1 CAROL A. SOBEL SBN 84483 LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
2 429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Ste. 550 Santa Monica, California 90401
3 t.310 393-3055; f. 310 393-3605 e. carolsobel@aol.com
4
ROBERT MANN SBN 48293 5 DONALD W. COOK SBN 116666
SAMANTIL4 KOERNER SBN 173372
6 Anojtys AT LAW
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900 7 Los Angeles, California 90010
t. (213) 252-9444 8 e. roberffmannsbcglobal .net

0"1-4J=

C 2 -C -v

'rIa1i

C-4

9 ROBERT M. MYERS SBN
NEWMAN.AARONSON.VMAMSJ4
10 1400 1 Ventura Boulevard
Sherman Oaks, California 11 t. 818 990-7722; f. 818
e. rmmyersgix.netcprn•co
12

BARRETT S. LITT SBN 455527 LITT, ESTUAR, HARRIS & KITSON, 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite Los Angeles, California 90010 t. 213 386-3114; f. e. blitt(thlittlaw.com

NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD

13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs - Additional counselon next page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA- WESTERN DIVISION

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS CASE NO: CV ORGANIZING NETWORK, an unincorporated

association, COALITION FOR HUMANE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS LOS ANGELES,
KOREAN IMMIGRANT WORKERS

LAc' C9IN: 74

ALLIANCE, IDEPSCA, PILIPINO WORKERS

CENTER, GARMENT WORKERS CENTER,
as injunctive relief plaintiffs only; KEVIN BRESLIN, MARIO CUELLAR, DAVID GABRIEL ENG, LUIS GAL VEZ, GERARDO GOMEZ, JORGE LOPEZ, JAIME

FOURTH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION DUE PROCESS
CALIF CIVIL CODE §52.1

i MALDONADO, LEOPOLD ORTIZ, ROMUARDO PEDRO, JEREMY ROTHEKUSCHEL,ESTER NAVARRETE PLATA, MARIA ESTER TEJADA, individually, and as class representatives,
Plaintiffs, vs.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a Municipal Corporation; WILLIAM BRATFON, CAYLER CARTER, LOUTS GRAYand DOES 1 through

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

10, in their official and individual capacities.

28 pj

Defendants.

1 CYNTHIA VALENZUELA SBN 186804 CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER

ANNABELLA GONZALVES SBN 183258 SBN 175764

2 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE and EDUCATIONAL FUND

Attorney at Law
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900

3 634 S. Spring Street, 1 1°' Floor

Los Angeles, California 90010

Los Angeles, California 90014

t. 213 381-3246; f. 213 252-0091

4 t. 213 629-2512; f. 213 629-0266

e. cablaw@hotmail.com

5 JORGE GONZALEZ SBN 100799 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
6 P. 0. Box 2739 San Gabriel, California 91778-2739
7 t. 213 670-0063
8
9
10
ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ SBN 51443 11 LAW OFFICE OF ANTONIO H.
RODRIGUEZ
12 5429 E. Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90022
13 t. 323 869-9909; f. 323 869-9911

PAUL L. HOFFMAN SBN 71244
BEN SCHONBRUN SBN 118323 JAMES DeSIMONE SBN 119668 DO KIM SBN 231038 SCHONBRUN, DE SIMONE, SEPLOW, HARRIS & HOFFMAN 760 Ocean Front Walk Venice, California t. 310 360-7136; f.
e. hoffpaulaol.com
OLU ORANGE SBN 213653 ORANGE LAW OFFICES 6080 Center Drive, Sixth Floor Los Angeles, California 90045 t. 310 815-8600; f. 775 416-9221 e. o.orangeorangelawoffice.com

14 GUILLERMO SUAREZ SBN 181893
BUFETE JURIDICO LAW OFFICES 15 5441 E. Beverly Boulevard, #D
Los Angeles, California 90022 16 t. 323 722-6100; f. 323 722-6114
e. Mexiclaw@aol.com
17

CHRIS FORD SBN 239376 LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS FORD 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, California 90010-2015 t. 213 487-8000; f. 213 487-8001 e. cfordlawearthlink.net

18 REBECCA F. THORNTON SBN 231128 429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550
19 Santa Monica, California 90401
t. 310 393-3055, 310 393-3605
20 e. rebeeeaLW.humanri2htsesa .com

21

22

23

24

25
26

27

28

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

1. Plaintiffs bring this action for declaratory relief, injunctive relief and

3 damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to

4 the United States Constitution; Article I, § 2, 3, 7 and 13 of the California

5 Constitution; and California Civil Code § 52.1. Jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 6 1331, 1343, and 1367.

7

2. Venue is proper in the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. §

8 1391(b). Defendants reside in the Central District, and the acts or omissions

9 complained of herein have occurred in the Central District.

10

11

FACTS

12

3. This action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief restraining the Los

13 Angeles Police Department ("LAPD") from disrupting the exercise of First

14 A.mendnient rights in public assemblies and marchesthrough the unlawful dispersal

15 of permitted assemblies, unreasonably using and unreasonably threatening to use 16 "less-lethal" munitions to disperse peaceful demonstrators, unreasonably using and 17 unreasonably threatening to use baton strikes against peacefl.il and dispersing

18 demonstrators, unreasonably using and unreasonablythreatening to use motorcycles

19 against peaceful demonstrators as a means of crowd control, unreasonably using and 20 unreasonably threatening to use other forms of physical force against peaceful and
21 dispersing demonstrators, all without any warning, a deficient and improper

22 declaration of an unlawful assembly and insufficient time tocomply with the patently

23 unlawful order to disperse. So, even if there were some arguable justification for

24 declaring an unlawful assembly in this instance — and there was not — the police

25 action on May Day in MacArthur Park violated the law inevery possible respect.

26

4. This action also asks for damages to compensate plaintiffs and the classthey

27

28

1 seek to represent for violations of their First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment

2 rights (and corollary state rights), caused by policies, practices and customs of the

3 Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD") and the City of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs

4 and the class they seek to represent were peaceful protestors, members of the media,

5 delegates, legal observer, persons lawfully enjoying the use of MacArthur Park and

6 other persons (hereafter collectively "peaceful participants") who were injured after 7 the LAPD purportedly declared an assembly they were attending or nearby to

8 unlawful, shot plaintiffs with "less-lethal" projectiles, hit them with batons and

9 otherwise used force against them and injured them while they attempted to disperse.

10

5. The events giving rise to this action occurred at approximately 6:15 p.m.

11 during a permitted immigrants' rights march and rally on May 1 in MacArthur Park,

12 located at Wilshire Boulevard and Alvarado Boulevard.

13

6. On May 1, 2007, the Multi-ethnic Immigrant Worker Organizing Network

14 ("MIWON") conducted a march and rally, beginning at approximately 2 p.m. at

15 Vermont Avenue and Third Street, traveling through multi-ethnic communities along

16 Olympic Boulevard, then north on Alvarado Boulevard to a scheduled rally in

17 MacArthur Park. The event was permitted to continue until 9:00 p.m. The marchers

18 began on the sidewalks, as required by their permit, but by the time the group reached

19 Olympic and Vermont, the number of marchers was so great that the police then

20 closed two lanes of traffic to facilitate the march. The main rally was held at the

21 soccer field in MacArthur Park, located in the northwest quadrant of the Park.

22 Approximately 5,000 people participated in the march. Prior to the event, MIWON

23 obtained a permit from the City of Los Angeles and met several times with

24 representatives of the LAPD to work out the details of the planned demonstration.

25

7. At approximately 6:17 p.m., on May 1, 2007, an announcement was made

26 from a helicopter that the permitted rally had been declared an unlawful assembly and

27

28

-2-

I those present were ordered to disperse. The announcement was inaudible to most of

2 those in the park, including the LAPD officerspresent. Radio traffic between LAPD 3 officers indicated thatmany of them could not hear the order and were not sure that

4 a declaration of an unlawful assembly had been made. The order given was in

5 English only, even though many, if not most, of the people in the park did not

6 understand English. In addition to members of the media, legal observers from the

7 National Lawyers Guild and peaceful participants in the assembly, families from the

8 surrounding neighborhood were using the park facilities. Even for those who spoke

9 English and heard the garbled order, there was no direction as to how to disperse

10 other than to leave the park. As a result, chaos ensuedas people began to run, and the

11 police began to chase them, indiscriminately shooting less-lethalmunitions and using

12 baton strikes against the media, peaceful participants in the First Amendment

13 assembly, women with their children, and others lawfully using the Park.

14

8. The pretext for the LAPD's action was the purported behavior of a small

15 number of individuals who reacted to the sudden presence of riot-gear clad officers 16 — their identities obscured by face shields and vests and other equipment covering 17 their badges —with weapons drawn at what had been a peaceful and lawifil assembly

18 for nearly an hour before the appearance of the officers along Alvarado on the east

19 side of the Park. These few individuals posed no harm to any police officers or

20 civilians, at worst threw a few empty water bottles, paper and oranges at police, and

21 were in an area away from the bulk of the persons assembled, and could easily have

22 been isolated from the peaceful participants gathered in thesoccer field. Rather than

23 isolating and dealing with the small number ofpeople who were throwing things,

24 LAPD declared the entire gathering an "unlawful assembly" and ordered all of the

25 peaceful participants to disperse. There was no lawful justification for this police
26 action as even the limited response of a few persons to the earlier police

27

28

1 demonstration of force had ended approximately 30 minutes before the police swept

2 through the park, assaulting anyone in their path.

3

9. Shortly after the march first arrived at the MacArthur Park rally site at

4 approximately 5:00 p.m., the LAPD made a show of force with officers positioned
5 across the west end of Wilshire near Park View. The officers wore riot helmets with

6 face shields down and batons drawn. Victor Narro, who had obtained the permit for
7 the event and met with the police in the weeks before the event to discuss its

8 implementation, was told by Defendant Deputy Chief Carter to move the 9 demonstrators off the street or the police would do it. As the demonstration

10 organizers began to move the remaining marchers into the park, riot-gear clad officers

11 with batons drawn began marching east on Wilshire toward the demonstrators. The

12 marchers in the street were delayed in entering the park because the sidewalk was

13 crowded with families and other marchers who stopped to watch the police line.

14 After advancing approximately 50 to 100 feet, the police stopped. Over the next 5

15 to 10 minutes, the marchers continued to move into the park and clear the street.

16 When nearly all of the marchers had left the street, the police then returned to their

17 prior position at Park Viçw and Wilshire Boulevard.

18

10. Organizers of the rally attempted to cooperate with LAPD to ensure the

19 lawful assembly would continue. Only a handfl.il of individuals remained in the

20 street. At the request of Deputy Chief Carter, a representative of the rally organizers

21 utilized the amplification system on a police vehicle to advise the few individuals still

22 in the street to enter the park. The vehicle was parked behind the police line. All but

23 approximately two dozen individuals complied with the order. The remaining

24 persons in the street were isolated and isolatable from the lawful assembly, which

25 continued peacefully.

26

11. It took a considerable time for all of the thousands of marchers to reach the

27

28

1 Park. The last group of marchers were the Aztec dancers, who have participated in 2 nearly every major march and rally in the City for thepast several years. The dancers

3 are predominantly women and children. When the Aztec dancers reached MacArthur

4 Park, they closed the march with a symbolic dance circle in Alvarado. As they 5 engaged in their traditional dances on May 1 at approximately 5:30 to 5:40 p.m. in 6 Alvarado Boulevard, LAPD motorcycle officers used theirmotorcycles as a means 7 of crowd control, riding their vehicles into the marchers and thosegathered to watch
8 them, which included many women and small children. At about the same time, riot9 gear clad officers moved in on foot and shoved the group with batons even as the 10 peaceful dancers and onlookers repeatedly stated that they were moving as directed. ii All ofthis was done without warning and without sufficient opportunity for the Aztec 12 dancers to collect their drums and other property. Although the people were angry
13 with the police action, they complied with orders, stepping on to the sidewalk 14 adjacent to Alvarado.

15

12. At approximately 6:00 p.m., the policepresence began to build even more

16 on Alvarado Boulevard between 7th Street and Wilshire Boulevard, forming a near

17 solid line of officers in the street. Several hundred people were gathered on the

18 public sidewalk and the adjoining grass, watching the police line. The police then 19 ordered everyone to get off the public sidewalk and move onto the grass. As those 20 in the park watched, additional officers arrived and lined Alvarado.

21

13. At approximately 6:15 p.m., still more officers in riotgear appeared along

22 7th Street, south of the park. The pretext for this increased police presence was to

23 address a small group of demonstrators who were "taunting" the police but inreality 24 the deliberate intention of the LAPD was to break up a lawful demonstration. The

25 police could readily have isolated this group and removed them from the Park.

26 Instead, the police pushed the supposed "agitators" into those lawfully assembled in
27

28

1 the park. As the peaceful participants simply stood in the park, behind the sidewalk, 2 the police line at 7th Street and Alvarado began moving north into the park. At this

3 point in time, no dispersal order had been given and no objects had been thrown at

4 the police other than a single can that LAPD radio transmissions minimized and

5 stated fell far short of striking an officer. With riot helmets on, batons drawn and

6 rifles aimed to shoot less-lethal munitions, the officers advanced on the peaceful

7 participants. As they neared the peaceful participants, the officers used their batons 8 to shove anyone in their path and to hit people with batons, indiscriminately.

9

14. As the line of police officers advanced, people began to walk away from

10 them. The line of officers had advanced only a few feet into the park when several

11 officers began shooting foam batons and other munitions at the people in front of

12 them. In response, nearly everyone in the area began to run. Some of the children

13 who had been in the park began crying as they ran with their mothers to escape the

14 shots being fired.

15

15. Dozens of individuals were shot at close range as officers simply unloaded

16 their weapons at anyone in the area. At the same time, officers shoved and struck

17 virtually anyone with whom they came in contact. The indiscriminate actions of the

18 officers were exemplified when they came upon a homeless man who had been

19 sleeping in the park. Officers grabbed him, dragged him to his feet, then started

20 shoving and hitting him to force him to leave the park.

21

16. Only after the police line had assaulted the peaceful participants for several

22 minutes was any announcement made of an "unlawful assembly." The announcement

23 was made from a helicopter overhead. The purported announcement was largely

24 unintelligible, particularly with the noise of the helicopter compounded by the

25 screaming and crying of the peaceful participants who were being shot, beaten and 26 shoved by the line officers. Many ofthose present, including LAPD officers, did not

27

28

-6-

1 hear the announcement. The announcement was made only in English, despite the 2 fact that both the neighborhood where the rally was held and most of the rally

3 participants are primarily Spanish-speaking immigrants. Finally, the announcement

4 gave no directions regarding dispersal other than to declare an "unlawful assembly."

5

17. The police line continued to sweep north, crossing Wilshire Boulevard.

6 As the officers moved north, anyone in their path was the target of baton strikes and

7 other force as the officers continued to fire less-lethal rounds indiscriminately into the

8 crowd. While the peaceful participants ran in an attempt to elude the projectiles and

9 baton strikes, lines ofofficers blocked Alvarado and WilshireBoulevards, preventing 10 people from leaving the park to the north or the east, forcing some individuals back

11 toward the advancing officers who were using force. Although the LAPD officers

12 were forcing people out of the park on to 6th Street, the LAPD didnot stop vehicular

13 traffic on 6th Street, creating a dangerous situation for peaceful participants as they

14 attempted to comply with some unknown orders to disperse. In one incident, a car

15 traveling on 6th Street stopped short to avoid hitting a woman attempting to flee with 16 one of her children in tow.

17

18. During the time that the LAPD was engaging in this riotous conduct

18 against peaceful participants, a small group of demonstrators, numbering no more

19 than a dozen or so, occupied the northeast corner of the intersection of 6th and

20 Alvarado. In response to the earlier incident in which the police rode their

21 motorcycles into the Aztec dancers, the group chanted at the police in the intersection

22 and lobbed empty water bottles and small objects in the direction of the police. With

23 approximately 600 officers on hand, the LAPD outnumbered this small group of

24 demonstrators nearly 15 to 1, yet no attempt was made to isolate thegroup and permit
25 the lawful assembly to continue. Instead, the LAPD used an unwarranted and

26 unlawful show of force against peaceful participants to intimidate them intoforegoing
27

28

-7-

1 the lawful exercise of their First Amendment rights.

2

19. At or around this same time, a man in a motorized wheelchair entered the

3 intersection twice to criticize the police. Officers at one point pinned the man's hands 4 behind his back, but then released him.

5

20. LAPD officers chased hundreds of people assembled in the park,

6 regardless of whether they had engaged in any unlawful activity, participated in the

7 rally, or simply come to the park for fresh air with their children, hitting them with 8 baton, shooting them with so-called "less lethal" munitions, including foam batons

9 and sponge rounds designed to incapacitate the target, and driving all in their path,

10 including those not participating in the march, from the Park. LAPD officers did not

11 use such force to effectuate arrest, overcome resistence to arrest, or in self-defense.

12 The peaceful participants did not resist arrest, attempt to escape arrest, use force upon

13 any person, or threaten to use force upon any person.

14

21. LAPD officers fired their "less lethal" weapons indiscriminately into the

15 people in the park, aiming at and striking in the upper torsos of peaceful participants,

16 contrary to manufacturer's warnings. Although the munitions used on May Day were

17 "target specific," as opposed to the "stinger" rounds used at demonstrations in the

18 past, virtually none of the "targets" had committed any unlawful act, justifying such

19 use of force. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that LAPD

20 officers deliberately fired at the upper torsos of peaceful participants, based on their

21 training and with the approval of LAPD command staff. But even if the officers had

22 done nothing more than shoot indiscriminately at the lower torso area of the adults,

23 that put them in direct range of the upper torsos and heads of the children in the park.

24 It was sheer luck that no child was struck with a projectile given the indiscriminate

25 deployment of more than 140 rounds of less-lethal munitions at a peaceful, fleeing 26 assembly. Despite their denomination as "less-lethal", such weapons have the

27

28

-8-

1 potential to cause death or great bodily injury under certain circumstances. The
2 manufacturer's specifications describe these munitions as designed for the
3 incapacitation of aggressive, non-compliant subjects and designed to inflict serious
4 pain.

5

22. There was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that

6 peaceful participants posed an immediate or credible threat of injury to police or any 7 other person.

8

23. As they swept through the Parkremoving everyone in sight, LAPD officers

9 deliberately singled out peaceful participants who were members of the media,

10 attempting to report on the actions of the police, and subjected them to the same 11 brutal force as was directed to anyone in the path of the LAPD.

12

24. Hundreds of peaceful participants including men, women, and children,

13 who had been engaged in no criminal activity— and who were attempting to comply

14 with the LAPD's legally deficient orders todisperse — were physically injured as they 15 were shot with foam batons, struck with batons and/or shoved by the advancing
16 police lines.

17

25. Plaintiffs are informed and believe andon that basis allege that the conduct

18 complained of herein was undertakenpursuant to the policies, practices and customs

19 of the LAPD, an agency of the City of Los Angeles, and the City of Los Angeles and

20 ratified by defendants.

21

22 THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN NA TIONAL LAWYERS GUILD

23

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

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

25 6877 FMC (Cwx), an action arising from thedisruption of lawful assemblies and use

26 of unlawful force, including the use of less-lethal munitions, during the Democratic

27

28

1 National Convention ("DNC") in Los Angeles in 2000 and a subsequent

2 demonstration on October 22, 2000. The settlement provided for six changes in the

3 policy and practices of the LAPD as applied to demonstrations. At least four of those

4 provisions were violated in this instance.

5

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

6 demonstrators, while participating in lawful assemblages, are not to be prevented 7 from using public sidewalks adjacent to a lawful march route.

8

28. The terms of the settlement also expressly provide that LAPD officers are

9 not to use their motorcycles as a weapon of crowd control against peaceful

10 demonstrators.

ii

29. The terms of the settlement also expressly provide that less lethals may

12 only be deployed on "aggresive and/or combative suspects in a crowd control

13 situation, on suspects who are a potential physical threat to themselves or others, on

14 suspects armed with weapons other than firearms, or suspects displaying 'aggressive 15 and/or combative' actions."

16

30. The settlement agreement entered into by the City expressly provided that

17 "less lethal weapons should not be used on a lawfully dispersing crowd or

18 individual." In addition, the agreement prohibited the use of less lethal munitions

19 "against a person or a crowd that is retreating unless the person or crowd continues

20 to engage in unlawful activity that is aggressive and/or combative."

21

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

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

23 and arresting those responsible for any unlawful conduct, and if feasible, shall take
24 such action.

