473 NOTICE of Errata filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
474 Joint STIPULATION for Order Allowing Copying of Blueprints filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
475 AMENDED ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh 473 . January 8, 2016 − Deadline to complete fact discovery. See Order for other deadlines. (im) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
476 ORDER ALLOWING COPYING OF BLUEPRINTS by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh, re Stipulation for Order, 474 . See Order for details. (dml) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
477 Joint STIPULATION for Order Regarding Extensions to Respond to Written Discovery filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
478 Joint STIPULATION for Order Allowing Copying of Blueprints filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
479 ORDER Regarding Extension to Respond to Written Discovery 477 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin that the deadline for the Plaintiff, the City, and the CRA to respond to the written discovery propounded on each other on December 8 and 9, 2015 is EXTENDED from 1/8/2016 to 1/29/2016. (jp) (Entered: 12/23/2015)
480 ORDER ALLOWING COPYING OF BLUEPRINTS 478 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin that Plaintiffs shall be allowed to make copies of any blueprints, schematics, or drawings related to housing projects identified to date by and believed by Plaintiffs to be part of the CRA Housing Portfolio as defined herein (See attached Order for further details). (jp) (Entered: 12/23/2015)
481 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Withdraw Local Counsel filed by Defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Todero, Anthony) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
482 Joint STIPULATION for Order Regarding Extension to Respond to Written Discovery filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
483 ORDER DENYING MOTION 481 TO WITHDRAW LOCAL COUNSEL by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (vdr) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
484 ORDER RE STIPULATION by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh 482 . The deadline for the Owner−Defendants to respond to the written discovery propounded by Plaintiffs on December 8, 2015 is extended to January 29, 2016, with the exception of the request for plans for the following five properties: Boyle Hotel Apartments; Casa Rampart; Renato Apartments; Washington Court; andBroadway Plaza Apartments. SEE ORDER. (im) (Entered: 01/07/2016)
485 Joint STIPULATION for Order Regarding One−Week Extension Due to Weather filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California.

01/27/2016 01/27/2016 02/11/2016 02/12/2016 02/16/2016 02/19/2016 02/22/2016 02/25/2016 02/25/2016
02/25/2016
02/26/2016

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 01/26/2016)
486 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION for Order Regarding One−Week Extension Due to Weather by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh 485 . The deadlines set in Docs. 475 and 479 for January 29, 2016 are extended one week to February 5, 2016. (im) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
487 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Christopher P Warne counsel for Defendant 105 East I Street, L.P.. Changing address to 20929 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 47130, Woodland Hills, CA 91364. Filed by Defendant 105 E I St., L.P.. (Warne, Christopher) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
488 NOTICE of Filing Stipulated Proposed Schedule filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gaztambide−Arandes, Laura) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
489 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED PROPOSED SCHEDULE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh 488 . May 13, 2016: Deadline to complete expert discovery, including expert depositions. June 3, 2016: Deadline to file dispositive motions. SEE ORDER FOR OTHER DEADLINES. (im) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
490 Certificate of Service filed by Defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
491 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh − Telephonic Conference set for 2/22/2016 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Call−in Number:213−894−0800. Meeting ID:7002# User Password:5755# THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (im) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/19/2016)
492 MINUTES OF Third−Party Alexandria's Request To Quash Plaintiffs' Inspection (Telephonic) held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer. If the parties are unable to come to an agreement, the Court will hold a telephonic hearing on Friday, February 26, 2016 at 12:10 p.m. to issue a ruling.Court Recorder: XTR 2/22/16. (Attachments: # 1 Email) (im) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
493 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh Telephone Conference set for 2/26/2016 at 12:10 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Call−in Number: 213−894−3670.Conference Password:120763# THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (im) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/25/2016)
494 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on 3/24/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert M. Collins, # 2 Proposed Order) (Attorney Kelsey Elizabeth Fisher added to party CRA LA Designated Local Authority(pty:dft), Attorney Kelsey Elizabeth Fisher added to party Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles(pty:dft)) (Fisher, Kelsey) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
495 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint 494 and Exhibits A−H filed by Defendants CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A" to Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Exhibit B to Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Exhibit C to Request for Judicial Notice, # 4 Exhibit D to Request for Judicial Notice, # 5 Exhibit E to Request for Judicial Notice, # 6 Exhibit F to Request for Judicial Notice, # 7 Exhibit G to Request for Judicial Notice, # 8 Exhibit H to Request for Judicial Notice)(Fisher, Kelsey) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
496 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh − Telephonic Conference previously scheduled for 2/26/2016 at 12:10 PM has been taken off calendar at the request of counsel. Discovery issues have been resolved. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (im) TEXT ONLY

02/26/2016 02/29/2016 03/01/2016 03/02/2016 03/14/2016 03/14/2016 03/14/2016 03/14/2016 03/16/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016

ENTRY (Entered: 02/26/2016)
497 NOTICE of Filing Agreement and Order Between Plaintiffs and Non−Party Alexandria Housing Partners, L.P. filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Agreement and Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
498 PLAINTIFFS' AGREEMENT AND ORDER WITH NON−PARTY ALEXANDRIA HOUSING PARTNERS, L.P., RE: INSPECTION OF ALEXANDRIA HOTEL by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. (See document for details.) re Notice (Other), 497 (sbou) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
499 Joint STIPULATION to Reschedule Hearing on CRA/LA's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Stipulation to Amend Briefing Schedule filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
500 ORDER by Judge Fernando M. Olguin, re Stipulation 499 . The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 494 is continued to 4/14/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (vdr) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
501 OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint 494 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Attorney Michael C Heinrichs added to party City of Los Angeles California(pty:dft))(Heinrichs, Michael) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
502 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint 494 in Response to CRA's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to RJN, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B to RJN, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C to RJN, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D to RJN, # 5 Supplement Proof of Service)(Heinrichs, Michael) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
503 OPPOSITION re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint 494 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
504 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint 494 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael G. Allen, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
505 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh − Telephonic Conference Re Discovery set for 3/18/2016 at 2:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Call−in Number:213−894−0800.Meeting ID:1112# User Password:5235# THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (im) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/16/2016)
506 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh − Telephonic Conference previously scheduled for 3/18/2016 2:00 PM has been rescheduled. Telephone Conference is now set for 3/17/2016 at 3:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Call−in Number: 213−894−0800. Meeting ID:1112# User Password:5235# THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (im) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/17/2016)
507 MINUTES OF Discovery Dispute Telephonic Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: The Court heard oral argument regarding the parties' discovery dispute. Defendant is to submit a proposed order to the Court and the Court will sign off on it. Court Recorder: XTR 3/17/16. (Attachments: # 1 Email1, # 2 PropOrder1, # 3 Email2, # 4 PropOrder2) (im) (Entered: 03/21/2016)