25

26

27

28

-10-

1

MONELL ALLEGATIONS

2

32. The City, through Chief Bratton and the Los Angeles Police Department,

3 has failed to train its officers in the permissible use of less lethal weapons to disperse

4 a demonstration. The need for training in this instance was obvious. The City has

5 known of the deficiencies in its training since at least 2000 and entered into a

6 settlement agreement in June 2005, agreeing to revised policies, yet the City has

7 failed to promulgate policies effectuating the terms of the settlement agreement

8 and/or to train its command staff and its officers on the revisedpolicies, if any exist

9

33. Chief Bratton, as well as those members of his command staff officers to

10 whom he has delegated his responsibility to enact and implement lawfulpolicies on

11 the declaration of an unlawful assembly, the use of less lethal weapons, and the use

12 of motorcycles as a crowd control tool, are aware of the unlawful policies, practices 13 and customs of the City and the LAPD which resulted in the settlement in National

14 Lawyers Guild v. City of Los Angeles in June, 2005. Moreover, Chief Bratton and his 15 delegated command staff are aware that the use of force to break up lawful protests 16 is a custom so ingrained in the marrow of the LAPD that it was critical to take all

17 steps necessary to ensure that official policy was implemented in amanner sufficient 18 to address the deeply rooted custom to violate First Amendment rights in the specific 19 ways identified in the National Lawyers Guild settlementagreement. The failure to 20 take such steps directly lead to the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs.

21

34. The City paid more than $4,000,000 in damages as a result of these same

22 unlawful practices during the DNC. Subsequent to the DNC, the City paid nearly 23 $1,000,000 for injuries arising from the use of less-lethalweapons during a permitted
24 demonstration on October 22, 2000. Prior to the DNC, the City paid nearly

25 $2,000,000 in damages arising from the dispersal ofpeaceful demonstrations through

26 force and intimidation. In all of its actions, the City has acted with deliberate

27

28

-11-

1 indifference to the rights of the public to engage in lawful expressive activity in 2 traditional public fora within the City.

3

35. Despite its knowledge that the LAPD has had a history of unlawful

4 conduct at demonstrations, and its knowledge that there has been a traditional lack
5 of training of LAPD line and command staff on proper law enforcement conduct at

6 demonstrations, and its agreement in the National Lawyers Guild case, supra, 7 regarding the use of force at peaceful demonstrations, the City failed to adequately
8 train its officers and command staff in, among other things, the rights of

9 demonstrators, lawful crowd control, dispersal orders, separating those engaged in 10 unlawful conduct from those engaged in lawful conduct, the permissible use of batons 11 in crowd control/demonstration situations, the permissible use of "less-than-letha

12 weapons in crowd control/demonstration situations, and the permissible use of force 13 and circumstances justifring it in such situations. This failure amounted to deliberated

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

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

16 personnel on these issues.

17

36. On information and belief, ChiefBratton delegated final responsibility and

18 authority to persons within his command staff to act as the final policy maker at the

19 May Day March to decide whether to declare the assembly unlawful and whether to

20 use force. The persons who made these decisions acted as the delegated policy maker
21 for the City of Los Angeles on these issues. There was no time, opportunity or

22 procedure for anyone to review or revise the decisions made by these delegated policy 23 makers prior to their final implementation.

24

25

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

26

37. Defendants improperly declared the assembly unlawful. All with the

27

28

-12-

1 possible exception of but a handful of the approximately 5,000 people assembled in
2 MacArthur Park on May Day for the immigrant workers rally, as well as the families

using the park for recreational purposes, were peaceful. The few protestors who

verbally criticized the police, and the even fewer who threw inocuous objects at the

riot-gear clad police, did not present sufficient, ifany, justification for declaring the
6
assembly unlawful orjustify defendants' infringement on the FirstAmendment rights

of the vast, peaceful majority. All force used to disperse class members after 8 defendants improperly declared the assembly unlawful was illegal because saidforce

was a proximate result of an illegal, unconstitutional dispersal order.

10

38. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that defendants

declared the gathering an "unlawful assembly," and ordered the peaceful participants 12 to disperse, and used force upon the peaceful participants, and singled out persons 13 perceived to be members of the media, for the purpose of interfering with the First
14 Amendment rights of the peaceful participants.

15

39. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereonallege that, in declaring the

16 gathering an "unlawful assembly," and ordering the peacefulparticipants to disperse,

17 and using force upon the peaceful participants, and singling out persons perceived to

18 be members of the media, defendants engaged in content-discrimination and
19
viewpoint-discrimination Defendantst actions were motivated and influencedby the 20 political content, message, and viewpoint of plaintiffs, or by defendants' perception

21 of the political content, message, and viewpoint of plaintiffs. Defendants treated

22 plaintiffs less favorably than others whose speech has a differentcontent, message
23 and viewpoint.

24

Assuming that a dispersal order could have been legally justified under all

25 of the facts and circumstances, the order given was, nonetheless, deficient as it was

26 not given until after the officers began advancing on and firing at those present in the

27

28

-13-

1 park, was unintelligible as delivered from a helicopter, was given only in English, and
2 the order failed to specify how peaceful participants were todisperse and failed to
3 give the peaceful participants sufficient time or opportunity to disperse. All force

used to disperse peaceful participants was unreasonable because defendants failed to

provide peaceful participants with sufficient time and opportunity to disperse.

6

41. Assuming the dispersal order was lawful, and that defendants provided

peaceful participants with sufficient time and opportunity to disperse, the use of force 8 was nonetheless unlawful because class members never presented any threat to the

police nor any other person, and were not committing any act which would justifyany
10 use of force. All force used to disperse peaceful participants was unreasonable

because peaceful participants did not present any threat justifying the use ofany 12 force. None of the class representatives were arrested for acts committed on May 1,
13 2000.

14

42. Defendants' use of force against peaceful participants was unreasonable

15 because defendants used force indiscriminately, including shooting peaceful
16 participants with projectiles, hitting them with batons, and shoving them, all without
17 any individualized justification for the use of such force.

18

43. Defendants' use of force was unreasonable because defendants gave no

19 warning before using force, including shooting peaceful participants with projectiles

20 or hitting them with batons.

21

Defendants use of force was unreasonable because defendants utilized

22 weapons in an improper and unreasonable manner. Guidelines for the "less lethal"

23 projectile weapons carried by defendants specify that, in order to avoid serious injury,
24 such projectiles should not be aimed at the upper torso and should not be used in a

25 non-target specific manner. Defendants improperly fired projectile weapons directly
26 at peaceful participants' upper bodies, causing physical injuries.
27

28

-14-

1

45. As a result of defendants' actions, hundreds of peacefl.il participantswere

2 deprived of their First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights (and corollary state

law rights) and physically and emotionally injured.

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

officers acted in accordance with orders given them by supervisors from the highest
6 command positions, in accordances with policies and procedures instituted by the
LAPD and the City of Los Angeles.

8

PARTIES

10

The Class Representative Plaintiffs

11

Plaintiff Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network

12 ("MI WON") is a collaborative effort of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights

13 ofLos Angeles ("CHIRLA"), the Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance("KIWA"), the

14 Pilipino Workers Center ("PWC") and the Garment Workers Center ("GWC").

MI WON was formed for thepurpose of organizing and educating immigrant workers

16 on their rights. In support of this purpose, MIWON has organized a march and rally

17 every year for the past several years on May Day, which is international workers' day.

18 MIWON obtained the permit for the event at MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007, which

19 forms the basis for this action. MIWON suffered injury to its organization work

20 when the defendants arbitrarily and capriciously declared an end to the permitted

21 assembly nearly 3 years hour before its expiration. The action of the Defendants has

22 interfered with MIWON's right to assembly and speech. MIWON plans to hold 23 similar events in the future and is fearful that the unlawful police actions ofMay 1, 24 2007 will be repeated absent injunctive relief to prohibit the practices, policies and
25 customs ofthe LAPD that resulted in the police action against peaceful demonstrators

26 on May 1, 2007 at MacArthur Park. MIWON seeks injunctive and declaratory relief
27

28

15

1 only.

2

48. Plaintiff Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles

("CHIRLA") is a non-profit organization founded in 1986 to advance the human and

civil rights of immigrants and refugees in Los Angeles. As a multi-ethnic coalition

of community organizations and individuals, CHIRLA aims to foster greater
6 understanding of issues that affect immigrant communities, provide a neutral forum

for discussion, and unite immigrant groups to more effectively advocate for positive 8 change. CHIRLA is one of the member organizations of MIWON and co-sponsored

the permitted event in MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007 that forms the basis for this

10 action. The action ofthe Defendants has interfered with CHIRLA'sright to assembly,
11 association and speech. CHIRLA plans to hold similar events in the fi.iture and is

12 fearful that the unlawful police actions of May 1, 2007 will be repeated absent 13 injunctive relief to prohibit the practices, policies and customs of the LAPD that

14 resulted in the police action against peaceful demonstrators on May 1, 2007 at

15 MacArthur Park. CHIRLA seeks injunctive and declaratory relief only.

16

49. Plaintiff Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance ("KIWA") was founded in

17 1992 to empower low-wage immigrant workers and to work with other communities
18 in a progressive constituency in Los Angeles' underrepresented immigrant
19 communities for social change. KIWA is one of the member organizations of

20 MI WON and co-sponsored the permitted event in MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007

21 that forms the basis for this action. The action of the Defendants has interfered with
22 KIWA's right to assembly, association and speech. KIWA plans to hold similar

23 events in the future and is fearful that the unlawfulpolice actions of May 1, 2007 will
24 be repeated absent injunctive relief to prohibit the practices, policies and customs of

25 the LAPD that resulted in the police action against peaceful demonstrators on May

26

50. Plaintiff IDEPSCA to create a more humane and democratic society by

27

28

-16-

I responding to the needs and problems of disenfranchisedpeople though leadership 2 development and educational programs based on Popular Education methodology.

3 IDEPSCA works to organize and educatemembers of low-income Latino immigrants

4 concerned with solving their problems in their own communities.

5 IDEPSCA is one of the member organizations of MIWON and co-sponsored the 6 permitted event in MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007 that forms the basis for this

7 action. The action of the Defendants has interfered with IDEPSCA's right to

8 assembly, association and speech. IDEPSCA plans to hold similar events in the 9 future and is fearful that the unlawful police actions of May 1,2007 will be repeated 10 absent injunctive relief to prohibit the practices, policies and customs of the LAPD
11 that resulted in the police action against peaceful demonstrators on May 1, 2007 at

12 MacArthur Park. IDEPSCA seeks injunctive and declaratory relief only.

13

51. Plaintiff Pilipino Workers Center ("PWC") works to organize and educate

14 low-income workers in the Pilipino immigrant community about their rights both

15 within and outside of the workplace. PWC is one of the member organizations of

16 MIWON and co-sponsored the permitted event in MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007

17 that forms the basis for this action. The action ofthe Defendants has interfered with

18 PWC's right to assembly, association and speech. PWC plans to hold similar events

19 in the future and is fearful that the unlawful police actions of May 1, 2007 will be

20 repeated absent injunctive relief to prohibit the practices, policies and customs of the 21 LAPD that resulted in the police action against peaceful demonstrators on May I,

22 2007 at MacArthur Park. PWC seeks injunctive and declaratory relief only.

23

52. Plaintiff Garment Workers Center ("GWC") was opened in 2001 after 71

24 Thai garment workers were found working in a slave shop in El Monte. The Garment

25 Workers Center advocated for the Thai workers and for Latino workers similarly

26 forced to work in sweatshop conditions in LosAngeles' garment industry. The GWC
27

28

-17-

1 works to empower the low-wage workers in the political process. GWC is one of the

2 member organizations of MIWON and co-sponsored the permitted event in

3 MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007 that forms the basis for this action. The action of the

4 Defendants has interfered with GWC's right to assembly, association and speech.

5 GWC plans to hold similar events in the fixture and is fearful that the unlawful police

6 actions of May 1, 2007 will be repeated absent injunctive relief to prohibit the

7 practices, policies and customs of the LAPD that resulted in the police action against

8 peaceful demonstrators on May

9

53. PlaintiffKevin Breslin ("BRESLIN") is a member ofthe National Lawyers

10 Guild and was serving as a Legal Observer at the MIWON march and rally on May

ii 1,2007 at MacArthur Park. He was struck at least 5 times on his legs by at least two

12 officers from the and then hit in the chest.

13

54. PlaintiffMario Cuellar ("CUELLAR") was in or around MacArthur Park

14 on May 1, 2007. He was attending the MIIWON rally. While he was listening to the

15 rally program at the stage, he heard shots and then turned and saw people running. He

16 also saw the police shooting at people and pushing them with batons. As he was

17 trying to help a mother with a baby in a stroller, he was hit on the back with a club.

18 He fell to his hands and knees from the force. He got up and ran. He was frightened

19 because he could not find his wife, who is pregnant, and because the police assault

20 reminded him of how the police had killed many of his friends in El Salvador.

21

55. PlaintiffDavid Gabriel Eng ("ENG") was in or around MacArthur Park on

22 May 1, 2007. He was taking photographs ofthe events. He was struck multiple times

23 on his head, face and buttocks with a baton and asp.

24

56. PlaintiffLuis Galvez ("GALVEZ") was in or around MacArthur Park on

25 May 1, 2007. As he tried to help people escape from the park, he was hit on the head,

26 neck and back multiple times, and knocked unconscious by a baton strike from

27

28

-18-

1 behind.

2

57. Plaintiff Gerardo Gomez ("GOMEZ") was in or around MacArthur Park

3 on May 1, 2007. He was running from the police when he was hit with a baton.

4 While giving a report of this to a legal observer, he was shot with rubber bullets.

5

58. Plaintiff Jorge Lopez ("J LOPEZ") was in or around MacArthurPark on

6 May 1, 2007. He was with friends eating snacks when he heard yelling arid shouting

7 and saw people running. He was shot with a rubber bullet in the chest. When he tried

8 to retrieve the ball that hit him, he was shot two more times in the leg.

9

59. Plaintiff Jaime Maldonado ("MALDONADO") was in or around

10 MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007. Hewas going to eat at his favorite restaurant on 6th

11 and Alvarado. He saw people running, and then was hit on the knee and arm with a 12 baton.

13

60. Plaintiff Leopoldo Ortiz ("ORTJZ") was in or around MacArthur Parkon

14 May 1, 2007. He was walking around the take when the police officers came, One 15 officer hit him multiple times in the stomach, knocking the wind out of him. He fell

16 to the ground and was kicked two times in the backside. He was worried for his life

17 and afraid that the officers might shoot real bullets. Mr. Ortiz is a 76-year-old veteran.

18

61. Plaintiff Romuardo Pedro ("PEDRO") was in or around MacArthur Park

19 on May 1, 2007. He was there with his wife andthree children, ages 12, 9 and 6. He

20 was taking photos of the rally when he saw police striking a man on the ground.

21 When he began to take photos of that, he was struck twice with a baton on the leg.

22 He began to run away from the officers and was hit multiple times with rubber

23 bullets, including on his upper back. He ran to collect his family and they all ran out

24 of the park. His children were terrified by the actions of the police and were crying

25 uncontrollably.

26

62. PlaintiffEster Navarette Plata ("NAVAREflE PLATA") was in or around

27

28

-19-

1 MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007. She was discussing with friends that the turnout

2 for this year's rally was not as big as last time. They decided to leave. As they

3 walked out of the park, she lost her friends and was in a crowd of people she did not

4 know. Suddenly, she saw a lot of people running and she tried to run also, but fell

5 amongst all of the people. Someone helped her up and told her to run. She fractured 6 her wrist and forearm and sustained several cuts and bruises on her body.

7

63. Plaintiff Jeremy Rothe-Kuschel ("ROTHE-KUSCHEL") was in or around

8 MacArthu Park on May 1, 2007. When the police came into the park, he was

9 standing around talking to people. He began walking backwards with his handsup 10 and then when he turned around and started walking away fast, he was shot in the

11 right lower back with a rubber projectile.

12

64. Plaintiff Maria Ester Tejada ("TEJADA") was in or around MacArthur

13 Park on May 1, 2007. She was in the park watching people arrive for the rally. All 14 of a sudden she saw the police in riot gear form several lines and begin pushing

15 people telling them to go. She began running away and fell down. The police were

16 still coming and she was scared, so she got back up and kept running. The incident

17 evoked for her the nightmare of the war in El Salvador and she has become very 18 anxious and preoccupied.

19

20

Defendants

21

65. At all times relevant hereto William Bratton was the Chief of Police of the

22 Los Angeles Police Department. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon

23 allege that Chief Bratton was responsible for the development, establishment and/or

24 implementation of the procedures, policies, regulations, practices and/or customs of

25 the LAPD with respect to the implementation of the settlement in National Lawyers

26 Guild v. City of Los Angeles, its use of force in response to political protests, its use

27

28

-20-

1 of "less lethal" projectiles and its overall activities in regard to political protests. 2 Upon information and belief, plaintiffs fUrther allege that at all times relevant hereto, 3 Chief Bratton participated in, approved, and/or ratified the unconstitutionalor illegal 4 acts complained of herein. Additionally, upon information and belief, plaintiffs 5 allege that ChiefBratton failedadequately to train, supervise and monitor the actions
6 ofofficers assigned to protest and/or riot details, or to promulgate adequate policies
7 and regulations to prevent the unlawful acts complained of. Plaintiffs sue Chief
8 Bratton in both his official and personal capacity.

9

66. Defendant Cayler Carter was a deputy chief of police with the LAPD on

10 May 1, 2007 and served as the Commanding Officer of Central Bureau. Defendant

11 Carter is sued in his official and individual capacities. He was tasked with

12 supervising the permitted MI WON march and assembly at Mac Arthur Park on May 13 1, 2007. At all times relevant herein, Carterwas acting under color of state law.

14

67. Defendant Louis Gray is a commander with the LAPD who was assigned

15 to Central Division on May 1, 2007 and was the Incident Commander at the

16 MacArthur Park rally. He is sued in his official and individual capacities. With

17 Defendant Carter, Commander Gray was tasked with making decisions regarding the 18 deployment of officers and munitions, as well as the decision to declare an unlawful

19 assembly. Commander Graywas also the Incident Commander on October22, 2000, 20 who ordered the unlawful use of less-lethal munitions against peacefUl participants

21 in a lawfi.il, permitted demonstration. At all times relevant herein, Gray was acting 22 under color of state law.

23

68. Defendant City of Los Angeles is a municipal corporation duly organized

24 and existing under the laws of the State ofCalifornia. The LAPD is an agency of the

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

26 City. The City of Los Angeles is sued both in its own right and on the basis of

27

28

-21-

1 respondeat superior, under California Government Code § 815.2.

2

69. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued

3 herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such

4 fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names and

5 capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon

6 allege that defendants DOES 1 through 10 are responsible in some manner for the

7 damages and injuries hereinafter complained of.

8

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

9 relevant hereto Chief Bratton and Deputy Chief Carter and Does 1 through 10 were

10 the agents, servants and employees of defendant City of Los Angeles, and were acting

11 at all times within the scope of their agency and employment and with the knowledge

12 and consent of their principal and employer, the City of Los Angeles. At all times

13 herein, defendants and Does were acting under the color of state law.

14

15

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

16

71. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of

17 all other persons similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3),

18 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The damages class is defined as those persons

19 who were present on May 1,2007 in MacArthur Park at any point between the hours

20 of 5:30 and 7:00 p.m., who did not engage in any conduct justifying the Defendants'

21 use of force against them, and who were subjected to the use of force, including those

22 who 1) were shot with projectiles, struck with batons, 2) were physically injured by

23 the use of other weapons or force in MacArthur Park, 3) were physically injured by

24 the use of other weapons or force as they attempted to leave the park and/or disperse

25 from the area of the park, 4) were physically injured by the use of other weapons or

26 force as they attempted to disperse along Wilshire Boulevard, Alvarado Boulevard,

27

28

-22-

7 Street or Park View Street, or in the vicinity of those streets, 5) were physically
2 injured by the use of other weapons or force as they observed the activities of
3 protestors and the police in those areas, or 6) although not physically injured, were 4 driven from the Park as a result of the LAPD's unlawful use of force were subject to 5 the threat of force and driven out of the Park under the threat ofthe use of force. This 6 class is inclusive of people present in order topeacefully protest and those otherwise 7 there to observe or to enjoy the use of the Park.

8

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

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

10 of Los Angeles in the exercise of theft rights of free speech and petition. Without

11 intervention by this Court, those class members are at risk of having theft rights

12 violated in the future due to the City's past and threatened future actions. T h e

13 injunctive relief Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law toprotect the future lawful 14 exercise of theft constitutional rights, and, without action by this court, will suffer

15 irreparable injury, thereby entitling them to injunctive anddeclaratory relief.

16

73. In accordance with F.R.Civ. P. Rule 23(a), the class is so numerous that

17 joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiffs do not know theexact number of

18 class members. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that there are

19 in excess of 200 members of the class.

20

74. In accordance with P.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), there are questions of fact

21 common to the class. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the

22 conmion questions of fact include but are not limited to the following:

23

a. What danger, if any, the peaceful participants presented when defendants

24

declared the gathering an unlawful assembly and ordered the peaceful

25

participants to disperse;

26

b. What defendants told the peaceful participants regarding the declaration of

27

28

-23-

1

an unlawful assembly and how they should disperse;

2

c. What opportunity defendants gave the peaceful participants to disperse

3

before attacking them with projectiles, batons and other weapons;

4

d. What degree of force defendants used against the peaceful participantse.g.,

5

what degree of force does shooting a person with a "less than lethal"weapon

6

actually represent;

7

e. What warnings, if any, defendants gave before using force against the

8

peaceful participants;

9

f. Whether defendants declared the protest an unlawful assembly for the

10

purpose of interfering with the peaceful participants right to freedom of

11

speech;

12

g. Whether defendants used force against the peaceful participants for the

13

purpose of interfering with the peaceful participants right to freedom of

14

speech;

15

h. Whether defendants engaged in content-discrimination and viewpoint-

16

discrimination.

17

75. In accordance with F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), there are questions of law

18 common to the class. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the

19 common questions of law include but are not limited to, the following:

20

a. Whether defendants were legally justified in declaring the gathering an

21

unlawful assembly;

22

b. Whether (assuming the dispersal order was unlawful) any use of force was

23

lawful;

24

c. Whether (assuming the dispersal order was lawful) defendants gave

25

peaceful participants an adequate opportunity to disperse;

26

d. What degree of force (assuming the dispersal order was lawful), if any,

27

28

-24-

defendants were permitted to use to disperse the peaceful participants;

2

e. Whether defendants were permitted to use force, including firing projectiles

3

at peaceful participants, without warning;

4

f. Whether defendants were permitted to randomly fife into the dispersing

5

peaceful participants;

6

g. Whether the force defendants used was constitutionally reasonable.

7

76. In accordance with F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), the claims of therepresentative

8 plaintiffs are typical of the class they represent. Each representative plaintiff was

9 present in or about MacArthur Park on May 1,2007, between the hours of 5:45p.m.

10 and 7:30 p.m. Each representative plaintiff was subjected to force in the Park or as

11 he or she attempted to disperse from the Park, or as she or he attempted to disperse

12 along Wilshire Boulevard, Alvarado Boulevard, 7th Street and/or Park View, or in the

13 vicinity of those streets. No representative plaintiff did anything to attack or threaten 14 to attack any person, or interfere with any lawful action ofanyone, or resist arrest, or
15 escape. Except for their presence at the Park, and peaceful, verbal, non-violent

16 protests, and observing defendants, plaintiffs did nothing. Defendants had no legal

17 justification for ordering any representative plaintiff to disperse and no legal

18 justification for using force against any representative plaintiff.

19

77. Each representative plaintiff has the same interests and suffered the same

20 type injuries as the class members. The claims of each representative plaintiff arose

21 because of LAPD's dispersal orders and use of force against the peaceful participants.

22 The claims of the representative plaintiffs are based upon the same legal theories as 23 the claims of the class members. Each representative class member suffered actual

24 physical injuries as a result of defendants' dispersal orders and defendants' use of
25 force.

26

78. In accordance with F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), the representative plaintiffs

27

28

-25-

1 will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The interests of the 2 representative plaintiffs are consistent with and not antagonistic to the interests of the
3 class.

4

79. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(1)(A), prosecutions of

5 separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk that

6 inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class 7 would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the class.

8

80. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)( 1 )(B), prosecutions of

9 separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of

10 adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would, as a 11 practical matter, substantially impair or impede the interests of the other members of 12 the class to protect theft interests.

13

81. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(2), the Defendants have acted,

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

15 thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or declaratory relief with respect 16 to the class as a whole.

17

82. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3), the questions of law or fact

18 common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only

19 individual members. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the

20 questions of law and/or fact which predominate over any question affecting only

21 individual members include whether defendants improperly declared an unlawful

22 assembly depriving peaceful participants of theft First Amendment rights, whether 23 defendants used excessive force against peaceful participants, whether defendants'

24 motivation was to deprive the peaceful participants of theft First Amendment rights,
25 and whether defendants engaged in content-discrimination and viewpoint26 discrimination.

27

28

-26-

1

83. In accordance with Fed.R.Cjv,P. Rule23(b)(3), this class action is superior

2 to other available methods for the fair and efficientadjudication of the controversy

3 between the parties. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the 4 interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution of a

5 separate action is low, in that most class members would be unable to individually

6 prosecute any action at all. Plaintiffs are informed and believeand thereon allege that
7 the amounts at stake for individuals are so small that separate suits would be

8 impossible or impracticable. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege

9 that most members of the class will not be able to find counsel to represent them.

10 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants have no or virtually no records or
11 evidence of any kind justifying any use of force against individual peaceful

12 participants, and that defendants' only justifications for any use of force against

13 peaceful participants is based on facts which apply to all peaceful participants 14 equally.

15

84. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that it is desirable to concentrate all

16 litigation in one forum because all of the claims arise in thesame location, date and

17 time, i.e., in the vicinity of MacArthur Park onMay 1, 2007, between 5:45 p.m. and

18 7:30 p.m., and it will promote judicial efficiency to resolve thecommon questions of

19 law and fact in one forum, rather than in multiple courts.

20

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

21 are aware of the identities of approximately 50 class members. Plaintiffs are

22 informed and believe and thereon allege that the identities ofmost class members

23 may be obtained from organizations which sponsored the march and rally, including 24 MIWON, CHIRLA, KIWA, PWC, GWC and IDEPSCA. Plaintiffsare informed and 25 believe and thereon allege that the identities of class membersmay be obtained from

26 calls for assistance made to MIWON, CHIRLA, KIWA, PWC, GWC and IDEPSCA.
27

28

-27•

1

86. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3), class members must be

2 furnished with the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including

3 individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.

4 Plaintiffs contemplate notice through organizational "hotlines" devoted to the events

5 of May 1, 2007, distribution of leaflets in MacArthur Park, as well as calls to the

6 numbers for Plaintiffs' counsel provided in the Spanish language media. Plaintiffs

7 contemplate that the notice will inform class members of the following:

8

a. The pendency of the class action, and the issues common to the class;

9

b. The nature of the action;

10

c. Their right to 'opt out' of the action within a given time, in which event they

11

will not be bound by a decision rendered in the class action;

12

d. Their right, if they do not 'opt out,' to be represented by their own counsel

13

and enter an appearance in the case; otherwise, they will be represented by the

14

named plaintiffs and their counsel; and

15

e. Their right, if they do not 'opt out,' to share in any recovery in favor of the

16

class, and conversely to be bound by any judgment on the common issues,

17

adverse to the class.

18

19

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

21

(1st and 14th Amendments, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)

22

(All the class representatives, individually and on behalf of the class

23

they seek to represent, against all defendants)

24

87. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference as if frilly set forth

25 herein the allegations set forth previously and subsequently in this complaint.

26

88. The actions of the defendants, as set forth above, violated plaintiffs' right

27

28

-28-

1 to freedom of speech and association guaranteed by the First Amendment of the 2 United States Constitution.

3

89. As a proximate result of the wrongful, malicious and violent acts of

4 defendants, and the fright caused plaintiffs, plaintiffs and each of them, suffered

5 physical injuries and experienced shock and injury to the nervous system and were

6 injured in their health, strength and activity, suffering extreme and severe mental

7 anguish and physical pain, anxiety, humiliation and emotional distress.

8

90. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions of defendants and the

9 City of Los Angeles, plaintiffs, and each of them, have incurred and will incur in the 10 future, medical and related expenses, past and future lost earnings, loss ofproperty 11 and other special and general damages, in an amount according toproof, but in excess 12 of the jurisdictional limits of this court.

13

91. In doing the foregoing wrongful acts, defendants, and each of them, acted

14 in intentional, reckless andlor callous disregard for the constitutional rights of

15 plaintiffs. The wrongful acts, and each of them, were willful, oppressive, fraudulent

16 and malicious.

17

18

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19

THREATS, INTIMIDATION OR COERCION

20

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

21

(Civil Code Section 52.1)

22

(All class representatives, individually and on behalf of the class

23

they seek to represent, against all defendants)

24

92. Plaintiffs and each of them hereby reallege and incorporate by reference

25 as if fully set forth herein the allegations set forth previously and subsequently herein.

26

93. The defendants by their conduct interfered by threats, intimidation, or

27

28

-29-

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

2 exercise or enjoyment of plaintiffs rights of speech, assembly and association as 3 secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or laws of the

4 United States, and rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the state of
5 California, including but not limited to state Constitution Article I, sections 2 and 3.
6

7

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

8

EQUAL PROTECTION

9

(1st and 14th Amendments, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)

10

(All the class representatives, individually and on behalf of the class

11

they seek to represent, against all defendants)

12

94. Plaintiffs them hereby reallege and incorporate by reference as if fully set

13 forth herein the allegations set forth previously and subsequently in this complaint.

14

95. The actions of the defendants, as set forth above, violated plaintiffs' right

15 to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the 16 United States Constitution.

17

18

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19

EXCESSIVE FORCE

20

(4th and 14th Amendments, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)

21

(All the class representatives, individually and on behalf of the class

22

they seek to represent, against all defendants)

23

96. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth

24 herein the allegations set forth previously and subsequently in this complaint.

25

97. The conduct of each defendant violated the right of class members to be

26 secure in home, person, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and

27

28

-30-

1 not to be subjected to the use of excessive force, as guaranteed by the Fourth and 2 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and entitles plaintiffs to 3 bring suit and recover damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
4

5

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

6

THREATS, INTIMIDATION OR COERCION

7

EXCESSIVE FORCE

8

(Civil Code Section 52.1)

9

(All class representatives, individually and on behalf of the class

10

they seek to represent, against all defendants)

11

98. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as if frilly set forth herein

12 the allegations set forth previously andsubsequently in this complaint.

13

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

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

15 exercise or enjoyment of plaintiffs rights as secured by the Fourth Amendment to the

16 United States Constitution or laws of the United States, and of the rights secured by

17 the Constitution or laws of the state of California, including but not limited to

18 California Constitution Article I, section 13.

19

20

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF-DUE PROCESS

21

(14th Amendment, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)

22

(All the class representatives, individually and on behalf of the class

23

they seek to represent, against all defendants)

24

100. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by referenceas if frilly set forh

25 herein the allegations set forth previously and subsequently in this complaint.

26

101. The actions of the defendants, as set forth above, shock the conscience

27

28

1 and violate plaintiffs' right to due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth 2 Amendment of the United States Constitution.

3

4

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

5

THREATS, INTIMIDATION OR COERCION - DUE PROCESS

6

(Civil Code Section 52.1)

7

(All class representatives, individually and on behalf of the class

8

they seek to represent, against all defendants)

9

102. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth

10 herein the allegations set forth previously and subsequently in this complaint.

11

103. The defendants by their conduct interfered by threats, intimidation, or

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

13 exercise or enjoyment of plaintiffs rights as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment

14 to the United States Constitution (due process) and laws of the United States, and of

15 rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the state of California, including but not 16 limited to California Constitution Article I, section 13 (due process).

17

18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19

Wherefore, plaintiffs seek judgment as follows:

20

104. Compensatory general and special damages for themselves and the class

21 they represent, in an amount according to proof;

22

105. Exemplary damages (against each of the individual defendants) in an

23 amount sufficient to deter and to make an example of those defendants;

24

106. Attorneys fees and costs as provided for by 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Civil Code

25 § 52.1(h), C.C.P. § 1021.5, and whatever other provision of law may be applicable;

26

107. Costs of suit;

27

28

-32-

1

108. Such other relief as the Court findsjust and proper.

2

3 DATED: May 9, 2007

Res ectfull submiyjed,

5

MD3IINTEM Attorneys f laintiffs

6
DEMAND FOR JURY TRJAL
7
The Plaintiffs hereby demand ajury trial in this action.
8

9 DATED: May 9, 2007
10
11

Respecthilly submitted, MAY DAY LITIGMFION TEAM

12

Attorneys f Plaintiffs

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 
 ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO, City Attorney

MICHAEL L. CLAESSENS. Senior Assistant City Attorney

7 CORY M. BRENTE, Supervising Assistant City Attorney

3

GEOFFREY PLOWDEIN, 200 North Main Street

Deputy

City

Attorney

-

(SBN

146602)

6th Floor, City Hall East 4 Los Angeles, CA 90012

0

Email: geoffrey.p1owden1acity.org 5 Phone No.: (213) 978-7038, Fax No.: (213) 978-8785

t:: - 6 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corprat1onnd

WILLIAM BRATTON
7

/
/ :;::

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS

ORGANIZING NETWORK, an unincorporated

12 association, COALITION FOR HUMANE

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS LOS ANGELES,

13 KOREAN IMMIGRANT WORKERS

ALLIANCE, IDEPSCA, PILIPINO WORKERS

14 CENTER? GARMENT WORKERS CENTER,

as injunctive relief plaintiffs only; KEVIN

15 BRESLIN, MARIO CUELLAR, DAVID GABRIEL ENG, LUIS GALVEZ, GERARDO

16 GOMEZ, JORGE LOPEZ JAIME

MALDONANDO, LEOPOLD ORTIZ, 17 ROMUARDO PEDRO, JEREMY ROTHE-

KUSCHEL, ESTER NAVARRETTE PLATA, 18 MARIA ESTER TEJADA, individually, and as

class representatives,

19

P/a in tiffs

20

v.

21 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a Municipal Corporation; WILLIAM BRATTON, CAYLER
22 CARTER, LOUIS GRAY and DOES I through 10, in their official and individual capacities,.
23
Defendants.
24

CASE NO. CVO7-3072 AHM(FMOx)
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND WILLIAM BRATTON TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
/

25

Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation, and WILLIAM

26 BRATTON answering Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for themselves

no

27 other parties, admit, deny and allege as follows
28 \\\\

I. Answering paragraph 1, no factual allegations are made therein, and on that

2 basis the paragraph goes unanswered.

3

2. Answering paragraph 2, Defendants lack sufficient information and belief

4 upon which to answer the allegations contained therein, and on that basis deny the

5 allegations.

6

3. Answering paragraph 3, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

7

4. Answering paragraph 4, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

8

5. Answering paragraph 5, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

9

6. Answering paragraph 6, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

10

7. Answering paragraph 7, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

11

8. Answering paragraph 8, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

12

9. Answering paragraph 9, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

13

10. Answering paragraph 10, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

14

11. Answering paragraph II, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

15

12. Answering paragraph 12, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

16

13. Answering paragraph 13, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

17

14. Answering paragraph 14, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

18

15. Answering paragraph 15, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

19

16. Answering paragraph 16, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

20

17. Answering paragraph 17, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

21

18. Answering paragraph 18, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

22

19. Answering paragraph 19, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

23

20. Answering paragraph 20, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

24

21. Answering paragraph 21, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

25

22. Answering paragraph 22, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

26

23. Answering paragraph 23 Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

27

24. Answering paragraph 24, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

28

25. Answering paragraph 25, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

2

1

26. Answering paragraph 26, Defendants deny the allegations contained thcrein.

2

27. Answering paragraph 27, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

3

28. Answering paragraph 28, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

4

29. Answering paragraph 29, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

5

30. Answering paragraph 30, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

6

31. Answering paragraph 31, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

7

32. Answering paragraph 32, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

8

33. Answering paragraph 33, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

9

34. Answering paragraph 34, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

10

35. Answering paragraph 35, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

ii

36. Answering paragraph 36, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

12

37. Answering paragraph 37, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

13

38. Answering paragraph 38, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

14

39. Answering paragraph 39, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

15

40. Answering paragraph 40, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

16

41. Answering paragraph 41, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

17

42. Answering paragraph 42, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

18

43. Answering paragraph 43, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

19

44. Answering paragraph 44, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

20

45. Answering paragraph 45, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

21

46. Answering paragraph 46, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

22

47. Answering paragraph 47, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

23

48. Answering paragraph 48, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

24

49. Answering paragraph 49, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

25

50. Answering paragraph 50, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

26

51. Answering paragraph 511, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

27

52. Answering paragraph 52, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

28

53. Answering paragraph 53, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

3

54. Answering paragraph 54. Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

2

55. Answering paragraph 55, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

3

56. Answering paragraph 56, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

4

57. Answering paragraph 57, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

5

58. Answering paragraph 58, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

6

59. Answering paragraph 59, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

7

60. Answering paragraph 60, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

8

61. Answering paragraph 61, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

9

62. Answering paragraph 62, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

10

63. Answering paragraph 63, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

11

64. Answering paragraph 64, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

12

65. Answering paragraph 65, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

13

66. Answering paragraph 66, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

14

67. Answering paragraph 67, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

15

68. Answering paragraph 68, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

16

69. Answering paragraph 69, the cause of action is not alleged against the

17 answering Defendants, and on that basis the paragraph goes unanswered.

18

70. Answering paragraph 70, the cause of action is not alleged against the

19 answering Defendants, and on that basis the paragraph goes unanswered.

20

71. Answering paragraph 71, Defendants admit the allegations contained

21 therein.

22

72. Answering paragraph 72, Defendants admit the allegations contained

23 therein.

24

73. Answering paragraph 73, Defendants admit the allegations contained

25 therein.

26

74. Answering paragraph 74, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

27

75. Answering paragraph 75, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

28

76. Answering paragraph 76, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

4

1

77. Answering paragraph 77, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

2

78. Answering paragraph 78. Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

3

79. Answering paragraph 79, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

4

80. Answering paragraph 80, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

5

81. Answering paragraph 81, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

6

82. Answering paragraph 82, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

7

83. Answering paragraph 83, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

8

84. Answering paragraph 84, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

9

85. Answering paragraph 85, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

10

86. Answering paragraph 86, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

11

87. Answering paragraph 87, Defendants admit the allegations contained

12 therein.

13

88. Answering paragraph 88, Defendants lack sufficient information and belief

14 upon which to answer the allegations contained therein, and on that basis deny the

15 allegations.

16

89. Answering paragraph 89, Defendants lack sufficient information and belief

17 upon which to answer the allegations contained therein, and on that basis deny the

18 allegations.

19

90. Answering paragraph 90, which incorporates by reference the allegations of

20 other paragraphs of the pleading, Defendants to the same extent incorporate by reference

21 the answers provided herein to those paragraphs.

22

91. Answering paragraph 91, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

23

92. Answering paragraph 92, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

24

93. Answering paragraph 93, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

25

94. Answering paragraph 94, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

26

95. Answering paragraph 95, which incorporates by reference the allegations of

27 other paragraphs of the pleading, Defendants to the same extent incorporate by reference

28 the answers provided herein to those paragraphs.

5

I

96. Answering paragraph 96, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

2

97. Answering paragraph 97, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

3

98. Answering paragraph 98, which incorporates by reference the allegations of

4 other paragraphs of the pleading, Defendants to the same extent incorporate by reference

5 the answers provided herein to those paragraphs.

6

99. Answering paragraph 99, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

7

100. Answering paragraph 100, Defendants deny the allegations contained

8 therein.

9

101. Answering paragraph 101, which incorporates by reference the allegations

10 of other paragraphs of the pleading, Defendants to the same extent incorporate by

11 reference the answers provided herein to those paragraphs.

12

102. Answering paragraph 102, Defendants deny the allegations contained

13 therein.

14

103. Answering paragraph 103, which incorporates by reference the allegations

15 of other paragraphs of the pleading, Defendants to the same extent incorporate by

16 reference the answers provided herein to those paragraphs.

17

104. Answering paragraph 104, Defendants deny the allegations contained

18 therein.

19

105. Answering paragraph 105, Defendants deny the allegations contained

20 therein.

21

106. Answering paragraph 106, which incorporates by reference the allegations

22 of other paragraphs of the pleading, Defendants to the same extent incorporate by

23 reference the answers provided herein to those paragraphs.

24

107. Answering paragraph 107, Defendants deny the allegations contained

25 therein.

26

108. Answering paragraph 108, Defendants deny the allegations contained

27 therein.

28 \\\\

6

1

109. Answering paragraph 109, Defendants deny the allegations contained

2 therein.

3

110. Answering paragraph 110, Defendants deny the allegations contained

4 therein.

5

III. Answering paragraph Ill, Defendants deny the allegations contained

6 therein.

7

112. Answering paragraph 112, Defendants deny the allegations contained

8 therein.

9

AFFJRMATIVE DEFENSES

10

As separate and distinct affirmative defenses, defendants allege each of the

11 following:

12

113. The force used against plaintiffs, if any, was caused and necessitated by the

13 actions of the plaintiffs, and was reasonable and necessary for self defense.

14

114. The force used against plaintiffs, if any, was caused and necessitated by the

15 actions of plaintiffs, and was reasonable and necessary for the defense of others.

16

115. The state claims are ban-ed for plaintiffs' failure to comply with the

17 provisions of the California Tort Claims Act, Government Code § 910 et seq.

18

116. The action is ban-ed for lack of standing to sue.

19

117. The action is barred by the doctrine ofresjudicata.

20

118. As to the federal claims and theories of recovery, the answering defendants

21 are protected from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity, because defendants'

22 conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

23 reasonable person would have known.

24

119. Defendant City of Los Angeles and all defendants sued in their official

25 capacities are immune from the imposition of punitive damages.

26

120. Defendants are immune from liability pursuant to the provisions of each of

27 the following California statutes, each of which is set forth as a separate and distinct

28 affirmative defense:

7

Government Code § 815.2; 818; 818.8; 820.2; 820.4; 820.6; 820.8; 821; 821.2;
2 821.6:845

3

Penal Code § 836.5; 847

4

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

5

Defendants hereby demand and request a trial by jury in this matter.