03/21/2016
03/23/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/25/2016 03/31/2016 03/31/2016
04/08/2016
05/04/2016 05/05/2016 05/12/2016 05/12/2016 05/17/2016

508 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Within fifteen (15) days of entry of this Order, Plaintiffs shall provide the City of Los Angeles ("City") and the Community Redevelopment Agency for the City of Los Angeles ("CRA/LA") a list of the names of all individuals with disabilities whose contact with a Plaintiff will be relied on by Plaintiffs in any manner as evidence in this litigation (whether by name, in a numeric count, or otherwise), including to demonstrate damages or to support Plaintiffs' claims (the "Plaintiff Contacts"). (See document for further details.) (sbou) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
509 Joint STIPULATION for Discovery as to ESI "Family Members" filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
510 ORDER RE: ESI "FAMILY MEMBERS" by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. (See document for further details.) re Stipulation for Discovery, 509 (sbou) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
511 NOTICE of Filing Stipulated Proposed Schedule filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
512 ORDER RE Stipulated Proposed Schedule by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. (See document for further details.) re Notice, 511 (sbou) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
513 REPLY in support NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint 494 filed by Defendants CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. (Collins, Robert) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
514 OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE IN SUPPORT OF re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint 494 OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES (ECF 501) filed by Defendants CRA LA Designated Local Authority, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. (Collins, Robert) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
515 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Chambers of Judge Fernando M. Olguin. On the court's own motion, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 494 is taken off the 4/14/2016 calendar and placed under submission. No appearances are required on 4/14/2016. An order with the court's ruling will issue. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vdr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/08/2016)
516 STIPULATION for Discovery as to Expert Designations/Reports filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heinrichs, Michael) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
517 ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. (See document for further details.) re Stipulation for Discovery 516 (sbou) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
518 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney David O Iyalomhe on behalf of Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley (Attorney David O Iyalomhe added to party Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley(pty:pla))(Iyalomhe, David) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
519 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Odion L Okojie on behalf of Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley (Attorney Odion L Okojie added to party Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley(pty:pla))(Okojie, Odion) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
520 NOTICE of Filing Stipulated Extension filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 05/17/2016)

05/17/2016 06/30/2016 06/30/2016 06/30/2016 07/05/2016 07/22/2016 07/22/2016 07/25/2016 07/28/2016 07/29/2016 07/29/2016 08/04/2016

521 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh 520 . The Plaintiffs, City, and CRA will submit any lists to each other by June 10, 2016. Upon receipt of the list, the responding party will provide the requested"family member" documents within two weeks. SEE ORDER. (im) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
522 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh − Telephone Conference set for 6/30/2016 at 3:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Call−in Number:213−894−0800. Meeting ID:1114# User Password:2255# THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (im) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/30/2016)
524 MINUTES OF Discovery Dispute (Telephonic) held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Over Defendants' objections, Plaintiffs' second 30(b)(6) deposition may go forward. The deposition may only cover topics 1, 2, 4, and 5 and is limited to four hours. The Court is also granting Defendants' request to extend the expert report deadline by four weeks. (See document for further details.) Court Recorder: XTR 06/30/16. (sbou) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
525 AMENDED MINUTES OF Discovery Dispute (Telephonic) by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: Over Defendants' objections, Plaintiffs' second 30(b)(6) deposition may go forward. The deposition may only cover topics 1, 2, 4, and 5 and is limited to four hours. The Court is also granting Defendants' request to extend the expert report deadline by four weeks. (See document for further details.) (im) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
523 Joint STIPULATION for Judgment as to Plaintiffs and Defendant City of Los Angeles Pursuant to Settlement Agreement filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Proposed Judgment Pursuant to Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit A − Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
526 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Maronel Barajas counsel for Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. Changing address to 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 1520, Los Angeles, CA 90071. Filed by Plaintiff ILCSC, et al.. (Barajas, Maronel) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
527 NOTICE of Filing Stipulated Proposed Order filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
528 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh 527 . Plaintiffs may take up to seven hours of deposition testimony of Estevan Valenzuela on a single day, no more than four hours of which will be in his capacity as the CRA's person most qualified on Topics 1, 2, 4, and 5 identified in Plaintiffs' June 7, 2016 Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition. SEE ORDER FOR DEADLINES. (im) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
529 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh − Telephone Conference Re Discovery Extension set for 7/29/2016 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Call−in Number: 213−894−0800.Meeting ID:1112# User Password:0631# THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (im) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/28/2016)
530 Joint STIPULATION for Judgment as to all Plaintiffs and Defendant City of Los Angeles filed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order pursuant to Settlement Agreement by and between City of Los Angeles and Plaintiffs, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Proposed Order (Settlement Agreement))(Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
531 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference Re: Defendants' Request for an Extension of Time for Expert Gibbens' Report held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. The Court orders Defendants to provide their expert reports on the topics Mr. Gibbens was addressing no later than August 29, 2016. (See document for further details.) Court Recorder: XTR 07/29/16. (sbou) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
532 JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND PLAINTIFFS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin, re