6

WHEREFORE, defendants pray for judgment as follows:

7

1. That plaintiffs take nothing by this action;

8

2. That the action be dismissed;

9

3. That defendants be awarded costs of suit;

10

4. That defendants be awarded other and further relief as the Court may

II deem just and proper, including an award of attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

12 DATED: June 2- 2007
13

ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO, City Attorney MICHAEL L. CLAESSENS, Sr. Asst. city Attorney CORY M. BRENTE, Supv. Assistant City Attorney

Deputy City Attorney

16

Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

17

a municipal corporation, and WILLIAM BRATTON

18

19

20

21

22

23 24

25

26

27

28

8

PROOF OF SERVICE (Via Various Methods)

3

1. MARIA CRUZ. declare as follows:

4

1 am over the age of 18 years. and not a party to this action. My business address is 200

North Main Street. 600 City Hall East, Los Angeles, California, which is located in the county

5 where the niaihng described below took place.

6

On June 21, 2007, 1 served the foregoing document described as:

7 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND WILLIAM BRATTON TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
8 JURY TRIAL

9 on all interested parties in this action. by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:

11

SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST

12

[ I BY PERSONAL SERVICE - ( ) I delivered by hand, or (xx) I delivered by via

13 messenger service, such envelope(s) to the offices of the addressee with delivery time prior to

5:00 p.m. on the date specified above.

14
[ ] BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION TO: I transmitted to the offices of the addressee via facsimile machine, prior to 5:00 p.m. on the date specified above. The facsimile machine I used was in compliance with Rule 2003(3) 16 and the transmission was reported as complete without error. Pursuant to Rule 2008(e), 1 caused a copy of the transmission report to be properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine.

17

[XX ] BY MAIL - I deposited said envelope(s) in the mail at Los Angeles, California,

18 \vith first class postage thereon fully prepaid. I am readily familiar with the business practice for

collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it is deposited

19 with the United States Postal Service on that same day, at Los Angeles, California, in the

ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed

20 invalid if postage cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after the date

of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

21
I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose 22 direction this service was made.

23

Executed on June 21, 20ft

, California.

24

25

26

27

28

9

Mu/ti—Ethnic lminigrwu JJ'orkers Oiganiziig Network v. City ofLos Angeles CVQ7-3072 AHM (FNIOx)

SERVICE LIST

Carol Sobel LAW OFFICE OF CAROL SOI3EL 429 Santa Monica Boulevard. Ste. 550 Santa Monica. CA 9040!
Robert Mann, Donald W. Cook & Samantha Koerner 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90010
Robert M. Myers NEWMAN, AARONSON, VANAMAN 14001 Ventura Boulevard Sherman Oaks, CA 9 1423-3558
Paul L. Hoffman, Ben Schonbrun, James DeSimone SCHONBRUN, DE SIMONE, SEPLOW, HARRIS 760 Ocean Front Walk Venica, CA
Barrett S. Litt LITT, ESTUAR, HARRIS & KITSON 1055 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90010

Attorneys for plaintiffs PH: (310) 393-3055 FX: (3]0) 393-3605 email: carolsobel(aol.coni
Attorneys for plaintiffs PH: (213) 252-9444
FX: email: robeflfmann(sbcRlobal .net
Attorneys for plaintiffs PH: (818) 990-7722
FX: (818) 501-1306 email: rmrnyersix.netcom.com
Attorneys for plaintiffs PH: (310) 360-7136 FX: (310) 399-7040 email:hoffpaul@aol.com
Attorneys for plaintiffs PH: (213) 386-3114 FX: (213) 380-4585 email: b!ittàlittlaw.com

Cynthia Anderson-Barker 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90010

Attorneys for plaintiffs PH: (213) 381-3246
FX: (213) 252-0091/381-0024 email: cablaw@hotmail.com

Cynthia Valenzuela, Annabella Gonzales MEXICAN-AMERICAN LEGAL DEF.
634 So. Spring, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014

Attorneys for plaintiffs PH: (213) 629-2512 FX: (213) 629-0266
email:

Antonio Rodriguez LAW OFFICES OF ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ 5429 E. Beverly Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90022
Rebecca F. Thornton 429 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 550 Santa Monica, CA 90401
Adalila Garcia LAW OFFICES OF ADALILA ZELADA-GARCIA 1475 Echo Park Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90026

Attorneys for plaintiffs PH: (323) 869-9909
FX: (323) 869-9911 email:
Attorneys for nlaintiffs PH: (310) 393-3055 FX: (310) 393-3605
email: rebeccacWhumanrightsesp.com
Attorneys for plaintiffs PH: (213) 250-5500 FX: (213) 250-2846 email: e.adalila76@yahoo.com

10

jlfuIti—Ethnic linnsigrw;t Vo;*ers Organizing lVetwork i'. City ofLos Angeles CVO7-3072 AIIM (FMOx)

Jorge Gonzalez A Professional Corporation
P.O. Box 2739
San Gabriel, CA 9 1778-2739

SERVICE LIST
Attorneys for plaintiffs PH: (213) 670-0063 FX:
email:

Olu Orange ORANGE LAW OFFICES 6080 Center Drive, Sixth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045
Chris Ford LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS FORD 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2015

Attorneys for plaintiffs PH: (310) 815-8600 FX: (775)416-9221 email: o.orangeorangelawoffice.com
Attorneys for plaintiffs PH: (213)487-8000 FX: (213)487-8001 email: cfordlawcearthlink.net

11

 
 i PeterJ. Ferguson, State Bar No. 108297 FERGUSON, PRAET & SHERMAN
2 A Professional Corporation 1631 East 18th Street Santa Ana, California 92705-7101 (714) 953-5300
4 (714)953-lI43Fax
email: PetcrfergDaol.corn
5

6 Attorneys for Defendants Cayler Caner and Louis Gray

7
4 C: rm
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT

No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FFMx)

11 WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et

al.,

DEFENDANTS CAlLER

12

CARTER AND LOUIS

GRAY'S ANSWER TO FIRST

13

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,

14

vs.
15
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
16

17

Defendants.

L

18

19

20

COMES NOW Defendants, Cayler Caner and Louis Gray, answering

21 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, for themselves and no other Defendant,

22 admits, denies and alleges as follow:

23

1. Answering paragraph 1, Defendants admit that Plaintiffs are

24 apparently asserting claims under the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §

25 1331,28 U.S.C. § 1343,28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However,

26 Defendants deny, generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of

27 the remaining allegations and claims set forth in this paragraph.

28

2. Answering paragraph 2, Defendants admit that venue is prope

Answer to First Amended Complaint

1

3. Answering paragraph 3, Defendants deny generally and specifically,

2 cacti and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set forth therein.

3

4. Answering paragraph 4, Defendants deny, generally and

4 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

5 forth therein.

6

5. Answering paragraph 5, Defendants admit that action occurred on

7 May 1, 2007, at or near MacArthur Park. Except that which is specifically

8 admitted, Defendants deny the remainder of these allegations.

9

6. Answering paragraph 6, Defendants admit that on May 1, 2007,

10 the Multi-ethnic Immigrant Worker Organizing Network ("Ml WON") conducted

11 a march and rally, beginning at approximately 2:00 p.m. Except that which is

12 specifically admitted, Defendants deny the remainder of these allegations.

13

7. Answering paragraph 7, Defendants lack sufficient information and

14 belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 7, and on that ground deny,

15 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and 16 claims set forth therein.

17

8. Answering paragraph 8, Defendants deny, generally and

18 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

19 forth therein.

20

9. Answering paragraph 9, Defendants deny, generally and

21 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

22 forth therein.

23

10. Answering paragraph 10, the allegations are compound and

24 conflicting. As so stated, Defendants lack sufficient information and

25 beliefto respond to the allegations of paragraph 10, and on that ground deny,

26 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

27 claims set forth therein.

28

11. Answering paragraph 11, Defendants admit that a representative

Answer to First Amended Complaint

2

i of the raJly organizers utilized the amplification system on a police vehicle to

2 advise individuals who were breaking the iaw to enter the park. Except that 3 which is specifically admitted, Defendants deny the remainder of these

4 allegations.

5

12. Answering paragraph 12, Defendants lack sufficient information

6 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 12, and on that ground deny,

7 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and 8 claims set forth therein.

9

13. Answering paragraph 13, Defendants lack sufficient information

10 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 13, and on that ground deny,

11 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and 12 claims set forth therein.

13

14. Answering paragraph 14, Defendants admit that some time during

14 the event, police ordered persons to move. Except that which is specifically

15 admitted, Defendants deny the remainder of these allegations.

16

15. Answering paragraph 15, Defendants deny, generally and

17 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

18 forth therein.

19

16. Answering paragraph 16, Defendants deny, generally and

20 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

21 forth therein.

22

17. Answering paragraph 17, Defendants deny, generally and

23 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

24 forth therein.

25

18. Answering paragraph 18, Defendants deny, generally and

26 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

27 forth therein.

28

19. Answering paragraph 19, Defendants deny, generally and

Answer to First Amended Complaint

3

1 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set 2 forth therein.

3

20. Answering paragraph 20. Defcndants deny, generally and

4 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

5 forth therein.

6

21. Answering paragraph 21, Defendants deny, generally and

7 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

8 forth therein.

9

22. Answering paragraph 22, Defendants deny, generally and

10 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

11 forth therein.

12

23. Answering paragraph 23, Defendants deny, generally and

13 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

14 forth therein.

15

24. Answcring paragraph 24, Defcndants deny, generally and

16 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

17 forth therein.

18

25. Answering paragraph 25, Defendants deny, generally and

19 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

20 forth therein.

21

26. Answering paragraph 26, Defendants deny, generally and

22 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

23 forth therein.

24

27. Answering paragraph 27, Defendants deny, generally and

25 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

26 forth therein.

27

28. Answering paragraph 28, Defendants deny, generally and

28 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

Answer to First Amended Complaint

4

I forth therein.

2

29. Answering paragraph 29. Defendants lack sufficient information

3 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 29, and on that ground deny,

4 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

5 claims set forth therein.

6

30. Answering paragraph 30, Defendants lack sufficient information

7 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 30, and on that ground deny,

8 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

9 claims set forth therein.

10

31. Answering paragraph 31, Defendants lack sufficient information

11 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 31, and on that ground deny,

12 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

13 claims set forth therein.

14

32. Answering paragraph 32, Defendants lack sufficient information

Is and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 32, and on that ground deny,

16 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

17 claims set forth therein.

18

33. Answering paragraph 33, Defendants deny, generally and

19 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

20 forth therein.

21

34. Answering paragraph 34, Defendants lack sufficient information

22 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 34, and on that ground deny,

23 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

24 claims set forth therein.

25

35. Answering paragraph 35, Defendants lack sufficient information

26 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 35, and on that ground deny,

27 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

28 claims set forth therein.

Answer to First Amended Complaint

5

1

36. Answering paragraph 36, Defendants lack sufficient information

2 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 36, and on that ground deny,

3 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allcgations and 4 claims set forth therein.

5

37. Answering paragraph 37, Defendants lack sufficient information

6 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 37, and on that ground deny,

7 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and 8 claims set forth therein.

9

38. Answering paragraph 38, Defendants lack sufficient information

10 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 38, and on that ground deny,

11 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and 12 claims set forth therein.

13

39. Answering paragraph 39, Defendants deny, generally and

14 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

15 forth therein.

16

40. Answering paragraph 40, Defendants deny, generally and

17 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

18 forth therein.

19

41. Answering paragraph 41, Defendants deny, generally and

20 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

21 forth therein.

22

42. Answering paragraph 42, Defendants deny, generally and

23 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

24 forth therein.

25

43. Answering paragraph 43, Defendants deny, generally and

26 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

27 forth therein.

28

44. Answering paragraph 44, Defendants admit the dispersal order was

Answer to First Amended complaint

6

1 lawful. Except that which is specifically admitted, Defendants deny the 2 remainder of these allegations.

3

45. Answering paragraph 45, Defendants deny, generally and

4 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

5 forth therein.

6

46. Answering paragraph 46, Defendants deny, generally and

7 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

8 forth therein.

9

47. Answering paragraph 47, Defendants deny, generally and

10 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

11 forth therein.

12

48. Answering paragraph 48, Defendants deny, generally and

13 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

14 forth therein.

15

49. Answering paragraph 49, Defendants lack sufficient information

16 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 49, and on that ground deny,

17 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and 18 claims set forth therein.

19

50. Answering paragraph 50, Defendants lack sufficient information

20 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 50, and on that ground deny,

21 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

22 claims set forth therein.

23

51. Answering paragraph 51, Defendants lack sufficient information

24 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 51, and on that ground deny,

25 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

26 claims set forth therein.

27

52. Answering paragraph 52, Defendants lack sufficient information

28 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 52, and on that ground deny,

Answer to First Amended Complaint

7

I generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

2 claims set forth therein.

3

53. Answering paragraph 53, Defendants lack sufficient information

4 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 53, and on that ground deny,

5 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and 6 claims set forth therein.

7

54. Answering paragraph 54, Defendants lack sufficient information

8 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 54, and on that ground deny,

9 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

10 claims set forth therein.

11

55. Answering paragraph 55, Defendants lack sufficient information

12 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 55, and on that ground deny,

13 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

14 claims set forth therein.

15

56. Answering paragraph 56, Defendants lack sufficient information

16 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 56, and on that ground deny,

17 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

18 claims set forth therein.

19

57. Answering paragraph 57, Defendants lack sufficient information

20 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 57, and on that ground deny,

21 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

22 claims set forth therein.

23

58. Answering paragraph 58, Defendants lack sufficient information

24 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 58, and on that ground deny,

25 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

26 claims set forth therein.

27

59. Answering paragraph 59, Defendants lack sufficient information

28 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 59, and on that ground deny,

Answer to First Amended Complaint

8

I generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

2 claims set forth therein.

3

60. Answering paragraph 60, Defendants lack sufficient information

4 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 60, and on that ground deny,

5 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

6 claims set forth therein.

7

61. Answering paragraph 61, Defendants lack sufficient information

8 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 61, and on that ground deny,

9 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

10 claims set forth therein.

11

62. Answering paragraph 62, Defendants lack sufficient information

12 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 62, and on that ground deny,

13 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

14 claims set forth therein.

15

63. Answering paragraph 63, Defendants lack sufficient information

16 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 63, and on that ground deny,

17 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

18 claims set forth therein.

19

64. Answering paragraph 64, Defendants lack sufficient information

20 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 64, and on that ground deny,

21 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

22 claims set forth therein.

23

65. Answering paragraph 65, Defendants lack sufficient information

24 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 65, and on that ground deny,

25 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

26 claims set forth therein.

27

66. Answering paragraph 66, Defendants lack sufficient information

28 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 66, and on that ground deny,

Ai,swer to First Amended Complaint

9

I generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

2 claims set forth therein.

3

67. Answering paragraph 67, Defendants lack sufficient information

4 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 67, and on that ground deny,

5 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

6 claims set forth therein.

7

68. Answering paragraph 68, Defendants admit William Bratton was

8 and is the Chief of Police of the Los Angeles Police Department. Except that

9 which is specifically admitted, Defendants deny the remainder of these

10 allegations.

11

69. Answering paragraph 69, Defendants admit that Cayler Carter was a

12 deputy chief with the LAPD on May 1, 2007, and served as the Commanding

13 Officer of the Central Bureau. Except that which is specifically admitted,

14 Defendants deny the remainder of these allegations.

15

70. Answering paragraph 70, Defendants admit that Louis Gray is a

16 commander with the LAPD who was assigned to Central Division on May 1,

17 2007, and was at the MacArthur Park rally. Except that which is specifically

18 admitted, Defendants deny the remainder of these allegations.

19

71. Answering paragraph 71, Defendants lack sufficient

20 information and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 71, and on that

21 ground deny, generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the

22 allegations and claims set forth therein.

23

72. Answering paragraph 72, Defendants deny, generally and

24 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

25 forth therein.

26

73. Answering paragraph 73, Defendants admit Deputy Chief Carter

27 was an employee of defendant City of Los Angeles, and was acting at all times

28 within the scope of his agency. Except that which is specifically admitted,

Answer to First Amendcd Complaint

10

I Defendants deny the remainder of these allegations.

2

74. Answering paragraph 74, Defendants lack sufficient information

3 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 74, and on that ground deny,

4 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

5 claims set forth therein.

6

75. Answering paragraph 75, Defendants lack sufficient information

7 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 75, and on that ground deny,

8 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and 9 claims set forth therein.

10

76. Answering paragraph 76, Defendants lack sufficient information

11 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 76, and on that ground deny,

12 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and 13 claims set forth therein.

14

77. Answering paragraph 77, Defendants lack sufficient information

15 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 77, and on that ground deny,

16 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

17 claims set forth therein.

18

78. Answering paragraph 78, Defendants lack sufficient information

19 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 78, and on that ground deny,

20 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

21 claims set forth therein.

22

79. Answering paragraph 79, Defendants lack sufficient information

23 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 79, and on that ground deny,

24 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

25 claims set forth therein.

26

80. Answering paragraph 80, Defendants lack sufficient information

27 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 80, and on that ground deny,

28 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

Answer to First Amended Complaint

11

I claims set forth therein.

2

81. Answering paragraph 81, Defendants lack sufficient information

3 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 81, and on that ground deny,

4 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

5 claims sct forth therein.

6

82. Answering paragraph 82, Defendants lack sufficient information

7 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 82, and on that ground deny,

8 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

9 claims set forth therein.

10

83. Answering paragraph 83, Defendants lack sufficient information

11 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 83, and on that ground deny,

12 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

13 claims set forth therein.

14

84. Answering paragraph 84, Defendants lack sufficient information

is and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 84, and on that ground deny,

16 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

17 claims set forth therein.

18

85. Answering paragraph 85, Defendants lack sufficient information

19 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 85, and on that ground deny,

20 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

21 claims set forth therein.

22

86. Answering paragraph 86, Defendants lack sufficient information

23 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 86, and on that ground deny,

24 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

25 claims set forth therein.

26

87. Answering paragraph 87, Defendants lack sufficient information

27 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 87, and on that ground deny,

28 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

Answer to First Amended Complaint

12

1 claims set forth therein.

2

88. Answering paragraph 88, Defendants Jack sufficient information

3 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 88, and on that ground deny,

4 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

5 claims set forth therein.

6

89. Answering paragraph 89, Defendants lack sufficient infomrntion

7 and belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 89, and on that ground deny,

8 generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and

9 claims set forth therein.

10

90. Answering paragraph 90, Defendants deny, generally and

11 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

12 forth therein.

13

91. Answering paragraph 91, Defendants deny, generally and

14 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

15 forth therein.

16

92. Answering paragraph 92, Defendants deny, generally and

17 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

18 forth therein.

19

93. Answering paragraph 93, Defendants deny, generally and

20 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

21 forth therein.

22

94. Answering paragraph 94, Defendants deny, generally and

23 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

24 forth therein.

25

95. Answering paragraph 95, Defendants deny, generally and

26 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

27 forth therein.

28

96. Answering paragraph 96, Defendants deny, generally and

Answer to First Amended complaint

13

1 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set 2 forth therein.

3

97. Answering paragraph 97, Defendants deny, generally and

4 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

5 forth therein.

6

98. Answering paragraph 98, Defendants deny, generally and

7 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

8 forth therein.

9

99. Answering paragraph 99, Defendants deny, generally and

10 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

11 forth therein.

12

100. Answering paragraph 100, Defendants deny, generally and

13 specifically, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations and claims set

14 forth therein.

15

101. Answering paragraph 101, Defendants deny, generally and

16 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

17 forth therein.

18

102. Answering paragraph 102, Defendants deny, generally and

19 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

20 forth therein.

21

103. Answering paragraph 103, Defendants deny, generally and

22 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

23 forth therein.

24

104. Answering paragraph 104, Defendants deny, generally and

25 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

26 forth therein.

27

105. Answering paragraph 105, Defendants deny, generally and

28 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

Answer to First Amended Complaint

14

i forth therein.

2

106. Answering paragraph 106, Defendants deny, generally and

3 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

4 forth therein.

5

107. Answering paragraph 107, Defendants deny, generally and

6 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

7 forth therein.

8

108. Answering paragraph 108, Defendants deny, generally and

9 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

10 forth therein.

11

109. Answering paragraph 109, Defendants deny, generally and

12 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

13 forth therein.

14

110. Answering paragraph 110, Defendants deny, generally and

15 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

16 forth therein.

17

111. Answering paragraph 111, Defendants deny, generally and

18 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

19 forth therein.

20

112. Answering paragraph 112, Defendants deny, generally and

21 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

22 forth therein.

23

113. Answering paragraph 113, Defendants deny, generally and

24 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

25 forth therein.

26

114. Answering paragraph 114, Defendants deny, generally and

27 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

28 forth therein.

Answer to First Amended Complaint

15

1

115. Answering paragraph 115, Defendants deny, generally and

2 specifically to cach and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

3 forth therein.

4

116. Answering paragraph 116, Defendants deny, generally and

5 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

6 forth therein.

7

117. Answering paragraph 117, Defendants deny, generally and

S specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

9 forth therein.

10

118. Answering paragraph 118, Defendants deny, generally and

11 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

12 forth therein.

13

119. Answering paragraph 119, Defendants deny, generally and

14 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

15 forth therein.