08/10/2016 08/11/2016 08/31/2016 09/01/2016 09/01/2016 09/06/2016 09/07/2016 10/07/2016
10/07/2016 10/07/2016
10/07/2016 10/07/2016

Stipulation 530 . (vdr) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
533 STIPULATION to Dismiss Defendant Korean Family Housing Corporation filed by Plaintiffs Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
534 ORDER by Judge Fernando M. Olguin that all claims asserted in this action against Owner−Defendant Korean Family Housing Corporation are dismissed with prejudice. This voluntary dismissal has no effect on the claims against other Defendants in the above−captioned action. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys fees 533 . (jp) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
535 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 494 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT IS ORDERED THAT defendant CRA/LA's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied. (vdr) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
536 ORDER RE: FURTHER PROCEEDINGS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Jury Trial set for 1/31/2017 at 8:15 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. *See order for dates, deadlines and requirements.* (vdr) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
537 ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (vdr) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
538 Joint STIPULATION for Order Extending Time to Complete Discovery filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
539 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS RE: JOINT APPLICATION 538 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Jury Trial continued to 2/28/2017 at 8:15 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. *See order for continued dates and deadlines.* (vdr) (Entered: 09/07/2016)
540 Joint STIPULATION to Exceed Page Limitation as to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees (and Stipulation regarding Extension of Time to Respond, Filing of Declarations Under Seal, and Filing of Time Records In Camera) filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Allowing Parties to Exceed Page Limitations)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
541 APPLICATION to file document Third−Party Declarations under seal filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Sealing Third−Party Declarations)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
542 SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document Third−Party Declarations under seal 541 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Document Third−Party Declarations Part 1, # 2 Unredacted Document Third−Party Declarations Part 2)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
543 APPLICATION for Leave for In Camera Review filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
544 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Motion set for hearing on 11/10/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Chart, # 2 Declaration of Michael G. Allen, # 3 Declaration of Dara L. Schur, # 4 Declaration of Maronel Barajas, # 5 Declaration of David G. Geffen, # 6 Declaration of Barrett S. Litt, # 7 Declaration of Richard M. Pearl, # 8 Declaration of Shanna L. Smith, # 9 Declaration of E. Desmond Hogan, # 10 Declaration of Susan Ann Silverstein, # 11 Declaration of Pamela S. Karlan, # 12 Declaration of Joseph D.

10/11/2016
10/11/2016 10/11/2016 10/12/2016
10/18/2016
10/19/2016 10/26/2016 10/27/2016 11/16/2016 11/25/2016 11/28/2016 12/01/2016
12/01/2016

Rich, # 13 Declaration of James R. Grow, # 14 Declaration of Tim Fox, # 15 Declaration of Stephanie Haffner, # 16 Declaration of Deborah Collins, # 17 Declaration Shawna Parks, # 18 Proposed Order) (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
545 ORDER by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: The Stipulation to Exceed Page Limitation as to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees 540 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' memorandum in support may be up to 55 pages in length. Defendant City of Los Angeles's memorandum in opposition may be up to 55 pages in length. IT IS SO ORDERED. (cw) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
546 ORDER by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: The Application to Seal Third−Party Declarations 541 is GRANTED. *See Order for details.* (cw) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
547 ORDER by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: The Application for Leave for In Camera Review 543 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to submit its time records in support of its Motion for Attorneys' Fees for in camera review. (cw) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
548 SEALED DOCUMENT Third−Party Declarations re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 544 , Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal 546 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California.(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
549 First STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response and Reply as to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 544 , First STIPULATION to Continue Hearing Date from November 10, 2016 to January 12, 2017 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heinrichs, Michael) (Entered: 10/18/2016)
550 ORDER ON STIPULATION 549 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Motion for Attorney's Fees 544 hearing is continued to 1/12/2017 at 10:00 AM; opposition by 11/14/2016; reply by 12/15/2016. (vdr) (Entered: 10/19/2016)
551 Joint STIPULATION for Order Extending Case Deadlines filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
552 ORDER ON STIPULATION 551 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Jury Trial is continued to 5/9/2017 at 8:15 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. *See order for continued dates and deadlines.* (vdr) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
553 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Attorney Fees,,, 544 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
554 STIPULATION to Continue Settlement Conference Deadline from November 25, 2016 to January 25, 2017 filed by defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Collins, Robert) (Entered: 11/25/2016)
555 ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION 554 TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DEADLINE 554 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Settlement Conference deadline of November 25, 2016, is continued to January 25, 2017. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
556 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Compel Limited Disclosure of Plaintiffs' Financial Documents filed by defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert M. Collins, # 2 Exhibit "A" to Declaration of Robert M. Collins, # 3 Exhibit "E" to Declaration of Robert M. Collins, # 4 Proposed Order)(Collins, Robert) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
557 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority of Exhibits B−D to Declaration of Robert M. Collins in Support of Defendant CRA's Ex Parte Application for Limited Disclosure of Plaintiffs' Financial Documents. (Collins, Robert) (Entered: 12/01/2016)

12/01/2016 12/02/2016 12/02/2016 12/02/2016 12/02/2016 12/05/2016 12/08/2016
12/20/2016 12/22/2016 01/04/2017

558 APPLICATION to file document Exhibits "B−D" to Declaration of Robert M. Collins in Support of Defendant CRA's Ex Parte Application for Order Permitting Limited Disclosure of Plaintiffs' Financial Documents under seal filed by Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Collins, Robert) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
559 SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document Exhibits "B−D" to Declaration of Robert M. Collins in Support of Defendant CRA's Ex Parte Application for Order Permitting Limited Disclosure of Plaintiffs' Financial Documents under seal 558 filed by Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Unredacted Ex. C to Declaration of Robert M. Collins)(Collins, Robert) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
560 SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document Exhibits "B−D" to Declaration of Robert M. Collins in Support of Defendant CRA's Ex Parte Application for Order Permitting Limited Disclosure of Plaintiffs' Financial Documents under seal 558 filed by Defendant Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit unredacted Ex D to Declaration of Robert M. Collins)(Collins, Robert) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
561 SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document Exhibits "B−D" to Declaration of Robert M. Collins in Support of Defendant CRA's Ex Parte Application for Order Permitting Limited Disclosure of Plaintiffs' Financial Documents under seal 558 filed by Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit unredacted part 1 of Ex. B to Declaration of Robert M. Collins)(Collins, Robert) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
562 SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document Exhibits "B−D" to Declaration of Robert M. Collins in Support of Defendant CRA's Ex Parte Application for Order Permitting Limited Disclosure of Plaintiffs' Financial Documents under seal 558 filed by Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit unredacted Part 2 of Ex. B to Robert M. Collins Declaration)(Collins, Robert) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
563 ORDER RE: EX PARTE APPLICATION 556 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The application is denied without prejudice. Defendant's Application to File Under Seal 558 is denied as moot. (vdr) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
564 NOTICE TO PARTIES by District Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Effective December 15, 2016, Judge Olguin will be located at the 1st Street Courthouse, COURTROOM 6D on the 6th floor, located at 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. All Court appearances shall be made in Courtroom 6D of the 1st Street Courthouse, and all mandatory chambers copies shall be hand delivered to the judge's mail box outside the Clerk's Office 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 DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/08/2016)
565 Joint STIPULATION for Order Extending Case Deadlines filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
566 ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION 565 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Jury Trial continued to 6/20/2017 at 8:30 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. *See order for continued dates and deadlines.* (vdr) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
567 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Maronel Barajas counsel for Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. Changing telephone to (626) 389−8277. Filed by Plaintiff Maronel Barajas. (Barajas, Maronel) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

01/05/2017
01/17/2017 01/17/2017 02/02/2017 02/03/2017 02/28/2017 03/20/2017 03/24/2017
03/24/2017
03/27/2017

568 NOTICE TO PARTIES by Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Effective, January 4, 2017, Judge Walsh will be located at the Roybal Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, COURTROOM 790 on the 7th floor, located at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. All Court appearances shall be made in Courtroom 790 of the Roybal Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, and all mandatory chambers copies shall be hand delivered to the judge's mail box located outside the Clerk's Office on the 1st floor of the Roybal Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse. Magistrate Judge Walsh's Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Isabel Martinez, may be reached at (213) 894−8958. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/05/2017)
569 REQUEST TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY Theresa L. Kitay in place of attorney William J. Goines of Greenberg Traurig. LLP filed by Defendant Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order On Request for Approval of Substitution of Attorney) (Attorney William Jeffrey Goines added to party Redrock NoHo Residential LLC(pty:crd), Attorney William Jeffrey Goines added to party Redrock NoHo Residential LLC(pty:crd)) (Goines, William) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
570 ORDER ON REQUEST 569 FOR APPROVAL OF SUBSTITUTION by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: granting 569 Request to Substitute Attorney Theresa L Kitay for Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, as attorney of record instead of Attorney Alice Chu and William Jeffrey Goines. (lom) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
571 Joint STIPULATION for Order to Extend Case Deadlines filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
572 ORDER RE: STIPULATION 571 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Jury Trial continued to 7/18/2017 at 8:30 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. *See order for continued dates and deadlines.* (vdr) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
573 NOTICE of Change of firm name and address by Roberto Lara attorney for Defendant 4651 Huntington, L.P.. Changing firm name to LARA & DAVIS LLP and address to 445 S. FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 3100, LOS ANGELES, CA 90071. Filed by Defendant 4651 Huntington, L.P.. (Lara, Roberto) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
574 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Chambers of Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Pursuant to the court's order of 2/3/2017 572 , the Status Report Re: Settlement is now tardy. Compliance with the court's order is due. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vdr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/20/2017)
575 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney D Scott Chang counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. D. Scott Chang is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. (Chang, D) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
576 Joint STIPULATION to Stay Case pending Settlement filed by Defendant/Cross−Defendant City of Los Angeles California, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Joint Application to Stay Action for Ninety Days to Finalize Settlement)(Attorney Robert Michael Collins added to party City of Los Angeles California(pty:crc), Attorney Robert Michael Collins added to party City of Los Angeles California(pty:dft))(Collins, Robert) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
577 ORDER GRANTING Joint Application and Stipulation to Stay Action for Ninety Days to Finalize Settlement 576 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (jp) (Entered: 03/27/2017)

04/21/2017 04/28/2017
06/09/2017 06/13/2017 07/26/2017 08/14/2017
08/16/2017 08/16/2017 08/16/2017 08/16/2017
08/16/2017 08/17/2017

578 G−06 Notice of Change of Attorney Business or Contact information filed by Defendant 901 South Broadway Street Limited Partnership (Benson, John) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
579 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Miscellaneous Document 578 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Notice of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information (G−06). 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. (lom) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
580 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Phillip A Baker counsel for Cross Defendant Penny Lane Centers. Changing Address to 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 5500, Los Angeles, CA 90071. Filed by Defendant Penny Lane Centers. (Baker, Phillip) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
581 NOTICE of Change of address by Theresa L Kitay attorney for Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − List of Represented Owner Defendants)(Kitay, Theresa) Modified on 6/13/2017 (vdr). (Entered: 06/13/2017)
582 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Status Conference set for 8/17/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (vdr) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
583 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Reed N. Colfax to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California (Pro Hac Vice Fee − Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−20346958) filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Application set for hearing on 8/17/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order) (Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
584 Joint STIPULATION to Continue August 17, 2017 Status Conference from August 17, 2017 to August 24, 2017 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
585 OBJECTIONS to Stipulation to Continue, 584 August 17, 2017 Status Conference filed by Defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership. (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
586 ORDER ON STIPULATION 584 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Status Conference is hereby continued to 8/24/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (vdr) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
587 NOTICE of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Pro Hac Vice Application RE: APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Reed N. Colfax to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California (Pro Hac 583 . The following error(s) was/were found: Hearing date set, but no hearing required. Local Rule 83−2.1.3.3(d) Certificate of Good Standing not attached for every state court listed to which the applicant has been admitted. (lt) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
589 ORDER ON APPLICATION OF NON−RESIDENT ATTORNEY TO APPEAR IN A SPECIFIC CASE PRO HAC VICE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: granting 583 Non−Resident Attorney Reed N. Colfax APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff, designating Autumn M. Elliott as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
588 Amendment to APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Reed N. Colfax to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California (Pro Hac 583 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living