16

120. Answering paragraph 120, Defendants deny, generally and

17 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

18 forth therein.

19

121. Answering paragraph 121, Defendants deny, generally and

20 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

2! forth therein.

22

122. Answering paragraph 122, Defendants deny, generally and

23 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

24 forth therein.

25

123. Answering paragraph 123, Defendants deny, generally and

26 specifically to each and every, all and singular of the allegations and claims set

27 forth therein.

28 II

Answer to First Amended Complaint

16

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2

124. As for a first, separate and distinct affirmative defense, these

3 answering Defendants allege that at all times herein relevant, they acted in good

4 faith, without malice, and within the scope of their duties as police officers for

5 the City of Los Angeles and as peace officers for the State of California.

6

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7

125. As for the second, separate and distinct affirmative defense, these

8 answering Defendants allege that Plaintiffs' claims are subject to unique

9 defenses, which effects the typicality of the claims of a class, and therefore a

10 class cannot be maintained under F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), (b)(1)(A), (B)(I), (2),

11 and(3).
12

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13

126. As for the third, separate and distinct affirmative defense, these

14 answering Defendants allege that Plaintiffs' claims are subject to unique

15 defenses, and therefore a class represented by Plaintiffs who are subject to

16 unique defenses not assertable against other class members, cannot be certified

17 under F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), (b)(I)(A), (B)(1), (2), and (3).

18

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

19

127. As for the fourth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, these

20 answering Defendants allege that a public employee is not liable for injury

21 resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the

22 exercise of the discretion vested in him.

23

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24

128. As for the fifth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, these

25 answering Defendants allege that the actions of these Defendants in all respects

26 was reasonable, proper and legal.

27

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

28

129. As for the sixth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, these

Answer to First Amended Complaint

17

I answering Defendants allege that that Plaintiffs' have failed to comply with

2 applicable sections of the California Government Code relating to claims and

3 actions against public entities and public employees.

4

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5

130. As for the seventh, separate and distinct affirmative defense, these

6 answering Defendants allege that to the extent that Plaintiffs suffered any

7 detriment, the risk of such detriment was assumed by Plaintiffs.

8

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

9

131. As for the eighth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, these

10 answering Defendants allege Plaintiffs did not suffer any detriment or damage in

11 any amount whatsoever or at all.

12

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13

132. As for the ninth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, these

14 answering Defendants allege that to the extent Plaintiffs suffered any detriment,

15 such was unavoidable.

16

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17

133. As for the tent, separate and distinct affirmative defense, these

18 answering Defendants allege that public employees are immune from liability for

19 acts undertaken in an official capacity and in good faith.

20

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21

134. As for the eleventh, separate and distinct affirmative defense, these

22 answering Defendants allege that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action

23 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in that Plaintiffs did not suffer any deprivations without

24 due process of law within the meaning of that section.

25

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

26

135. As for the twelfth, separate and distinct affirmative defense,

27 these answering Defendants allege that Plaintiffs allegations do not state a claim

28 for deprivation of any right secured by the First, Fourth and Fourteenth

Answer to First Amended Complaint

18

1 Amendments to the United States Constitution.

2

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

3

136. As for the thirteenth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, these

4 answering Defendants allege that Plaintiffs do not have standing to raise claims

5 for injuries allegedly arising from injuries to other persons.

6

WHEREFORE, these Defendants pray for judgment against Plaintiffs

7 herein as follows:

8

1. That the within Complaint be dismissed without prejudice;

9

2. That the Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their Complaint;

10

3. For attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, § 1021.7

11 and 1038; and42U.S.C. 1988;

12

4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and

13

5. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and

14 proper. 15 Dated: August 9, 2007
16
"
18
19

FERGUSONPRAET & SHERMAN A Professional Corporation
ji_h 'çì—___ ByP:eter J. Ferguson, Attorney for Defendants Cayler Carter and Louis Gray

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Answer to First Amended complaint

19

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
3
I, Colcen M. Ludvigson, am employed in the aforesaid County, State of 4 California; I am over the age of 1 8 years and not a party to the within action. My
business address is 1631 East 18th Street, Santa Ana, Caljfornia 92705-7101.
5
On August 9, 2007, I served the foregoing DEFENDANTS CAYLER 6 CARTER AND LOUIS GRAY'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy 7 thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows:

8

9

SEE ATTACHED LIST

10

ii XXX (By Mail) I placed such envelope for deposit in accordance with office

practice, sealed, with postage thereon fully paid and the correspondence to

12

be deposited in the United States mail at Santa Ana, Cal ifornia on the

same day.

13

___ (By Facsimile) I caused to be faxed the above-entitled documents.

14

___ (By Personal Service) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to

15

the office of the addressee.

16 ___ (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

17

XXDC (Federal) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and

18

correct, and that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this

Court at whose direction the service was made.

19
Executed on August 9, 2007, at Santa Ana, California.

22
23 24
25 26 27 28
Answer to Complaint

Coleen M. udviji
20

Mailing List

2

3

4
Geoffrey Plowden, Esq. 5 Office of the City Attorney
200 N: Main Street 6 600 City Hall East
Los Angeles, CA 90012
7
8 Robert M. Myers, Esq. Newman Aaronson Vanaman
9' 14001 Ventura Boulevard
Sherman Oaks, CA 9 1423-3558
10
11 Carol A. Sobel Law Offices of Carol A. Sobel
12 429 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 550
13 Santa Monica, CA 90401
14 Antonio Rodriguez, Esq. Law Office Of Antonio Rodriguez
15 5429 East Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90022
16

Robert Mann, Esq. Donald W. Cook, Esq. Samantha Koerner, Esq. Attorneys At Law 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Barrett S. Litt, Esq. Litt, Estuar, Harris & Kitson 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90010
Anabella Gonzalves, Esq. Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund 634 S. Spring Street, I 1th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Rebecca F. Thorton, Esq 429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550 Santa Monica, CA 90401

17 Christopher Brandt Ford, Esq. Christopher B. Ford Law Offices
18 3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2900
19 Los Angeles, CA 90010 20 Guillermo Suarez, Esq.
Bufete, Juridco Law Offices 21 5441 East Beverly Boulevard
Suite D 22 Los Angeles, CA 90022

Cynthia M. Anderson-Baker, Esq. Cynthia M. Anderson-Baker Law Offices 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Olu K. Orange, Esq. Orange Law Offices Howard Hughes Center 6080 Center Drive, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045

23 Paul L. Hoffman, Esq. Benjamin Schonbrun, Esq.
24 V. James DeSimone, Esq. Schonbrun, DeSimone, Seplow,
25 Harris & Hoffman 723 Ocean Front Walk, Suite 100
26 Venice, CA 9029 1-3270

27

28

-Answer to Complaint

21

2
3
4
Samantha Koerner, Esq. 5 3435 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 2900 6 Los Angeles, CA 90010
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Answer to Complaint

Mailing List JPo.r0g.eBGooxn2za7l3e9z, Esq. San Gabriel, CA 91788-2739
22

 
 Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 17 of 98

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING
11 NETWORK, et aI.
12 Plaintiffs, 13 vs. 14 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et aI.,
Defendants.
15

Case No.: CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx) [Hon. A. Howard Matz]
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
DATE: March 13,2009 TIME: 3:00 P.M. COURTROOM: 14

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 18 of 98

1
2 I.

TABLE OF CONTENTS RECITALS ..................................................................................................... 3

3 II. DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................... 4
4 III. DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY; NO ADMISSION OR WAIVER....... 10
5
IV. TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR DAMAGES ...........10
6
7 V. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR DAMAGES..........18

8 VI. HANDLING OF MINORS' CLAIMS.......................................................21

9 VII. HANDLING OF MISSING REPRESENTED INDIVIDUALS' 10 CLAIMS..................................................................................... 23

11 VIII. TERMS AND EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR STRUCTURA.L RELIEF ...................................................................................... 24
12
13 IX. CLASS COUNSEL FEES ...........................................................................25

14 X. CLASS NOTIFICATION AND CLAIMS ADMINISTRA.TION ..........25

15 XI. EXCLUSION FROM SETTLEMENT CLASS: OPT-OUTS.................30
16 XII. INTEGRA.TION .......................................................................................... 32
17
XIII. FAIRNESS HEARING AND FINAL ORDER OF APPROVAL ..........32
18
XIV. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS; FACSIMILE SIGNATURES ...32
19
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 19 of 98

1

2

Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez,

3 Jaime Maldonado, Leopoldo Ortiz, Romualdo Pedro, and Jeremy Rothe-Kushel

4 ("Class Representative Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of the classes

5 previously certified by the Court, and all the plaintiffs in the related cases listed in

6 Paragraph 4, infra, ("Related Cases"), on the one hand, (collectively "Plaintiffs");

7 and defendants City of Los Angeles (the "City"), Los Angeles Police Chief William

8 Bratton, Assistant Chief Jim McDonnell, Deputy Chief Cayler "Lee" Carter, Jr.,

9 Commander Louis Gray, Deputy Chief Michael Hillman, Deputy Chief Earl

10 Paysinger, Captain John Egan, Captain Tom MacDonald, and any other individual

11 defendants named in the Related Cases, all in their individual and official 12 capacities, on the other hand, (collectively "Defendants"), by and through their

13 respective counsel, hereby submit the following settlement agreement ("Settlement

14 Agreement").

15 I. RECITALS

The Class Representative Plaintiffs filed the above-captioned action in the
16

United States District Court for the Central District of California ("Court") on May
17
9,2007. The several Related Cases were filed in the Central District as well.
18
The Class Representative Plaintiffs asserted they represented a class of
19
persons who were subjected to violation of their First and Fourth Amendment
20
rights, as well as other federal constitutional rights and rights under California state
21
law, as a result of actions by the Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD"), an 22
agency of the City, surrounding a protest at MacArthur Park on May I, 2007 ("May

23
I"). The Class Representative Plaintiffs alleged that the LAPD and its personnel,

24
pursuant to policy, violated their rights by, among other things, declaring an

25 unlawful assembly and engaging in excessive force.

26

Over the objections and opposition of the City and other defendants named in

27 the above-captioned case brought by plaintiff Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers

28 Organizing Network ("MIWON"), the Court certified a damages class and an

3 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 20 of 98

1 injunctive class on January 8,2008. Subsequently, the parties engaged in extensive

2 settlement negotiations over six sessions with United States District Court

3 Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle ("Judge Woehrle"). This settlement, which the

4 parties have reached through arms-length negotiations with the assistance of Judge

5 Woehrle, is the result of those negotiations.

6

The Defendants, the plaintiffs in the MIWON case, and the plaintiffs in the

7 Related Cases, now agree that they wish to avoid the cost, time and risks involved

8 in further litigation of these cases and to bring an end to the litigation.

9

Therefore, the parties agree as follows:

10 II. DEFINITIONS

11

1. "Administrator" means the claims administrator chosen by the

12 Plaintiffs and to be appointed by the Court to administer the claims process, pay

13 class claims, cause (if needed) English-language documents disseminated to class 14 members to be translated into Spanish prior to dissemination, issue deficiency

notices, publish summary Class Notice, discharge other duties set forth in this
15

Settlement Agreement and handle other tasks necessary and appropriate to
16
completing the claims process.
17
2. A "Damages Class Member" means any class member meeting the
18
following definition (as set forth in the Class Certification Order of January 8,
19
2008):
20
"Those persons who were present on May I, 2007 in the geographic area
21
bounded by 6th Street (on the north), Alvarado Street (on the east), 7th Street 22
(on the south), and Park View Street (on the west), or the immediately
23
adjacent areas, including from 6th Street west to Lafayette Park, at any point

24
between the hours of 5:00 and 7:00 p.m., who did not engage in any conduct

25
justifying Defendants' dispersal order or the use of force, and who were

26

subjected to the LAPD's use of force, dispersal order or other unlawful police

27

activity arising from the police response to the immigration march and rally."

28

3. A "Structural Relief Class Member" means any class member meeting

4 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 21 of 98

1 the following definition (as set forth in the Class Certification Order of January 8, 2 2008):

3

"Those who in the past have engaged in or who in the future may engage in

4

peaceful demonstrations or protest in the City of Los Angeles and who, at the

5

time they engage in such peaceful demonstrations or protest, were or are:

6

"(a) The following organizations: Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers

7

Organizing Network, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles,

8

Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance, Institute for Popular Education of

9

Southern California, Filipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center

10

("Plaintiff Associations");

11

"(b) Officers, representatives, or members of Plaintiff Associations;

12

"(c) Persons who attend or participate in Plaintiff Associations' events,

13

including but not limited to their rallies;

14

"(d) Organizations that advocate, organize, or both advocate and organize

on behalf of the rights of individuals and associations to engage in speech,
15
assembly, and expression within the scope of the First Amendment of the
16
United States Constitution.
17
"(e) Persons who participate in public assemblies organized by the
18
organizations described in paragraph (d)."
19
4. A "Represented Individual" is an individual class member who has 20
been represented individually and as a class member in either the above-captioned
21
MIWON case or in any of the following Related Cases: 22

23
RELATED CASES

NUMBER

PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY

24 Santiago v. City ofLos

2:07 CV-02966 Gregory Yates

25 Angeles and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive

26 Brandon Aguilar v. City ofLos 2:07 CV-04l3l Luis Carrillo

27 Angeles, Chief William Bratton, Assistant ChiefJim
28 McDonnell, Deputy Chief

5 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 22 of 98

1 RELATED CASES

NUMBER

2 Cayler "Lee" Carter, Jr., Deputy ChiefMichael

3 Hillman, Deputy ChiefEarl

4 Paysinger, Commander Louis Gray, Captain John Egan, and

5 Does 1 through 20

PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY

6
Newton v. City ofLos Angeles, 2:07 CV-04455 Ellen Ellison 7 Chief William Bratton, Deputy
8 Chief Cayler Carter, Commander Louis Gray and
9 DOES 1 through 100
10 Lopez v. City ofLos Angeles, 2:07 CV-05555 Susan Pintar Chief William Bratton, Deputy
11 Chief Cayler Carter,
12 Commander Louis Gray and Does 1 through 10
13 Ajuria v. City ofLos Angeles, 2:07 CV-08433 Luis Carrillo
14 Chief William Bratton, Assistant ChiefJim
15 McDonnell, Deputy Chief
16 Cayler "Lee" Carter, Jr., Deputy ChiefMichael
17 Hillman, Deputy ChiefEarl
18 Paysinger, Commander Louis Gray, Captain John Egan,
19 Captain Tom MacDonald and
20 Does 1 through 20
Gudiel v. City ofLos Angeles, 2:08 CV-01370 Louis Krass 21 Chief William Bratton,
22 Assistant ChiefJim
McDonnell, Deputy Chief 23 Cayler "Lee" Carter, Jr.,
24 Deputy ChiefMichael
Hillman, Deputy ChiefEarl 25 Paysinger, Commander Louis
26 Gray, Captain John Egan, and Does 1 through 100
27 Reyes v. City ofLos Angeles, 2:08 CV-02225 Carl Douglas 28 Chief William Bratton, Deputy

6 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 23 of 98

1 RELATED CASES

NUMBER

PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY

2 ChiefCayler Carter, Commander Louis Gray and

3 10 unknown other named

4 defendants Sal Aguilar v. City ofLos
5 Angeles, Chief William

2:08 CV-02301 Jaime Segall-Gutierrez

6 Bratton, Assistant ChiefJim McDonnell, Deputy Chief
7 Cayler "Lee" Carter, Jr.,

8 Deputy ChiefMichael Hillman, Deputy ChiefEarl
9 Paysinger, Commander Louis

10 Gray, Captain John Egan, Captain Tom MacDonald, and
11 Does 1 through10

12 Ponce v. City ofLos Angeles 2:08 CV-02710 Leo Hernandez
and DOES 1 to 100
13

14

The names of, and counsel for, the Represented Individuals are set forth in

15 Exhibit E. The term "Represented Individuals" in the plural refers collectively to all

16 the Represented Individuals in the MIWON and Related Cases.

17

5. An "Unrepresented Class Member" is a class member not currently

18 represented by any of the counsel in MIWON or the Related Cases, i.e., a class

19 member who is not a "Represented Individual" as defined in Paragraph 4.

20

6. "Class Counsel" means Barrett S. Litt, 1055 Wilshire Blvd., #1880,

21 Los Angeles CA. 90017; Carol A. Sobel, 429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550,

22 Santa Monica, California 90401; and Paul L. Hoffman, 723 Ocean Front Walk,

23 Venice, California 90291.

24

7. "Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit" refers to the claims for relief and

25 allegations in the MIWON Complaint dated May 9,2007 ("MIWON ComplainC),

26 as well as the claims for relief and allegations in the operative complaints filed in

27 the Related Cases ("Related Case Complaints"), all of which are based upon actions

28 of the LAPD or its personnel for allegedly violating First or Fourth Amendment

7 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 24 of 98

1 rights, as well as other federal and state-law rights, in or surrounding MacArthur

2 Park on May 1.

3

8. "Released Persons" means the Defendants and their affiliates,

4 subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, and/or assigns, together with past, present

5 and future officials, employees, representatives, attorneys, and/or agents.

6

9. "LAPD" refers to the Los Angeles Police Department.

7

10. "Class Notice" means the notice in a form substantially similar to that

8 attached hereto as Exhibit B.

9

11. "Effective Date" means the date upon which the anticipated Consent

10 Judgment and Order of Final Approval of Settlement ("Consent Judgment") entered

11 by the Court approving the Settlement Agreement becomes final. If a class member 12 objects to the settlement, the Consent Judgment will be deemed final upon

13 expiration of the time to appeal or, if one or more Notices of Appeal are filed in the

14 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, upon exhaustion of all such appeals and any

15 petitions for writs of certiorari. If no class member objects to the settlement, the

Consent Judgment will be deemed final upon its entry.
16
12. An "Opt-Out" is any Unrepresented Class Member who files with the
17
Administrator a timely request for exclusion from this Settlement Agreement.
18
13. "Proof of Claim Form" means the Proof of Claim and Release Form
19
that Unrepresented Class Members must use to make a claim for payment from the 20
Post Administration Class Fund, as that term is defined in Paragraph 15, under this
21
Settlement Agreement. A copy of the proposed Proof of Claim Form is attached as 22
the last page of Exhibit B.
23
14. The "Class Fund" is the monetary fund set aside for Unrepresented
24
Class Members who file timely class claims. The Class Fund amounts to $250,000,
25
inclusive of all costs of class administration.

26

15. The "Post Administration Class Fund" is the Class Fund less costs of

27 cIass adm"InIstratI.On.

28

16. The "Represented Individuals' Fund" encompasses all funds owed to

8 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 25 of 98

1 Represented Individuals under this Settlement Agreement. The Represented

2 Individuals' Fund amounts to $12,600,000, inclusive of all attorney's fees, medical

3 liens and costs.

4

17. "Class Attorney's Fees" are the attorney's fees the MIWON Plaintiffs

5 intend to request that the Court award Class Counsel and the MIWON counsel team

6 collectively pursuant to this Settlement Agreement, which includes the sum of

7 $3,713,000 for the MIWON counsel, inclusive of all MIWON-related litigation

8 costs, medical liens and medical costs. In addition, Class Attorney's Fees

9 encompass some additional sums allocated to non-MIWON counsel, sums agreed

10 to between MIWON counsel and non-MIWON counsel and in tum individually 11 addressed between non-MIWON counsel and their clients.l These fees are all based 12 on both a statutory and class fund fee award available on both the federal and state

13 claims brought in this case. Nothing in this paragraph in any way either increases

14 the total settlement amount owed by the City or imposes any payment obligation on

15 any other Defendant or Released Person.

18. The "Claim Cut-off Date" of May 27,2009, is the date by which any
16
Unrepresented Class Member who wishes to receive payment from the Post
17
Administration Class Fund must file hislher Proof of Claim Form (attached as the
18
last page of Exhibit B).
19
19. The "Bar Date," which is April 27, 2009, is the date by which any
20
class member must file objections, if any, to this Settlement Agreement, or any
21
class member must request exclusion from the settlement. An Unrepresented Class 22
Member requests exclusion from the settlement by sending a request to the
23
Administrator consistent with the terms of Paragraph 59, infra. A Represented
24
Individual requests exclusion from the settlement either by failing to provide
25
hislher counsel with a signed authorization or by providing written notice to the
26 Court and parties of hislher intent to exclude him or herself, in either case no later
27
1 MIWON counsel intend to advise the Court of the amounts they calculated for the 28 non-MIWON counsel based on the information made available to MIWON

9 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 26 of 98

1 than the Bar Date.