08/22/2017 08/23/2017 08/24/2017 08/28/2017 09/06/2017 09/06/2017 09/07/2017
10/05/2017

Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement NM Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Supplement DC Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
590 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney David P. Kennison to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership (Pro Hac Vice Fee − Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−20389842) filed by Defendant Amistad Plaza Partner s Limited Partnership. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Snyder, Barry) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
591 ORDER ON APPLICATION OF NON−RESIDENT ATTORNEY TO APPEAR IN A SPECIFIC CASE PRO HAC VICE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: granting 590 Non−Resident Attorney David P. Kennison APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, designating Barry C. Snyder as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
592 MINUTES OF Status Conference held before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. A separate order re trial date and trial requirements shall be issued. Court Reporter: Lisa Gonzalez. (vdr) (Entered: 08/28/2017)
593 ORDER RE: FURTHER PROCEEDINGS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Jury Trial set for 11/28/2017 at 8:45 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. *See order for dates, deadlines and requirements set by the court.* (vdr) (Entered: 08/28/2017)
594 Joint STIPULATION for Judgment as to Pursuant to Settlement Agreement filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit A)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 09/06/2017)
595 Joint STIPULATION for Judgment as to Plaintiffs and Defendant CRA Pursuant to Settlement Agreement (Corrected) filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Proposed Judgment, # 2 Exhibit A − Settlement Agreement)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 09/06/2017)
596 JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CRA/LA, A DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, AND PLAINTIFFS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) For the purposes of this Judgment, the Court adopts the terms and definitions set forth in the Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit A, and all terms of the Settlement Agreement are incorporated herein by reference. (2) This Judgment Pursuant to Settlement completely resolves this civil action between the CRA and Plaintiffs. (SEE ATTACHMENT OF THIS JUDGMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS). (MD JS−6, Case Terminated). (Attachments: # 1 Part 2) (jp) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
597 Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs filed by Defendants 105 East I Street, L.P., 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, 4651 Huntington, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., 901 South Broadway Street Limited Partnership, Adams 935 LP, Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, B S Broadway Village II LP, Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC, Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, East LA Community Corporation, Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Far East Building, L.P., Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village LP, Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P., Hobart Heights Partners LP, Hoover Seniors LP, Imani FE LP, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Morgan Place LP, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., New Tierra Del Sol LP, Noho Senior Villas, L.P., Ol Hope, L.P., P G Housing Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Palomar Apartments, L.P., Penny Lane Centers, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman

10/10/2017 10/10/2017 10/11/2017 10/11/2017 10/11/2017 10/26/2017 11/02/2017 11/02/2017

Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., Stovall Housing Corporation, Vermont Seniors, WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership. Motion set for hearing on 11/2/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion) (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 10/05/2017)
598 JOINDER in Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs 597 Joinder of Rule 19 Owner Defendant Menlo Park in Joint Motion of Rule 19 Owner Defendants For Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendant Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership. (Plotkin, Leo) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
599 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Continue Hearing Date from Nov. 2, 2017 to Nov. 16, 2017 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Motion set for hearing on 11/16/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael G. Allen, # 2 Proposed Order) (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
600 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Christopher Kyle Mosqueda counsel for Defendant Penny Lane Centers. Adding Christopher K. Mosqueda as counsel of record for defendant PENNY LANE CENTERS for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant PENNY LANE CENTERS. (Attorney Christopher Kyle Mosqueda added to party Penny Lane Centers(pty:dft))(Mosqueda, Christopher) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
601 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Joinder in Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs 597 FED. R. CIV. P. 19 OWNER DEFENDANT PENNY LANE CENTERS JOINDER IN JOINT MOTION OF RULE 19 OWNER DEFENDANTS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS filed by defendant Penny Lane Centers. Motion set for hearing on 11/2/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Mosqueda, Christopher) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
602 ORDER GRANTING MOTION 599 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 597 hearing is reset to 11/16/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (vdr) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
603 PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO OWNER DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 597 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Allen, Michael) Modified on 11/2/2017 (vdr). (Entered: 10/26/2017)
604 REPLY in support of Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs 597 Reply Memorandum of Rule 19 Owner Defendant Menlo Park in Support of Joint Motion of Rule 19 Owner Defendants for Judgment on the Pleadings and Joinder of Menlo Park Therein filed by Defendant Menlo Park, a California Limited Partnership. (Plotkin, Leo) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
605 REPLY In Opposition Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs 597 filed by Defendants 105 East I Street, L.P., 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, 4651 Huntington, L.P., 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., 901 South Broadway Street Limited Partnership, Adams 935 LP, Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, B S Broadway Village II LP, Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC, Bronson Court Apartments LP, Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Far East Building, L.P., Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village LP, Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P., Hobart Heights Partners LP, Hoover Seniors LP, Imani FE LP, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Morgan Place LP, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., New Tierra Del Sol LP, Noho Senior Villas, L.P., Ol Hope, L.P., P G Housing Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp,