2 III. DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY; NO ADMISSION OR WAIVER

3

20. This Settlement Agreement is for settlement purposes only. Nothing in

4 the Settlement Agreement, its exhibits or other documents incorporated herein shall

5 be construed as, or deemed to be evidence of, a waiver of any defense or legal

6 position otherwise available to any of the Defendants or any other persons. Neither

7 the fact of settlement nor any provision contained in this Settlement Agreement, its

8 exhibits or other documents incorporated herein, nor any party's or other person's

9 performance hereunder shall constitute or be admissible anywhere as (a) evidence

10 establishing or otherwise relating to any claim for relief or any fact alleged by any

11 Represented Individual, Unrepresented Class Member or other person, whether in 12 this action or in any other pending or future action or proceeding; or (b) evidence of

13 any wrongdoing, fault, violation oflaw, or liability of any kind on the part of any

14 Defendant or other Released Person. The Defendants make no admission of any

15 claim, allegation or fact in the MIWON case, the Related Cases or any other action

16 or proceeding whatsoever. Rather they deny all allegations of wrongdoing and

deny any liability whatever to the Represented Individuals, to any Unrepresented
17
Class Member or to any other person. This Settlement Agreement does not create,
18
and is not intended to create, any rights belonging to any non-parties, except as
19
otherwise expressly provided herein. 20
IV. TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR DAMAGES
21
21. The parties enter into this Settlement Agreement solely for the 22
purposes of this settlement and its implementation. If the Settlement Agreement
23
does not receive final court approval as provided herein, then this Settlement
24
Agreement shall have no effect whatever, and the parties shall in all respects return
25 to their positions ex ante; provided, however, that said return to the parties' 26 positions ex ante shall not entitle any party to reimbursement of costs already
27 incurred under this Settlement Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided
28
counsel..
10
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 27 of 98

1 herein.

2

22. The total monetary settlement in the MIWON and Related Cases

3 collectively, including all payments to Represented Individuals and Unrepresented

4 Class Members, and all payments for class administration (except for special

5 payments for activities requested by the City as provided in Paragraph 54), is

6 $12,850,000. Payment of said amount shall be the obligation of the City and no

7 other Defendant or person. The City intends to use the proceeds from one or more

8 Judgment Obligation Bonds (hereafter the "Judgment Bond") to fund the Consent

9 Judgment resulting from this settlement. The City will deposit the funds required

10 under this Settlement Agreement forthwith after it receives the proceeds of the sale

11 of the Judgment Bond, the purpose of such sale being to fund the instant settlement.

12 The parties will use their best efforts to facilitate receipt of such funds within 120

13 days of the Effective Date. If, after six months from the Effective Date, the 14 Judgment Bond has not been sold, the City will provide a report to the Court and

15 Class Counsel regarding how it plans to fund the settlement. The failure or inability

of the City to sell the Judgment Bond shall not be cause for the City to rescind the
16
Settlement Agreement. The Consent Judgment shall in any event be considered a
17
final non-appealable judgment, collectible under the same legal standard as any
18
final judgment in federal court that has not been appealed, except as otherwise
19
provided in this Settlement Agreement. Other provisions of this paragraph
20
notwithstanding, the City shall advance to the Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson
21
Client Trust Account" $50,000 of the $250,000 constituting the Class Fund (the 22
"Advance Payment") for: dissemination of Class Notices and publication of
23
summary Class Notices; processing of class claims; and other reasonably necessary 24
class-administration activities after the Court issues its preliminary approval,
25 including other class administration activities set forth in the Settlement
26
Agreement. In the event no Consent Judgment becomes final, or if the Settlement
27 Agreement is rescinded, any portion of the Advance Payment that the
28 Administrator has used, including sums paid to organizations pursuant to Paragraph

11 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 28 of 98

1 46, infra, shall not be refundable; portions of the Advance Payment that the

2 Administrator has not used shall be refundable. Should the total amount required

3 by the Administrator exceed $50,000, such additional funds shall be drawn from the

4 $200,000 otherwise designated for payment of claims to Unrepresented Class

5 Members.

6

23. The Represented Individuals' Fund amount of$12,600,000 shall be

7 applied to settle all the claims of all the Represented Individuals, including all

8 attorney's fees, all liens and costs. Counsel for the MIWON Represented

9 Individuals and counsel for the other Represented Individuals have agreed among

10 themselves on the amounts that each of the Represented Individuals will receive.

11 Each Represented Individual, except Missing Represented Individuals, who are 12 addressed elsewhere in this Settlement Agreement, either has agreed or is expected

13 to agree, to settle hereunder in exchange for the amount designated for him/her by

14 counsel. (See Paragraph 28 for the City's right to rescind this Settlement

15 Agreement should the City fail to receive a signed authorization evidencing such

16 agreement.) Counsel for the MIWON Represented Individuals and counsel for the

other Represented Individuals have also agreed among themselves on the amounts
17
and manner in which attorney's fees included within the Represented Individuals'
18
Fund will be distributed among counsel; provided, however, that non-MIWON
19
Represented Individuals might have agreements with their counsel regarding
20
percentage divisions of their settlements as a means of determining attorney's fees.
21
24. It is expressly understood that Plaintiffs' potential claim for statutory 22
attorney's fees was a substantial factor in arriving upon the final settlement amount
23
of$12,850,000. Although the parties did not set a specific figure for attorney's fees

24
in agreeing upon the final settlement amount, they understood that the statutory

25 attorney's-fee claim materially and substantially increased the final settlement

26 amount from what it otherwise would have been.

27

25. Except as provided under Paragraph 29, infra, and subject to the terms

28 of Paragraph 22, supra, the City shall transfer the total settlement amount of

12 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 29 of 98

1 $12,850,000 via wire transfer into the "Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson Client Trust

2 Account".

3

26. After the City advances the total settlement amount referenced in the

4 preceding paragraph into the Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson Client Trust Account,

5 a portion of that amount shall be distributed to the Trust Accounts of plaintiffs'

6 counsel in each of the Related Cases as agreed to among all Plaintiffs' counsel.

7 (The MIWON counsel will determine separately and among themselves how to

8 divide attorney's fees among themselves and how to distribute the funds to the

9 Represented Individuals they represent.) The amounts to go to each Trust Account,

10 which constitute the complete payments to each attorney and hislher clients,

11 inclusive of attorney's fees, client damages and all liens and costs, if any, are as

12 follows:

13

A. Gregory Yates: $525,000

14

B. Ellen Ellison: $40,000

C. Susan Pintar: $530,000
15

D. Luis Carrillo: $2,090,000
16

E. Louis Krass: $50,000
17

F. Carl Douglas: $352,000
18
G. Leo Hernandez: $38,000
19
H. Jaime Segall-Gutierrez: $241,000. At an earlier stage in this 20
litigation, Mr. Segall-Gutierrez represented the following individuals:
21
Summer Reese, for herself and as guardian for her minor child Patrick 22
Reese; Geneva Reese; Ed Cotton; Pedro Reyes; Tania Torres; Miguel

23
Guzman; and Nadia Khan. Those individuals are no longer represented by

24 Mr. Segall-Gutierrez, and they will be paid directly from the Litt, Estuar et

25

al. Client Trust Account.

26

1. Litt, Estuar et al. (for MIWON): $8,984,000 (which includes the

27

entire $250,000 Class Fund).

28

27. It is expressly understood and agreed upon that any and all disputes, or

13 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 30 of 98
1 resolution of such disputes, between or among any of the Plaintiffs, or between or 2 among counsel for any of the Plaintiffs, or between or among any Plaintiffs, on the 3 one hand, and their counsel, on the other, over any apportionment, division or 4 transfer of the total settlement amount under the terms of Paragraph 26, supra, shall 5 not entitle any such plaintiff or any such counsel to any relief whatever against the
6 City or other Released Person, or impose any duty of any kind upon the City or 7 other Released Person. Plaintiffs and their counsel shall hold the City and all other 8 Released Persons harmless in any dispute, or for any alleged wrong, in any way 9 arising out of any and all distributions referenced in Paragraph 26, supra. Plaintiffs 10 and their respective counsel, as reflected in Exhibit E, shall respectively hold the
11 City and all other Released Persons harmless with regard to any dispute, or alleged
12 wrong, in any way relating to any claim by any third-party lienholder to any
13 amount distributed to any Represented Individual herein; provided, however, that
14 the Plaintiffs and their counsel shall only hold the City harmless under the terms of this sentence to the extent that counsel for the debtor-plaintiff(s) in issue have
15
received notice of the subject lien(s) on or before the date that the City has
16
deposited the total settlement amount into the Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson Client
17
Trust Account. Plaintiffs hereby expressly acknowledge receipt of the Notice of
18
Lien issued upon the assets of Tomasa Alvarez by LACIUSC Medical Center and
19
issued by USCB, Inc. by way of letter dated December 29,2008; and Plaintiffs also 20
expressly acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Lien upon the assets of Antonio
21
Lopez by Presbyterian Community and issued by Health Advocates by way of letter 22
dated January 28,2008.
23
28. Class Counsel shall provide a signed authorization from each
24
Represented Individual agreeing to the terms of the settlement as it relates to that
25
Represented Individual, redacted to omit personal identifying information other 26 than the Represented Individual's name and attorney, to counsel for the City, either 27 by personal delivery or facsimile, no later than the Bar Date. The City shall be 28 entitled to treat Class Counsel's failure to provide such a signed authorization for
14 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 31 of 98
1 any Represented Individual as that Represented Individual's request for exclusion
2 from the settlement. If any Represented Individual requests exclusion from the 3 settlement or is otherwise excluded from the Settlement, the City shall be entitled to 4 rescind the Settlement Agreement within 20 days after the Bar Date or date of
5 exclusion, whichever is later. Rescission shall return the MIWON and Related 6 Cases to active litigation status; shall provide Plaintiffs the right to reinstate all 7 dismissed individual defendants; and shall revoke and withdraw any and all
8 releases from liability provided by such individual defendants. In addition, the 9 tolling of the statute of limitations shall terminate for the claims for relief against 10 the individual defendants previously dismissed (such statute(s) of limitations 11 having been tolled at the time of the dismissal) on the earlier of (a) 30 days after the 12 rescission or (b) the filing of a notice of reinstatement of claims filed with the
13 Court. In the event the City exercises a right of rescission in accordance with this
14 paragraph, any funds that it has paid or otherwise has transferred or deposited 15 pursuant to this Settlement Agreement shall be returned to it within 10 days of the
rescission, less any expenses, fees and costs incurred by the Administrator, such
16
costs to include all sums paid to organizations pursuant to Paragraph 46, infra;
17
provided, however, that the Administrator shall make a written accounting, to
18
counsel for the City and to Class Counsel, of all such fees and costs. The
19
Administrator shall forward its written accounting at the same time it returns any
20
funds to the City pursuant to this paragraph.
21
29. Despite the provisions of Paragraph 26, this Settlement Agreement
22
contemplates that there may be some structured settlements for individual plaintiffs.
23
To the extent there are such structured settlements, the City will enter into the
24
appropriate agreements not in conflict with this Settlement Agreement or terms of
25
the Consent Judgment, and will follow any payment instructions it receives 26 pursuant to such structured settlements prior to directing payment of settlement 27 funds into the Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson Client Trust Account. To the extent
28 there are such structured settlements, the City will deduct payments made pursuant
15 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 32 of 98
1 to such instructions from the amount subsequently transferred into the Litt, Estuar,
2 Harrison & Kitson Client Trust Account. The City shall not enter into any
3 structured-settlement agreements or follow any payment instructions thereunder
4 after it directs payment to be made into the Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson Client
5 Trust Account. This Settlement Agreement fixes the total amount that the City will
6 be responsible to pay Plaintiffs collectively, either directly or in the form of a
7 structured settlement. To the extent there are structured settlements, they will be
8 negotiated by counsel for individual Represented Individuals, memorialized in
9 individual settlement agreements, and provided to the Court prior to entry of the
10 Consent Judgment. No structured settlement shall increase the total cost of this
11 settlement to the City or impose any obligations or duties of any kind upon any 12 defendant or Released Person other than the City whatever. Once the Consent 13 Judgment becomes final, it is the Consent Judgment that constitutes the binding
settlement terms among the parties. Plaintiffs and their counsel shall hold harmless
14
all Defendants or other Released Persons with regard to any dispute between or
15
among any Plaintiffs, between or among any Plaintiffs' counsel, or between or
16
among any Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Plaintiffs' counsel, on the other, in any
17
way related to any structured settlement.
18
30. Upon deposit of the total settlement amount into the Litt, Estuar,
19
Harrison & Kitson Client Trust Account, payment of the Post Administration Class
20
Fund shall issue therefrom to the Administrator to permit payment of claims to
21
Unrepresented Class Members who file timely Proof of Claim Forms that the
22
Administrator does not reject. Each such payment shall be issued in an amount not
23
to exceed $1000. In the event that there are more such claims than can be paid in
24
the amount of $1000 from the Post Administration Class Fund without depleting it, 25 then the Post Administration Class Fund will be distributed proportionally to each 26 Unrepresented Class Member who files a timely Proof of Claim Form that the 27 Administrator does not reject. If, after payment to each Unrepresented Class 28 Member the amount owed under the terms of this paragraph, there are funds
16 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 33 of 98
1 remaining in the Post Administration Class Fund, then that remaining amount shall
2 revert to the City. Whether or not a portion of the Post Administration Class Fund
3 remains for reversion to the City, the Administrator shall make a written
4 accounting, to counsel for the City and to Class Counsel, of all sums, fees, costs
5 and expenses paid from the Class Fund, including from the Advance Payment. The
6 Administrator shall make the accounting within 60 days from the date the
7 Administrator receives the Post Administration Class Fund for disbursement. Along
8 with the accounting, the Administrator shall provide Class Counsel and counsel for 9 the City with a written report listing the total number of Proof of Claims Forms it
10 received, the total number of claims it paid, and the total number of claims it
11 rejected broken down by the reasons for rejection. The City makes no
12 representations about, and makes no guarantee to any person with regard to, the
13 amount that will ultimately constitute the Post Administration Class Fund. All
14 Plaintiffs and their counsel shall hold the City and all other Released Persons
15 harmless in any dispute in any way arising from the determination of the amount
constituting the Post Administration Class Fund or any transfer or distribution of
16
any portion of the Post Administration Class Fund.
17
31. If the City fails to exercise any right of rescission pursuant to this
18
Settlement Agreement, then after all such rights to rescind have expired, but before
19
entry of the Consent Judgment, Plaintiffs shall dismiss from the above-captioned
20
MIWON case and from all the Related Cases, all defendants other than the City,
21
including each and every defendant other than the City named in the Related Cases 22
listed in Paragraph 4, supra; provided, however, that in the event the Matters
23
Alleged in the Lawsuit are not resolved with a Consent Judgment that becomes
24
final, such dismissed defendants shall be reinstated to permit the parties to proceed
25
upon the Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit as the parties deem appropriate. In the 26 event of reinstatement, the applicable statute(s) of limitations governing claims for 27 relief related to Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit for each such reinstated defendant
28 shall be tolled from the date of dismissal to the earlier of (a) 30 days after the
17 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 34 of 98
1 rescission or (b) the filing of a notice of reinstatement of claims filed with the
2 Court.. Plaintiffs shall lose any right of reinstatement once the total settlement
3 amount is deposited into the Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson Client Trust Account.
4 Notwithstanding this paragraph or any other paragraph in this Settlement
5 Agreement, Plaintiffs shall promptly dismiss from the MIWON case and all Related
6 Cases any defendant other than the City once Class Counsel receives a document,
7 signed by that defendant, containing the defendant's (a) release of all Plaintiffs
8 from any and all liability, claims for relief or actions in any way arising from the
9 Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit, (b) acknowledgement that the defendant's
10 dismissal under the terms of this sentence shall be withdrawn, and the defendant
11 reinstated into all cases from which the defendant had been dismissed under the 12 terms of this paragraph, should the instant settlement fail to produce a Consent
13 Judgment that becomes final, and (c) acknowledgement that any statute(s) of
14 limitations governing any of the Plaintiffs' claims against the defendant in any way
15 arising from the Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit shall be tolled from the date of
dismissal to the earlier of (a) 30 days after the rescission or (b) the filing of a notice
16
of reinstatement of claims filed with the Court. No defendant shall be dismissed
17
under the terms of the preceding sentence until and unless the Court enters a
18
preliminary approval order. Upon reinstatement of any defendant pursuant the
19
terms of this paragraph, such reinstatement automatically triggers revocation and 20
withdrawal of all releases and acknowledgements on the part of that defendant
21
made under the terms of this paragraph.
22 v. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR DAMAGES
23
32. This Settlement Agreement is subject to and conditioned on a Fairness
24
Hearing conducted by the Court, the Court's final approval of this Settlement
25
Agreement, and entry of the Consent Judgment. The Consent Judgment shall be 26
deemed final only on expiration of the time to appeal by a class member who has 27 filed a timely objection to the settlement, or if a Notice of Appeal by any such
28 person is filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, upon exhaustion of all appeals
18 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 35 of 98

1 and petitions for writs of certiorari or the expiration of the time to file such writ

2 petitions. Once final, the Consent Judgment shall be a judgment of this Court,

3 binding and enforceable in accordance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement

4 and applicable law. Subject to any continuing rights of Opt-Outs, the Consent

5 Judgment shall:

6

A. Dismiss with prejudice, in the above-captioned MIWON

7

case and all Related Cases, all claims for damages or other relief against any

8

and all Defendants or other Released Persons, each party therein to bear all

9

its own costs and attorney's fees except as otherwise expressly provided for

10

in this Settlement Agreement;

11

B. Enjoin all Damages Class Members, Structural Relief

12

Class Members and Unrepresented Class Members from asserting against

13

any Defendant or other Released Person any and all claims for damages or

other relief which any such class member had, has, or may have in the future
14

in any way arising out of the facts alleged, or in any way related to the claims
15

for relief pleaded, in the MIWON Complaint or Related Case Complaints,
16

which are fully incorporated herein by reference;
17

C. Release each Defendant and other Released Person from
18
all claims for damages or other relief which any Damages Class Member,
19
Structural Relief Class Member or Unrepresented Class Member had, has, or
20
may have in the future, against such Defendant or other Released Person in
21
any way arising out of the facts alleged, or in any way related to the claims 22
for relief pleaded, in the MIWON Complaint or Related Case Complaints;

23
D. Determine that this Settlement Agreement is entered into

24
in good faith, is reasonable, fair and adequate, and in the best interest of all

25

the class members; and

26 E. Reserve the Court's continuing jurisdiction over the

27

parties to this Settlement Agreement, including Defendants, Represented

28

Individuals and Unrepresented Class Members, to administer, supervise,

19 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 36 of 98

1

construe and enforce the Settlement Agreement and/or Consent Judgment in

2

accordance with their terms for the benefit of all parties.

3

F. Reserve the Court's continuing jurisdiction over the

4

parties to this Settlement Agreement to enforce the terms of the separate

5

Structural Relief Agreement and Order thereon ("Structural Relief Order")

6

entered by the Court, and fully incorporated herein, regarding resolution of

7

the injunctive relief class certified by the Court on January 8,2008.

8

33. The parties will take all necessary and appropriate steps to obtain

9 preliminary and final approvals of the Settlement Agreement, dismissal of the

10 defendants other than the City as provided in Paragraph 31, and dismissal of the

11 MIWON and Related Cases with prejudice at the time the Court enters its Consent 12 Judgment, all parties bearing all their own attorney's fees and costs unless

13 otherwise expressly provided in this Settlement Agreement. If the Consent

14 Judgment is entered and there is an appeal therefrom by an objector, the City will

15 not oppose Plaintiffs' efforts to defend the Settlement Agreement and/or Consent

16 Judgment, which shall be at Plaintiffs' sole expense.

34. The Consent Judgment that this Settlement Agreement contemplates
17
resolves in full as of the Effective Date all claims for relief, actions, causes of
18
action, or allegations of any kind that in any way arise from or relate to the Matters
19
Alleged in the Lawsuit, against any or all of the Defendants and other Released
20
Persons by any and all of the Represented Individuals and Unrepresented Class
21
Members, whether based upon any federal, state or local law, law of any foreign 22
nation, regulation, duty, obligation, promise, ordinance or any other legal rule. As
23
of the Effective Date, all the Represented Individuals and Unrepresented Class
24
Members, except Opt-Outs, waive all rights to any and all claims for relief, actions
25
or causes of action in any way arising from or related to the Matters Alleged in the
26 Lawsuit against any and all of the Defendants and other Released Parties, whether
27 based upon any federal, state or local law, law of any foreign nation, regulation,
28 duty, or obligation, promise, ordinance or any other legal rule.

20 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 37 of 98

1

35. As of the Effective Date, the Represented Individuals and the

2 Unrepresented Class Members, except Opt-outs, and all their agents, attorneys and

3 assigns, on the one hand, and the Defendants and all of their agents, attorneys and

4 assigns, on the other, hereby waive and release one another from any and all claims

5 or rights to pursue, initiate, prosecute, or commence any action or proceeding

6 against one another before any court, administrative agency or other tribunal, or to

7 file against one another any complaint regarding acts or omissions with respect to

8 any Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit, including but not limited to any claims of

9 malicious prosecution or abuse of process; and further, as it relates to this mutual

10 waiver and release, expressly waive the provisions of California Civil Code Section

11 1542, which provides that

12

"a general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not

13

know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the

14

release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or

her settlement with the debtor."
15

36. Upon Entry of the Consent Judgment, each Represented Individual and
16

Unrepresented Class Member shall be deemed to have consented to the jurisdiction
17
of the Court. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to negate any prior or other
18
consent to this Court's jurisdiction by any Represented Individual, Unrepresented
19
Class Member or other person. 20
VI. HANDLING OF MINORS' CLAIMS
21
37. Included among the Represented Individuals are minors, some of 22
whose settlements hereunder are $6000 or less, and some of whose settlements
23 exceed $6000. For those minors who receive, exclusive of attorney's fees and costs,

24
settlements of $6000 or less, blocked accounts are not to be opened, and the money

25 shall be paid to the parent or other guardian ad litem of the minor for general use

26 for the minor's health and well-being in whatever manner the parent or guardian

27 sees fit; MIWON plaintiffs within this category, along with their counsel, are listed

28 in Exhibit F. Non-MIWON counsel shall provide their own lists, in a form

21 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 38 of 98

1 substantially similar to Exhibit F, to Class Counsel by March 13,2009. This

2 paragraph does not impose any duties upon any of the Defendants or other Released

3 Persons.

4

38. For those minors who receive, exclusive of attorney's fees and costs,

5 settlements over $6000, and who are under the age of 16 as of December 31, 2009,

6 their counsel shall cause to be opened for them blocked interest bearing bank

7 accounts on terms further elaborated in the proposed Consent Judgment (attached

8 as Exhibit C). MIWON plaintiffs within this category, along with their counsel, are

9 listed in Exhibit G. Non-MIWON counsel shall provide their own lists, in a form

10 substantially similar to Exhibit G, to Class Counsel by March 13, 2009. Counsel for

11 any minor encompassed within the first sentence of this paragraph shall file with

12 the Court a record of each such blocked interest bearing account within 90 days

13 from the date the City deposits the total settlement amount into the Litt, Estuar, 14 Harrison & Kitson Client Trust Account pursuant to Paragraph 25, supra. It shall be

15 the duty of plaintiffs' counsel to coordinate with Class Counsel to learn the date

that such amount is deposited into the Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson Client Trust
16
Account. This paragraph does not impose any duties upon any of the Defendants or
17
other Released Persons.
18
39. Settlement funds for those minors who will be 16 years of age or older
19
as of December 31, 2009, and whose individual settlements exceed $6000 exclusive
20
of attorney's fees and costs, shall be maintained in their counsel's Client Trust
21
Account so that each such settlement can be expeditiously paid to each such minor 22 at the time ofhis/her 18th birthday. MIWON plaintiffs within this category, along
23
with their counsel, are listed in Exhibit H. Non-MIWON counsel shall provide their
24
own lists, in a form substantially similar to Exhibit H, to Class Counsel by March
25
13,2009. This paragraph does not impose any duties upon any of the Defendants or

26 other Released Persons.

27

40. The parties recognize that there may be circumstances in which a

28 parent or other guardian has a need for the funds in a blocked account for the direct

22 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 39 of 98

1 and immediate benefit of a minor plaintiff with an interest in funds in a blocked

2 account, such as for a medical emergency or braces. The Consent Judgment

3 contains procedures under which such parents and guardians may withdraw funds

4 in such cases without the need for court approval.

5 VII. HANDLING OF MISSING REPRESENTED INDIVIDUALS' CLAIMS

6

41. There are Represented Individuals whose whereabouts are currently

7 unknown ("Missing Represented Individuals"). Plaintiffs' counsel are currently

8 unable to secure the consent of the Missing Represented Individuals to the

9 settlement.

10

42. The Court has the authority to approve the amount of settlement for

11 the Missing Represented Individuals and to bind them under this Settlement

12 Agreement and the Consent Judgment. Counsel for the Missing Represented

13 Individuals will send written notice to the last known address of each Missing 14 Represented Individual, such notice to set forth the material terms of the settlement,

15 including all waivers and releases and any sum hereunder payable to such Missing

Represented Individual, as those terms relate specifically to him/her. The parties
16
shall request, and hereby do so request, that the Court approve settlements as shall
17
be designated for the Missing Represented Individuals. Should the Court fail to
18
approve settlement for all the Missing Represented Individuals in the Consent
19
Judgment, the City and other Defendants reserve the right to rescind this Settlement 20
Agreement. In the event a defendant exercises a right of rescission in accordance
21
with this paragraph, any funds that the City has paid or otherwise has transferred or 22
deposited pursuant to this Settlement Agreement shall be returned to it within 10
23
days of the rescission, less any expenses, fees and costs incurred by the 24
Administrator, such costs to include all sums paid to organizations pursuant to
25
Paragraph 46, infra; provided, however, that the Administrator shall make a written
26 accounting, to counsel for the City and to Class Counsel, of all such fees and costs.
27 The Administrator shall forward its written accounting at the same time it returns
28 any funds to the City pursuant to this paragraph.

23 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 40 of 98

1

43. Assuming the Court approval referenced in the preceding paragraph,

2 each Missing Represented Individual's settlement funds will be placed in a

3 separate, special interest bearing trust account, where, absent the Missing

4 Represented Individual's appearance and claim of such funds via such Missing

5 Represented Individual's counsel in the MIWON or Related Cases, the funds will

6 remain until December 31, 2012. If any Missing Represented Individual has not

7 claimed hislher funds by December 31, 2012, then the funds in the account for such

8 individual shall revert to the City. Counsel for any Missing Represented Individual

9 who opens a trust account pursuant to this paragraph shall, at the time the trust

10 account is opened, provide the financial institution holding the funds written notice

11 of the City's reversionary right and all instructions necessary to facilitate such

12 reversion on January 1,2013. It shall then be the responsibility of the City to

13 initiate the reversionary process and contact any holders of the trust accounts

14 necessary to accomplish it, with which process all Plaintiffs' counsel shall

15 cooperate. Despite the provisions ofthis paragraph, between January 1,2013, and

16 December 31,2018, each Missing Represented Individual shall retain the right to

receive from the City (and no other person) the amount of net principal and accrued
17
interest, if any, that was in the trust account at the time the City received funds from
18
it; provided, however, that said Missing Individual shall not be entitled to receive
19
interest accrued after December 31,2012, if any. The names of, and counsel for, the 20
Missing Represented Individuals will be provided as an exhibit to the proposed
21
Consent Judgment submitted to the Court before the Fairness Hearing. 22
VIII. TERMS AND EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR
23
STRUCTURAL RELIEF
24
44. This Settlement Agreement contemplates the Court's separate entry of
25 the Structural Relief Order. A copy of that Order is attached to this Settlement
26 Agreement at Exhibit D and incorporated as though fully set forth herein. The
27 Structural Relief Order provides support for the First Amendment right to assemble
28 in public places to engage in expressive activity and, thereby, provides a substantial

24 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 41 of 98

1 benefit to all the Rule 23(b)(2) class members. In addition, the Court has retained

2 jurisdiction for a period of not less than four (4) years to enter any orders necessary

3 to enforce the terms of the Structural Relief Order.

4 IX. CLASS COUNSEL FEES

5

45. The parties agree that the total settlement amount of$12,850,000

6 includes all attorney's fees and costs and is the total amount that the City owes

7 hereunder. Of the $12,600,000 from the total settlement amount, Class Counsel

8 shall seek an attorney's fee award of no more than $3,713,000, inclusive of all

9 litigation costs, medical liens and medical costs, for the MIWON-plaintiffs'

10 counsel. This award encompasses all the attorney's fees and costs for all the

11 MIWON-plaintiffs' counsel, who carried the great burden of the work on behalf of

12 all Plaintiffs' counsel in this case. To the limited extent non-MIWON plaintiffs'

13 counsel are entitled to any statutory or other attorney's fees in the Related Cases, 14 such fees are encompassed in the amounts designated for them and their clients in

15 Paragraph 26 (A)-(I), supra. Class Counsel shall provide the Court the amounts

they considered in the total amounts paid to non-MIWON plaintiffs' counsel as part
16
of the fee motion. Defendants take no position on the amount of the fees and costs
17
herein sought by Class Counsel.
18
X. CLASS NOTIFICATION AND CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION
19
46. In this case, there are not any known mailing lists that contain 20
information allowing identification of Unrepresented Class Members. The most
21
practical way to locate Unrepresented Class Members is through dissemination of 22
Class Notices to those in contact with the organizations that organized the May 1
23
events in and around MacArthur Park, i.e., MIWON, CHIRLA, IDEPSCA, KlWA,
24
Filipino Workers Center, and Garment Workers Center. Such dissemination may be
25
accomplished by distributing Class Notices and Proof of Claim Forms to members
26 of the organizations and to the general population living in, and using the facilities
27 of, MacArthur Park; by distributing Class Notices at various immigrant-rights
28 rallies, events and meetings, if any, between the Court's preliminary approval and

25 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 42 of 98

1 the Claim Cut-Off Date; and by other means of outreach as the Court may order. 2 Accordingly, the Court authorizes each such organization to be paid up to $4000 3 (with the actual amount to be determined by Class Counsel in consultation with the 4 Administrator) from the Class Fund as a cost of class administration. These 5 expenditures shall be funded from the Advance Payment or, if necessary, from the 6 Class Fund. In exchange, each such organization must devote 100 hours to 7 distribution of Class Notices in areas in which the organization believes it most 8 likely that Unrepresented Class Members may be present. Each such organization 9 shall complete its dissemination of Class Notices and Proof of Claim Forms no later 10 than May 6,2009, and shall further provide the Administrator written attestation of 11 compliance with the provisions of this paragraph, including compliance with the 12 100-hour distribution requirement herein, no later than the Claim Cut-Off Date. The 13 Administrator shall file all such attestations with the Court no later than June 3,

14 2009.

47. All Class Notices shall include a Proof of Claim Form to be used in
15

connection with any claims made against the Class Fund. (See Exhibit B.) The
16

Proof of Claim Form shall require a statement, made under penalty of perjury, that
17

the individual (1) was present on May 1, 2007, in the geographic area bounded by
18
6th Street (on the north), Alvarado Street (on the east), 7th Street (on the south),
19
and Park View Street (on the west), or the immediately adjacent areas, including 20
from 6th Street west to Lafayette Park, at some point between the hours of 5:00
21
p.m. and 7:00 p.m., (2) did not engage in any conduct justifying Defendants' 22
dispersal order or the use of force, and (3) was subjected to the LAPD's use of
23
force, dispersal order or other unlawful police activity arising from the police

24
response to the immigration march and rally. The Proof of Claim Form shall require

25
an additional statement in the claimant's own words setting forth specific facts

26 supporting his/her claim against the Class Fund.

27

48. The Administrator shall be responsible for publishing a summary Class

28 Notice in La Opinion, once a week for at least three consecutive weeks beginning

26
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 43 of 98

1 no later than the week of March 30, 2009. The parties agree that La Opinion is the

2 publication most likely to reach Unrepresented Class Members.

3

49. Except for publication of summary Class Notice in La Opinion,

4 preparation of approximately 10,000 Class Notices for distribution, and provision

5 of Class Notices to those who request them from the Administrator, the

6 Administrator's only responsibilities shall be (a) to process and pay class claims,

7 (b) to process Unrepresented Class Members' objections and requests for exclusion,

8 (c) to file attestations as provided in paragraph 46, supra, (d) to use the database(s)

9 normally used by the Administrator to verify the social security number or TIN a

10 claimant has provided on the Proof of Claim Form ("SS Database") (see Paragraph

11 52, infra); (e) to select the Investigator referenced in Paragraph 54, infra, and cause 12 investigations to be undertaken upon request from the City; (f) to provide

13 documents required by court orders to finalize the class settlement, (g) to provide 14 the accountings, reports and notices to parties and/or counsel, including the total

15 number of Opt-Outs under Paragraph 63, infra, pursuant to the terms of this

Settlement Agreement, (h) to provide and maintain the lists of rejected claims
16
pursuant to Paragraph 57, infra, (i) to return to the City any unused portion of the
17
Post Administration Class Fund or Advance Payment, (j) to return to the City any
18
funds due the City upon rescission of the Settlement Agreement, and (k) to perform
19
any other tasks specified for it in this Settlement Agreement.
20
50. A Proof of Claim Form shall be deemed timely submitted when
21
received by the Administrator, or postmarked for delivery to the Administrator, on 22
or before the Claim Cut-Off Date.
23
51. An Unrepresented Class Member's objection to or request for
24
exclusion from the settlement shall be deemed timely submitted if received by the
25
Administrator, or postmarked for delivery to the Administrator, on or before the

26 Bar Date.

27

52. Prior to payment of any Unrepresented Class Member's claim against

28 the Class Fund, the Administrator shall ensure that every claimant has provided all

27 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 44 of 98

1 the information required by the terms of the Proof of Claim Form. The

2 Administrator shall also take such other steps as it deems reasonably necessary to

3 satisfy itself that claimants were present at MacArthur Park between the hours of

4 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on May 1, and that there is a factual basis for the claims.

5 These steps may include (a) checking a social security number or TIN appearing on

6 a Proof of Claim Form, (b) comparing the name of any claimant to the name listed

7 in the SS Database, (c) checking with witnesses listed in the Proof of Claim Form,

8 (d) communicating with the claimant, and (e) otherwise following up on claims.

9 The Administrator shall preliminarily reject any claim upon discovery of any claim

10 in which a social security number or TIN has been used on more than one Proof of

11 Claim Form. The Administrator shall similarly preliminarily reject any claim in 12 which the claimant has not provided all the information required by the terms of the

13 Proof of Claim Form. If the Administrator rejects a claim under the terms of the

14 preceding sentences in this paragraph, such rejection shall not be final. Instead, the

15 Administrator shall provide the claimant a deficiency notice by First Class Mail,

and such written notice shall (1) identify the deficiency or deficiencies in the claim
16
and (2) designate a 30-day time limit to provide an opportunity for the claimant to
17
cure all deficiencies. The Administrator shall prepare form deficiency notices and
18
provide them to the parties, who shall have the opportunity to make suggestions
19
regarding the final forms. In determining whether to finally accept or reject a claim,
20
it shall be the responsibility of the Administrator to assess the accuracy and
21
reliability of the claim, including the claimant's response to any deficiency notice.
22
If, upon the expiration of the 30-day period after mailing a deficiency notice, no
23
written explanation is received by, or postmarked for delivery to, the Administrator,
24
the Administrator shall finally reject that claim. The Administrator may finally

25
reject a claim that remains deficient notwithstanding the claimant's response to a

26 deficiency notice.

27

53. Immediately upon entry of the Consent Judgment, the Administrator

28 shall provide to Class Counsel and counsel for the City, via U.S. Mail, redacted

28
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 45 of 98

1 copies of all Proof of Claim Forms that the Administrator determines warrant

2 payment from the Class Fund. The Administrator shall redact such copies to omit

3 all information on each Proof of Claim Form except the specific facts set forth by

4 the claimant to support the claim and the unique Proof of Claim Form number,

5 which the Administrator shall assign to each Proof of Claim Form. Only the

6 Administrator and any Investigator it selects pursuant to Paragraph 54 shall be

7 privy to the other information contained in the Proof of Claim Forms, subject to the

8 terms of Paragraph 64, infra. In providing counsel with the redacted copies herein,

9 the Administrator shall identify, by cover letter or other means, all Proof of Claim

10 Forms that the Administrator does not intend to pay, or intends to send deficiency

11 notices on, for whatever reason. If a Proof of Claim Form has not been so 12 designated, that means the Administrator intends to pay the claim without further 13 mqUIry.

14

54. Upon receipt of the redacted copies of Proof of Claim Forms

15 referenced in the preceding paragraph, the City shall be entitled to designate Proof

of Claim Forms on which it wishes to cause an investigation to be conducted by a
16
private, neutral investigator ("Investigator") of the Administrator's choosing, into
17
truthfulness and merits of any claim raised. In addition, the City may designate
18
categories of claims to be investigated, e.g., claims where more than a certain
19
number of individuals use the same address or claims where the same witness is
20
listed for unrelated claimants. The Administrator shall cause investigations in such
21
cases to be undertaken by the Investigator. The Investigator shall conduct 22
investigations with all due speed. The Investigator shall provide the written results
23
of his/her investigation, including a written conclusion whether the Investigator is 24
reasonably satisfied that the claim is meritorious, to the Administrator. If the
25 Administrator concludes that the claim lacks merit, then the Administrator shall
26 send the claimant a deficiency notice and afford the claimant 30 days from the date
27 the deficiency notice is mailed to provide a written explanation, under penalty of
28 perjury, for the deficiency. If, upon the expiration of the 30-day period, no written

29 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 46 of 98

1 explanation is received by, or postmarked for delivery to, the Administrator, the

2 Administrator shall reject the claim. If the Claimant timely responds to the

3 deficiency notice, the Administrator and the Investigator shall confer. If the

4 Administrator determines that the weight of the evidence in the Proof of Claim

5 Form and response to the deficiency notice indicates that the claim lacks merit, the

6 claim will be rejected. If the Administrator concludes that the weight of the

7 evidence indicates that the claim is meritorious, the claim will be honored and paid.

8 Nothing in this paragraph or any other paragraph in this Settlement Agreement shall

9 require the Administrator or Investigator to inquire into any claimant's citizenship

10 or immigration status.

11

55. Class Counsel shall receive copies of all requests regarding possible

12 investigations of claims and may submit their views regarding the propriety of any

13 investigation sought, and their reasons therefore. Such views expressed by Class 14 Counsel shall not affect the Administrator's duty to cause an investigation to be

15 undertaken upon request by the City.

56. The costs of all investigations under Paragraph 54, but not activities
16

listed in Paragraph 52, shall be at the City'S sole expense, to be paid by the City
17
based upon bills sent by the Administrator. Accordingly, no portion of the Class
18
Fund, as defined herein, shall be used to pay for any investigation or verification of
19
class claims under Paragraph 54.
20
57. The Administrator will prepare a list of all rejected claims, with the
21
reasons for rejection, and maintain the list until at least December 31, 2014. 22
58. The Parties agree that untimely filed Proof of Claim Forms shall be

23
finally rejected by the Administrator and no payments thereon shall be made.

24
XI.

EXCLUSION FROM SETTLEMENT CLASS: OPT-OUTS

25
59. Any Unrepresented Class Member who wishes to be excluded from

26 the terms of this Settlement Agreement must submit a request for exclusion by the

27 Bar Date. The request for exclusion must be delivered to the Administrator, or

28 postmarked for delivery to the Administrator, on or before the Bar Date.

30 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 47 of 98

1

60. Each Unrepresented Class Member who requests exclusion from, or

2 objects to, this settlement shall be deemed to have consented to the jurisdiction of

3 the Court with respect to hislher claim, if any.

4

61. Any Unrepresented Class Member who does not request exclusion

5 from the settlement as set forth in this Settlement Agreement shall conclusively be

6 deemed to be bound by the Settlement Agreement and Consent Judgment, including

7 all release provisions, as well as by all subsequent proceedings, orders and

8 judgments herein.

9

62. Any Unrepresented Class Member who becomes an Opt-Out shall not

10 share in any monetary benefits provided by this Settlement Agreement.

11

63. The Administrator will report in writing, via facsimile and electronic

12 mail, to counsel for the City and Class Counsel the names of, and total number of,

13 all Opt-Outs no later than 10 days after the Bar Date. If the total number of Opt-

14 Outs exceeds 25, the City, in its sole discretion, may rescind this Settlement

15 Agreement. In exercising this right of rescission, the City shall provide the

Administrator and Class Counsel with written notice of rescission within 20 days
16
after receipt of the Administrator's report providing the total number of Opt-Outs.
17
In the event the City exercises the right of rescission in accordance with this
18
paragraph, any funds paid or deposited pursuant to this Settlement Agreement shall
19
be returned to the City within 10 days of the rescission, less any expenses, fees and
20
costs incurred by the Administrator, such costs to include all sums paid to
21
organizations pursuant to Paragraph 46, supra. Rescission shall return the MIWON
22 and Related Cases to active litigation status and result in other actions as set forth in
23
Paragraph 28, supra.
24
64. The Administrator shall maintain copies of all Opt-Out forms and data.
25 If the City does not rescind pursuant to the preceding paragraph, and one or more
26 Opt-Outs sue upon Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit, any of the Defendants may
27 inquire of the Administrator for identifying information, not previously provided,

28 reasonably necessary to determine whether the individual suing opted out of the

31 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 48 of 98

1 settlement.

2 XII. INTEGRATION

3

65. This Settlement Agreement, together with all exhibits and other

4 documents expressly incorporated herein by reference, supersedes all prior and

5 contemporaneous written or oral agreements and understandings between or among

6 the signatories hereto or their representatives, agents or principals regarding the

7 matters contained herein. As such, this Settlement Agreement is an integrated

8 agreement and contains the entire agreement regarding the matters herein, and no

9 representations, warranties or promises have been made or relied on by any of the

10 signatories hereto, or by their representatives, agents or principals, other than as set

11 forth herein. This Settlement Agreement was drafted by counsel for the parties

12 hereto, and there shall be no presumption or construction against any party.