11/13/2017 12/11/2017 12/13/2017
01/04/2018 01/18/2018 01/22/2018

Palomar Apartments, L.P., Penny Lane Centers, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., Stovall Housing Corporation, Vermont Seniors, WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
606 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Chambers of Judge Fernando M. Olguin. On the court's own motion, the Motion for Judgment 597 on the Pleadings and Joinders 598 and 601 , are taken off the 11/16/2017 calendar and placed under submission. No appearances are required on 11/16/2017. An order with the court's ruling will issue. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vdr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/13/2017)
607 Joint STIPULATION for Judgment as to Plaintiffs and Defendant City of Los Angeles Pursuant to Corrected Settlement Agreement filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Corrected Judgment)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
608 AMENDED JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CORRECTED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND PLAINTIFFS 607 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. For the purposes of this Judgment, the Court adopts the terms and definitions set forth in the Corrected Settlement Agreement, and all terms of the Corrected Settlement Agreement are incorporated herein by reference. 2. This Corrected Judgment Pursuant to Settlement completely resolves this civil action between Plaintiffs and the City of Los Angeles but does not resolve this action between Plaintiffs and other defendants, including the CRA/LA, a Designated Local Authority, Successor to Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. 3. In accordance with the terms of the Corrected Settlement Agreement, this Court reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the terms of the Corrected Settlement Agreement during the Settlement Term, and to resolve any disputes that may arise during the Settlement Term. 4. The court determines that there is no reason to delay entry of this Judgment Pursuant to the Corrected Settlement Agreement By and Between the City of Los Angeles and Plaintiffs. IT IS SO ORDERED and ADJUDGED. (lom) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/18/2017: # 1 Corrected Settlement Agreement) (vdr). (Entered: 12/13/2017)
609 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION of Michael G. Allen, Reed N. Colfax, Jennifer I. Klar, John P. Relman, Laura Gaztambide−Arandes, Maronel Barajas, David Geffen, Dara Schur, Autumn Elliott, Srividya S. Panchalam to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley filed by Counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Motion set for hearing on 2/8/2018 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jennifer I. Klar, # 2 Proposed Order) (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 01/04/2018)
610 MINUTE (In Chambers) Order Re: Motion to Withdraw As Counsel 609 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: IT IS ORDERED as follows: (1) No later than 1/22/2018, counsel shall file a declaration under seal and in camera, describing the nature of the conflict and why counsel seeks to withdraw after more than five years on the case. (2) Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and/or defendants Opposition or Notice of Non−Opposition to counsel Motion must be filed and served no later than 1/29/2018. (3) Plaintiffs counsel shall file and serve a Reply Memorandum no later than 2/2/2018. (jp) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
611 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California, re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,, 610 served on 1/18/2018. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 01/22/2018)

01/22/2018 01/26/2018
01/31/2018 02/06/2018 02/06/2018 02/07/2018 02/08/2018 02/08/2018 02/14/2018

612 NOTICE filed by Defendant Amistad Plaza Partners Limited Partnership. (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 01/22/2018)
613 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION of Michael G. Allen, Reed N. Colfax, Jennifer I. Klar, John P. Relman, Laura Gaztambide−Arandes, Maronel Barajas, David Geffen, Dara Schur, Autumn Elliott, Srividya S. Panchalam to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff Fai 609 filed by Defendants 12129 El Dorado Avenue LP, 505 Bonnie Brae Partners, L.P., Adams 935 LP, Amcal Montecito Fund, L.P., Andalucia Senior Apartments, L.P., Ardmore 959 Partners LP, Asturias Senior Apartments LP, B S Broadway Village II LP, Behringer Harvard Noho, LLC, Buckingham Senior Apartments, L.P., Cantabria Senior Apartments LP, Carondelet Court Partners LP, Central Village Apartments LP, Decro Orion Apartments LP, Decro Osborne Apartments LP, East LA Community Corporation, Eastside Village, L.P., Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Eugene Hotel LP, Fame West 25th Street LP, Far East Building, L.P., Grandview Nine, L.P., Hart Village LP, Heavenly Vision Senior Housing, L.P., Hobart Heights Partners LP, Hoover Seniors LP, Las Margaritas, L.P., Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Los Cuatro Vientos, L.P., Morgan Place LP, New Genesis Apartments, L.P., Noho Senior Villas, L.P., Ol Hope, L.P., P G Housing Partners LP, Palm Village Senior Housing Corp, Palomar Apartments, L.P., Rampart Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, Redrock NoHo Residential LLC, Renato Apartments, L.P., Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, Selma−Hudson Community Limited Partnership, Seven Maples, L.P., Sherman Village Apartments, L.P., Sherman Way Community Housing, L.P., Stovall Housing Corporation, Vermont Seniors, WA Court LP, Watts Athens Preservation XVII LP, West Angeles Villas, L.P., Western Carlton II, L.P., Yale Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership. (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 01/26/2018)
614 NOTICE of Related Case(s) United States of America. Related Case(s): 2:11−cv−00974−PSG (JCx) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Palombo, Lisa) (Entered: 01/31/2018)
615 Defendant CRA/LA's Opposition to Government's Notice of Related Cases filed by Defendant CRA LA Designated Local Authority re: Notice of Related Case(s) 614 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Johnston Decl)(Johnston, Pamela) (Entered: 02/06/2018)
616 NOTICE of Entry of Special Appearance filed by Counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 02/06/2018)
617 NOTICE of Entry of Special Appearance filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 02/07/2018)
618 MINUTES OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF SAN FERNANDO VALLEY 609 held before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The court hears from counsel concerning the pending motion. Although the court questions whether a noticed motion was required pursuant to the court's form G−01, the court finds good cause for withdrawal and tentatively grants the motion. A separate order with the court's ruling will issue. Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (iv) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
619 AMENDED MINUTES held before Judge Fernando M. Olguin Re: Minutes of Motion Hearing 618 . (vdr) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
620 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT IS ORDERED THAT Counsel's Motion to Withdraw (Document No. 609 ) is granted. All counsel from Relman, Dane & Colfax PLLC, Disability Rights California, Disability Rights Legal Center, and the David Geffen Law Firm shall be relieved of representing plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley. The Clerk shall terminate said counsel from representation of only plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley. (iv) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

07/03/2018 07/05/2018 09/28/2018 10/22/2018 10/23/2018
11/20/2018 11/21/2018 11/26/2018 11/27/2018 02/08/2019 02/15/2019 04/01/2019 05/06/2019

621 Joint STIPULATION for Order Regarding Court Appointment of Settlement Monitor filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A − Resume of Bill Lann Lee, # 3 Exhibit B − City of LA Travel Policy)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 07/03/2018)
622 ORDER RE: APPOINTMENT OF SETTLEMENT MONITOR FOR SETTLEMENT WITH CITY OF LOS ANGELES by Judge Fernando M. Olguin, re Stipulation 621 . (vdr) (Main Document 622 replaced on 7/12/2018) (vdr). (Entered: 07/05/2018)
623 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Joint Motion of Rule 19 Owner Defendants for Judgment on the Pleadings 597 is denied. Menlo Park's Joinder 598 and Penny Lane's Joinder 601 are denied as moot. (iv) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
624 Joint STIPULATION for Order Regarding Court Appointment of Settlement Monitor filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A − Resume of Bill Lann Lee)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/22/2018)
625 ORDER RE: APPOINTMENT OF SETTLEMENT MONITOR FOR SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANT CRA/LA, A DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES 624 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Bill Lann Lee shall serve as Court−appointed Monitor under the terms of the Judgment on the Settlement Agreement entered in this case. (iv) (Main Document 625 replaced on 10/24/2018) (vdr). (Entered: 10/23/2018)
626 Joint STIPULATION for Order Regarding Deadlines for Monitor's Reports filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 11/20/2018)
627 ORDER RE: DEADLINES FOR MONITOR'S REPORTS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin, Re: Stipulation 626 . (vdr) (Entered: 11/21/2018)
628 REQUEST TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY Theresa L. Kitay in place of attorney Mark Jason Austin filed by Defendant Imani FE LP. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Substitution of Counsel) (Attorney Theresa Lynne Kitay added to party Imani FE LP(pty:dft)) (Kitay, Theresa) (Entered: 11/26/2018)
629 ORDER ON REQUEST 628 FOR APPROVAL OF SUBSTITUTION OR WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Court hereby orders that the request of: Imani FE LP, Defendant, to substitute Theresa L. Kitay as attorney of record instead of Mark Jason Austin / Megan Kathleen is GRANTED. (iv) (Entered: 11/28/2018)
630 NOTICE of Change of address by Maronel Barajas attorney for Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. Changing attorneys address to 350 S. Grand Ave. Suite 2010, Los Angeles CA, 90071. Filed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Barajas, Maronel) (Entered: 02/08/2019)
631 STATUS REPORT re: Monitor's Semi−Annual Report filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Part 1 (pp. 1−250), # 2 Appendix Part 2 (pp. 251−492))(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 02/15/2019)
632 STATUS REPORT re: Monitor's 2018 Semi−Annual Report filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Part 1 (pp. 1−17), # 2 Appendix Part 2 (pp. 18−33), # 3 Appendix Part 3 (pp. 34−93), # 4 Appendix Part 4 (pp. 94−180), # 5 Appendix Part 5 (pp. 181−376))(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 04/01/2019)
633 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Michael G Allen counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Laura Gaztambide−Arandes 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 Communities Actively Living

08/15/2019 09/17/2019 10/02/2019 10/02/2019
10/02/2019
10/04/2019 10/10/2019
10/16/2019 10/21/2019 11/07/2019 11/07/2019 11/07/2019

Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
634 STATUS REPORT re Monitor's Semi−Annual Report for Jan.−June 2019 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Part 1 (pp. 1−373), # 2 Appendix Part 2 (pp. 374−780))(Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 08/15/2019)
635 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: STATUS CONFERENCE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Counsel for the parties shall appear at a status conference on October 31, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6D of the First Street Courthouse. (iv) (Entered: 09/17/2019)
636 STATUS REPORT re: Monitor's 2019 Semi−Annual Report filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
637 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Zachary Genduso counsel for Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. Adding Zachary Joseph Genduso as counsel of record for Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al.. (Attorney Zachary Genduso added to party Independent Living Center of Southern California(pty:pla))(Genduso, Zachary) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
638 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Amethyst R Thormann counsel for Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. Adding Amethyst R. Thormann as counsel of record for Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al.. (Attorney Amethyst R Thormann added to party Independent Living Center of Southern California(pty:pla))(Thormann, Amethyst) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
639 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Maronel Barajas counsel for Plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. Maronel Barajas is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Barajas, Maronel) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
640 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Jeffery Christopher Elder counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles California. Adding Jeffery C. Elder as counsel of record for City of Los Angeles for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attorney Jeffery Christopher Elder added to party City of Los Angeles California(pty:dft))(Elder, Jeffery) (Entered: 10/10/2019)
641 STATUS REPORT on behalf of all parties filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
642 ORDER 641 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Status Conference shall be continued to December 5, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. (iv) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
643 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. Motion set for hearing on 12/5/2019 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 11/07/2019)
644 MEMORANDUM in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Judgment 643 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 11/07/2019)
645 DECLARATION of Autumn Elliott In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Judgment 643 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit

11/13/2019
11/14/2019 11/14/2019 11/14/2019 11/14/2019 11/21/2019 11/21/2019 11/21/2019 11/21/2019 11/21/2019 11/26/2019 11/26/2019

E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 11/07/2019)
646 Notice of Electronic Filing re Order, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings 642 , Status Report 641 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Judgment 643 , Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G−123), 640 , Status Report 636 , Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G−123),, 637 , Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G−123), 639 , Memorandum in Support of Motion 644 , Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G−123),, 638 , Declaration (Motion related), 645 e−mailed to Anthony Todero bounced due to '550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound. The primary e−mail address associated with the attorney record has been deleted. Pursuant to Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (lmh) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/13/2019)
647 OPPOSITION in opposition to re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Judgment 643 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Elder, Jeffery) (Entered: 11/14/2019)
648 DECLARATION of JEFFERY ELDER re Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 647 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Elder, Jeffery) (Entered: 11/14/2019)
649 DECLARATION of SHARON LOWE re Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 647 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Elder, Jeffery) (Entered: 11/14/2019)
650 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles California. INDEX OF EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO ELDER AND LOWE DECLARATIONS as to Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 647 . (Elder, Jeffery) (Entered: 11/14/2019)
651 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles California. correcting Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 647 (Elder, Jeffery) (Entered: 11/21/2019)
652 CORRECTED OPPOSITION in opposition to re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Judgment 643 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Elder, Jeffery) (Entered: 11/21/2019)
653 REPLY in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Judgment 643 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 11/21/2019)
654 DECLARATION of Autumn Elliot re Reply (Motion related) 653 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 11/21/2019)
655 OBJECTIONS to Declaration, 649 of Sharon Lowe in Support of Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 11/21/2019)
656 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Chambers of Judge Fernando M. Olguin. On the court's own motion, the Status Conference, and hearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement 643 are continued to 12/6/2019 at 2:00 PM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (cw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/26/2019)
657 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Maronel Barajas counsel for Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. Maronel Barajas is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. (Barajas, Maronel) (Entered: 11/26/2019)

11/26/2019 12/03/2019 12/03/2019 12/04/2019 12/12/2019 12/19/2019 12/20/2019 12/20/2019
12/20/2019
12/20/2019
01/10/2020 01/14/2020

658 RESPONSE filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles Californiato Status Report, 634 FOR STATUS CONFERENCE (Elder, Jeffery) (Entered: 11/26/2019)
659 STATUS REPORT filed by Mediator Bill Lann Lee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Fox, Timothy) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
660 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern Californiato Response 658 , Status Report, 634 (Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
661 ORDER by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Status Conference and Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Judgment 643 are continued to 12/12/2019 at 10:00 a.m. *See Order for details.* (cw) (Entered: 12/04/2019)
662 MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE; MOTION TO ENFORCE JUGMENT held before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The court hears from counsel, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Fox regarding the status of the parties'compliance with the Court's order of December 13, 2017. The motion is taken under submission; a separate order will issue. Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (iv) (Entered: 12/13/2019)
663 ORDER RE: FURTHER PROCEEDINGS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The motion 643 is tentatively granted for the reasons stated on the record. *See Order for Details.* (iv) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
664 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Maronel Barajas counsel for Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley. Maronel Barajas is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by plaintiff Fair Housing Counsel of San Fernando Valley. (Barajas, Maronel) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
665 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Zachary Genduso counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Changing address to 1541 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400, Los Angeles CA 90017. Filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attorney Zachary Genduso added to party Communities Actively Living Independent and Free(pty:pla))(Genduso, Zachary) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
666 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Amethyst R Thormann counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Changing address to 1541 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400, Los Angeles CA 90017. Filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attorney Amethyst R Thormann added to party Communities Actively Living Independent and Free(pty:pla))(Thormann, Amethyst) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
667 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Christopher H Knauf counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Adding Christopher Hans Knauf as counsel of record for Independent Living Center of Southern California, Communities Actively Living Independent & Free for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. (Attorney Christopher H Knauf added to party Communities Actively Living Independent and Free(pty:pla), Attorney Christopher H Knauf added to party Independent Living Center of Southern California(pty:pla))(Knauf, Christopher) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
668 Joint STIPULATION for Order Regarding Deadline for Joint Status Report filed by defendant City of Los Angeles California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Elder, Jeffery) (Entered: 01/10/2020)
669 ORDER REGARDING DEADLINE FOR JOINT STATUS REPORT 668 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. It is hereby ordered that the Order Re: Further Proceedings, Dec. 19. 2019, ECF No. 663 (Order) is amended to provide that the Joint Status Report be filed no later than January 28, 2020. (lom) (Entered: 01/14/2020)

01/28/2020
01/28/2020 02/05/2020
02/06/2020 02/07/2020 02/10/2020 02/28/2020 03/27/2020 03/31/2020
04/15/2020 05/11/2020

670 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Michael G Allen counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Changing firm name to Relman Colfax PLLC. Filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 01/28/2020)
671 STATUS REPORT from Monitor filed by Mediator Bill Lann Lee. (Elliott, Autumn) (Entered: 01/28/2020)
672 Joint STIPULATION for Disbursement of Funds to Counsel for ILCSC and CALIF for Retrospective Monitoring Fees for the Period September 5, 2016 Through September 30, 2019 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 02/05/2020)
673 ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION FOR PAYMENT OF RETROSPECTIVE MONITORING FEES TO COUNSEL FOR ILCSC AND CALIF 672 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. *See Order for dates and requirements.* (iv) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
674 Joint STIPULATION for Leave to Not File The Monitor's February 2020 Semi−Annual REPORT filed by Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re: Leave Not to File the Monitor's February 2020 Semi−Annual Report)(Iyalomhe, David) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
675 ORDER RE: LEAVE NOT TO FILE THE MONITOR'S FEBRUARY 2020 SEMI−ANNUAL REPORT 674 by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. *See Order for dates and requirements.* (et) (Entered: 02/11/2020)
676 SUPPLEMENT to Status Report 671 filed by Mediator Bill Lann Lee. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 02/28/2020)
677 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL STATUS REPORT by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. No later than April 15, 2020, the Monitor shall file a Supplemental Status Report. (iv) (Entered: 03/27/2020)
678 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Christopher H Knauf counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Independent Living Center of Southern California. Zachary Joseph Genduso is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by plaintiff Independent Living Center of Southern California, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. (Knauf, Christopher) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
679 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT of MONITOR filed by Mediator Bill Lann Lee. (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 04/15/2020)
680 MONITOR'S SEMI−ANNUAL REPORT of CRA/LA FOR REPORTING PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2019 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2019 filed by Mediator Bill Lann Lee. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 05/11/2020)