66. Should the Court change any material terms of this Settlement
13
14 Agreement (which shall expressly include the total settlement amount and other

15 payment terms, conditions and amounts; dismissals and releases; and rescissionary

16 rights specified in different parts of this Settlement Agreement) or the proposed

Consent Judgment attached as Exhibit C, the City and the Plaintiffs shall each have
17
the right of rescission, the case will return to active litigation status, the plaintiffs
18
will have the right to reinstate dismissed individual defendants, and all releases
19
shall be withdrawn.
20
XIII. FAIRNESS HEARING AND FINAL ORDER OF APPROVAL
21
67. Before this Settlement Agreement becomes final and binding on the 22
parties, the Court shall hold a Fairness Hearing to determine whether to enter the
23
Consent Judgment.
24
XIV. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS; FACSIMILE SIGNATURES
25
68. This Settlement Agreement may be signed in counterparts which,
26 when taken together, shall constitute a single, executed agreement. Facsimile
27 signatures shall have the same force and effect as originals.
28

32 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 49 of 98
By: ____________________ Barrett S. Litt Class Counsel and Attorney for MIWON Plaintiffs (See Exhibit E)
By: ____________________ Carol S. Sobel Class Counsel and Attorney for MIWON Plaintiffs (See Exhibit E)
By: ____________________ Paul L. Hoffman Class Counsel and Attorney for MIWON Plaintiffs (See Exhibit E)
By: _____________________ Gregory Yates Attorney for Santiago Plaintiffs (See
Exhibit E)
By: ____________________ Luis Carrillo Attorney for Brandon Aguilar Plaintiffs
(See Exhibit E)
By: ____________________ Luis Carrillo Attorney for Ajuria Plaintiffs (See Exhibit
E)
By: -------------------Carl Douglas Attorney for Reyes Plaintiffs (See Exhibit
E)
33
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 50 of 98

1 DATED: 2 3 4 5 DATED: 6 7 8 9 DATED: 10
11
12 13 DATED: 14 15 16 17 DATED: 18 19 20 21 DATED: 22 23 24 25 DATED: 26 27 28

By: ______________________ Ellen Ellison Attorney for Newton Plaintiffs (See
Exhibit E)
By: _____________________ Susan Pintar Attorney for Lopez Plaintiffs (See Exhibit
E)
By: ____________________ Louis Krass Attorney for Gudiel Plaintiffs (See
Exhibit E)
By: ______________________ Jaime Segall-Gutierrez Attorney for Sal Aguilar Plaintiffs (See
Exhibit E)
By: _____________________ Leo Hernandez Attorney for Ponce Plaintiff (See Exhibit
E)
By: _____________________ Cory Brente Attorney for Defendants City of Los
Angeles and William Bratton
By: ______________________
Attorney for Defendant Cayler Carter
34
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 51 of 98

1 DATED: 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

By: ______________________ Attorney for Defendant Louis Gray
35
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

 
 Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 112 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 1 of 7 Ca 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 109 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 1 of 7

1 BARRETT S. LITT, SBN 45527 E: blitt@littlaw.com
2 LITT, ESTUAR, HARRISON & KITSON, LLP
3 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1880 4 Los Angeles, California 90017
T: (213) 386-3114; F: (213) 380-4585 5 6 CAROL A. SOBEL, SBN 84483
E: carolsobel@aol.com 7 LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550 8 Santa Monica, California 90401
T: (310) 393-3055; F: (310) 393-3605 9
10 PAUL L. HOFFMAN, SBN 71244 BENJAMIN SCHONBRUN, SBN
11 118323 JAMES DeSIMONE, SBN 119668
12 E: hoffpaul@aol.com SCHONBRUN, DE SIMONE, et al.
13 723 Ocean Front Walk 14 Venice, California 90291
T: (310) 396-0731; F: (310) 399-7040
15 On Behalf of all MIWON Counsel
16
17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JUN 242009 . -.------~~:.£J_

18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20

21

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING

22 NETWORK, et al.

Case No.: CV 07-3072 AHM (FMMx) [Honorable A. Howard Matz]

23 Plaintiffs,

STRUCTURAL RELIEF ORDER

24 vs.
25 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et aI., 26
Defendants. 27

DATE:

June 22, 2009

TIME:

10:00 A.M.

COURTROOM: 14

28
1

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 112 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 2 of 7 Ca 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 109 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 2 of 7

1

The parties to the above-captioned action have submitted this joint Order for

2 the Court's review and approval, addressing the injunctive relief class certified by

3 the Court in its Order issued on January 8, 2008. The court has considered the

4 joint submission and now issues the following Order:

5

1. Basic Principles:

6

All persons have the right to march, demonstrate, protest, rally or perform

7 other activities protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

8 and the California Constitution. The government may impose reasonable and

9 narrowly tailored restrictions on the time, place, and manner of conducting these

10 activities. However, any limitations or restrictions placed on demonstrations or

11 other First Amendment activities must be justified by the requirements of

12 maintaining public safety, public health, or safe access/egress from the area, and

13 should restrict no more speech than necessary to further these substantial

14 government interests. Officers must not be affected by the content of the opinions

15 being expressed nor by the race, gender, linguistics, national origin, sexual

16 orientation, physical disabilities, appearances, or affiliation of anyone exercising

17 lawful rights.

18

2. Helicopters:

19

Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) helicopters assigned to monitor

20 permitted crowd control incidents shall operate the aircraft at reasonable altitudes

21 so as to avoid disruption of First Amendment protected activities. The Incident

22 Commander will coordinate with event organizers to help avoid over flights during

23 keynote speaker presentations. This action is not intended to prevent LAPD

24 helicopters from response to emergency situations requiring immediate police

25 presence during such crowd control events.

26

27

28
2

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 112 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 3 of 7 Ca 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 109 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 3 of 7

1

3. Marches:

2

Demonstrators, while participating in lawful assemblages, shall not be

3 prevented from using public sidewalks to join or exit a lawful march or from using

4 any public sidewalk adjacent to a lawful march route. However, while on the

5 sidewalk, marchers will not be allowed to obstruct or unreasonably interfere with

6 pedestrian movement and/or prevent lawfully open businesses from operating

7 when such conduct violates any applicable law. LAPD will consider the

8 practicality of facilitating demonstrations that may temporarily block traffic and

9 LAPD shall include the subject in its Crowd Management training.

10

4. Motorcycles/Bicycles/Motor Vehicles:

11

Police motorcycles, bicycles, and motor vehicles may be used for the

12 purpose of observation, visible deterrence, traffic control, transportation and area

13 control during a crowd event. When used at the back of a march, they should

14 maintain a reasonably safe distance behind the marchers. LAPD personnel will not

15 utilize motorcycles, bicycles, or motor vehicles to strike assembled

16 demonstrators/marchers as a method for crowd control or crowd dispersal.

17

5. Crowd Management Training - Horses:

18

In its crowd management training, the LAPD shall include a subject on the

19 impact of the use of horses on crowd behavior.

20

6. Use of Less Lethal Weapons:

21

Less-lethal munitions are categorized as projectiles launched or otherwise

22 deployed for the purpose of overcoming resistance, effecting arrest or addressing

23 the threat of serious injury to an officer or suspect with less risk of causing death

24 than the use of a firearm.

25

a. Less-lethal munitions may be deployed on aggressive and/or

26

combative suspects in a crowd control situation, on suspects who

27

28
3

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 112 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 4 of 7 Ca 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 109 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 4 of 7

1

are a potential physical threat to themselves or others, or suspects

2

displaying "aggressive" and/or "combative" actions.

3

b. For the purpose of deployment ofless-Iethal munitions,

4

"aggressive" and/or "combative" actions include ongoing

5

destruction of property that presents a threat to the personal safety

6

of officers or others.

7

c. Less lethal weapons should not be used on a lawfully dispersing

8

crowd or individual.

9

d. Less lethal weapons should not be used against a person or a crowd

10

that is retreating unless the person or crowd continues to engage in

11

unlawful activity that is aggressive and/or combative.

12

e. Where feasible, notice should be given to the crowd before less-

13

lethal weapons are deployed in a crowd control or dispersal

14

situation, and where feasible, it should be given in the language(s)

15

spoken by those assembled.

16

f. Ifthe LAPD resumes the use of stinger rounds, the LAPD will

17

publish a notice that will require that less-lethal stinger weapons

18

can be used only with the approval of a staff officer (i.e.,

19

commander or above) and only in a riotous situation where the use

20

of lethal force would not be reasonable.

21

7. Use of Batons:

22

Batons should not be used against members of the crowd attempting to

23 disperse, persons unable to move because of the press of the crowd, or persons

24 otherwise posing no imminent threat to the officers or other persons. Batons may

25 be displayed or used in a pushing motion when used as a justified and authorized

26 crowd management technique. The baton may be used to push individuals who intentionally delay dispersal subsequent to a lawful order to disperse. When an
27

28
4

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 112 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 5 of 7 Ca 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 109 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 5 of 7

1 individual's behavior is threatening or violent in nature, the baton may be used as

2 an impact device in accordance with Department policy.

3

8. Public Assemblies:

4

The Incident Commander and supervisors shall make every effort to ensure

5 that the police mission is accomplished as efficiently as possible, with the highest

6 regard for human dignity and liberty of all persons, with consideration of the

7 cultural and linguistic diversity of the neighborhoods and communities of Los

8 Angeles, and with minimum reliance on the use ofphysical force. Incident

9 Commanders, prior to declaring an assembly unlawful, will follow the procedures

10 as directed in the LAPD Guidelines for Crowd Management and Crowd Control,

11 Volume 5 of the LAPD Emergency Operations Guide. Before any public assembly

12 is declared to be unlawful, the Incident Commander should evaluate the feasibility

13 of isolating and arresting those responsible for the unlawful conduct, and if it is

14 determined to be feasible, shall take such action.

15

9. Declaration of Unlawful Assembly:

16

Crowd dispersal techniques shall not be initiated until after a declaration has

17 been announced as required by California Penal Code Section 409. LAPD

18 personnel will follow the procedures as directed in the LAPD Guidelines for

19 Crowd Management and Crowd Control, Volume 5 of the LAPD Emergency

20 Operations Guide. The following factors shall be considered when issuing a

21 dispersal order:

22

a. Use of an amplified loudspeaker system to issue the order.

23

b. If feasible, send an officer to the far side of the crowd to tape record

24

the order.

25

c. If circumstances permit (absence of serious violence), the order

26

shall be made repeatedly over a period of time and, if necessary,

27

from a variety of locations.

28
5

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 112 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 6 of 7 Ca 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 109 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 6 of 7

1

d. The order must include an objectively reasonable period of time to

2

disperse and a clear and safe route to disperse based on the facts

3

and circumstances known at the time.

4

e. An order to disperse shall be given in a manner reasonably

5

calculated to be heard by the entire crowd under the circumstances.

6

When it is known that members of the crowd do not understand

7

English, an effort should be made, when feasible, to give the order

8

to disperse in both English and the other language(s).

9

f. The order to disperse shall include a warning that police action may

10

include the use of less lethal munitions, which could cause

11

significant risk of serious injury to those who remain.

12

10. Crowd Management Training - Shows of Force

13

In its crowd management training, the LAPD shall include a subject on the

14 impact of shows of force on crowd behavior.

15

11. LAPD's Policy Regarding Crowd Control:

16

LAPD's policy regarding crowd control can be found in the Emergency

17 Operations Guide, Volume 5, Chapter 7. All LAPD directives and orders directly

18 related to crowd control and the relevant portions of this agreement shall be

19 included in the Emergency Operations Guide by July 1,2009. The plaintiffs shall

20 be given an opportunity to provide input and comment on the revisions prior to

21 final approval by the LAPD.

22

12. Training on Crowd Control Policies:

23

The LAPD shall require Metropolitan Division to undergo training annually,

24 and every officer at the level of Sergeant I and above to undergo training at

25 minimum intervals of two years, on the Crowd Control and Use of Force policies

26 to be developed pursuant to Paragraph 11 of this document. The Department's

27 existing training, designed and implemented after May 1,2007, will be reviewed

28
6

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 112 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 7 of 7 Ca 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 109 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 7 of 7

1 and modified, as necessary, to confonn to the policies developed as part of this

2 agreement. The training may be live or bye-module, or both, at the Department's

3 discretion.

4

13. Retention of Jurisdiction:

5

The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the tenns of this judgment and to

6 issue all orders necessary to do so. The Court's jurisdiction shall continue for a

7 period of four years and may be extended-in whole or in part-for an additional

8 period of two years upon proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the

9 activities complained of are due to the Department's failure to substantially comply

10 with the provisions of this order.

11

Before bringing a motion to enforce this order, plaintiffs shall give

12 defendants notice of an alleged violation and a reasonable opportunity to remedy it.

13 If necessary to pennit defendants adequate time to remedy the alleged failure to

14 comply, the parties will submit a joint request to extend the Court's initial period

15 ofjurisdiction.

18

19
20 Submitted by:
LITT, ESTUAR, HARRISON & KITSON, LLP 21 LAW OFFICES OF CAROL SOBEL
22

23

24 By: /s/ Barrett S. Litt- - - - -

25

BARRETT S. LITT Attorneys for Plaintiff Class

26

27

28
7

TJUDGE

 
 Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 1 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

Present: The Honorable

A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Stephen Montes Deputy Clerk

Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)

I. INTRODUCTION

This is one of several civil rights actions arising from the Los Angeles Police Department’s (“LAPD”) forceful dispersal of the May 1, 2007 immigration rally at MacArthur Park. It is, of course, not surprising that such a momentous clash would spawn litigation, but because that event was so highly publicized, it has also triggered extensive commentary. The Court will not add to others’ reflections about what May Day 2007 says about the City of Los Angeles. In this order the Court will only rule on the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS that motion.1

II. BACKGROUND
The LAPD recently issued a detailed report containing a minute-by-minute account of the events of May Day 2007 (“LAPD Report”).2 It is largely consistent with the factual allegations in the FAC. The events were also extensively captured on video. The following facts are evidently undisputed (unless otherwise noted).

1Docket No. 17.

2Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice, Los Angeles Police Department Report to the Board of

Commissioners, An Examination of May Day 2007 (Oct. 9, 2007), Reply Ex. A. Available at

http://www.lapdonline.org/home/pdf_view/36560 (last visited Dec. 14, 2007).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 2 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

On May 1, 2007, an association of five non-profit organizations comprising Plaintiff Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network (“MIWON”) conducted a march and rally, as they had done previously on “May Day” for several years. FAC ¶ 50. The permitted events consisted of a morning march and rally in downtown Los Angeles3 and a final rally at MacArthur Park. LAPD Report at 7. The MacArthur Park rally was permitted to continue until 9:00 p.m. FAC ¶ 6. By 5:00 p.m, an estimated 6,000 to 7,000 people were present in or around MacArthur Park. LAPD Report at 7. A number of events created tensions among demonstrators and police.4 In the immediately precipitating incident, a group of 20 or 30 “anarchist kids” began throwing objects at the police, including water bottles and gravel. LAPD Report at 8, 32-33.

As officers in the field radioed in reports that they were “taking rocks and bottles” and that unruly elements were inciting the crowd, two groups of supervising officers discussed plans to disperse the crowd. LAPD Report at 33-34. Despite some miscommunication along the chain of command, the discussions resulted in “a decision to declare an unlawful assembly and disperse the crowd.” LAPD Report at 8. “[The] plan involved the use of Metropolitan Division [an elite LAPD unit] resources to move the crowd from the south side of the park northbound from 7th and Alvarado toward the north side of the park.” Id. The LAPD commanders also gave authorization to use “lesslethal” munitions if the behavior of the crowd warranted it. Id. at 34-35.

“At 6:17 p.m., the Metropolitan Division B-Platoon formed a skirmish line, and without a dispersal order being given, moved the crowd northbound, pushing and striking some individuals in the crowd, including some members of the media, and firing lesslethal munitions.” Id. at 8; FAC ¶ 7. A few minutes later, a police helicopter broadcast a partial dispersal order: “This is the Los Angeles Police Department. (Inaudible) . . . This is now an unlawful assembly. Everybody needs to leave the park immediately.” LAPD Report at 38. This order was broadcast in English and was inaudible to many in the park, including certain LAPD commanders, who in the next ten minutes sought confirmation that an order had been given. See LAPD Report at 40; FAC ¶ 7. By 6:41 p.m., when the

3The LAPD Report states that the morning events took place in “Central Area,” which is an LAPD designation for downtown Los Angeles. MacArthur Park is in the “Rampart Area.”

4For example, at one of the entrances to the park, the police formed a skirmish line to direct the

crowd into a particular entrance, thereby raising tensions with the crowd. LAPD Report at 8.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 3 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

LAPD drive to clear the park ended, “officers had driven thousands of people from the park, knocked over and struck some individuals – including media and non-media, peaceful or not – and deployed a total of 146 less-lethal impact munitions and over 100 uses of the baton.” LAPD Report at 9.

As a result of the LAPD’s forceful dispersal of the rally, MIWON, its five member organizations, and twelve individuals filed this putative class action against the City of Los Angeles, William Bratton (the Chief of Police), Cayler Carter (Deputy Chief of Police), Louis Gray (an LAPD commander), and Does 1 through 10. A group of attorneys from over a dozen law firms (“MIWON counsel”) jointly represent the named plaintiffs as well as a large number of unnamed plaintiffs, totaling over 180 people. Plaintiffs seek appointment of the twelve named individual plaintiffs as class representatives and appointment of MIWON counsel as class counsel.

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) contains seven claims seeking relief for violations of various rights:
1. Freedom of speech and association, pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
2. Equal protection, pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
3. Right to be free from excessive force, pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
4. Due process, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 5. Right to be free from threats, intimidation or coercion under California Civil
Code § 52.1; 6. Right to be free from violence or intimidation under California Civil Code §
51.7; and 7. Right to be free from assault and battery.

The organizational plaintiffs seek only injunctive relief. The individual plaintiffs seek compensatory, statutory and exemplary damages, and injunctive relief individually and as class representatives.

/ / /

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 4 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

Plaintiffs initially moved to certify the following two classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3):

(1) An injunctive class defined as “all persons who in the past, or may in the future, engage in peaceful demonstrations or protest in the City of Los Angeles.”

(2) A damages class defined as “those persons who were present on May 1, 2007 in or around MacArthur Park at any point between the hours of 5:00 and 7:00 p.m., who did not engage in any conduct justifying Defendants’ dispersal order or the use of force, and who were subjected to the LAPD’s use of force, dispersal order or other unlawful police activity in MacArthur Park, or along Wilshire Boulevard, Alvarado Boulevard, 7th Street or Park View Street, or in the vicinity of those streets.”

At a hearing conducted on October 29, 2007, the Court pointed out various problems with the proposed class definitions. Those problems related primarily to whether the proposed class representatives had standing to pursue the injunctive class and whether the proposed damages class was sufficiently discrete and manageable to warrant certification. Following the hearing, Plaintiffs modified their proposals and now they propose these classes:

(1) An injunctive class defined as: “Those who in the past have engaged in or who in the future may engage in peaceful demonstrations or protest in the City of Los Angeles and who, at the time they engage in such peaceful demonstrations or protest, were or are:
(a) The following organizations: Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance, Institute for Popular Education of Southern California, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center (“Plaintiff Associations”);
(b) Officers, representatives, or members of Plaintiff Associations; (c) Persons who attend or participate in Plaintiff Associations’ events, including but not limited to their rallies; (d) Organizations who advocate and/or organize on behalf of the rights of individuals and associations to engage in speech, assembly, and expression within the scope of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

(2) A damages class defined as: “Those persons who were present on May 1, 2007

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 5 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

in the geographic area bounded by 6th Street (on the north), Alvarado Street (on the east), 7th Street (on the south), and Park View Street (on the west), or the immediately adjacent areas, including along 6th Street to Lafayette Park, at any point between the hours of 5:00 and 7:00 p.m., who did not engage in any conduct justifying Defendants’ dispersal order or the use of force, and who were subjected to the LAPD’s use of force, dispersal order or other unlawful police activity arising from the police response to the immigration march and rally.”

III. LEGAL STANDARD

The party seeking class certification bears the burden of establishing that each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one requirement of Rule 23(b) have been met. Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., --- F.3d ---, 2007 WL 4303055 *4 (9th Cir., Dec. 11, 2007) (citing Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001), amended, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001)). A district court may certify a class only if, after “rigorous analysis,” it determines that the party seeking certification has met its burden. General Telephone Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 158-161 (1982). However, in determining whether plaintiffs have carried their burden, the court may not consider the merits of their claims. See Dukes, 2007 WL 4303055 at *4. Rather, in reviewing a motion for class certification, the Court generally is bound to take the substantive allegations of the complaint as true. In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litig., 691 F.2d 1335, 1342 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 901 (9th Cir. 1975)). Nevertheless, the Court may look beyond the pleadings to determine whether the requirements of Rule 23 have been met. Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 509 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In fact, “courts are not only at liberty to but must consider evidence which goes to the requirements of Rule 23 [at the class certification stage] even [if] the evidence may also relate to the underlying merits of the case.” Dukes, 2007 WL 4303055 at *4 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Ultimately, it is within the district court’s broad discretion to determine whether a class should be certified. Id. at *3.

/ / /

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 5 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 6 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Standing

A party cannot be a proper representative of a class if such party lacks standing individually to pursue the claims of the class. Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230, 1238 (9th Cir. 2001).

To have Article III standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of a class, a named plaintiff must have suffered harm constituting “actual injury.” Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 860-61(9th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted) (citing O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974), Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49 (1996), and City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109 (1983)). There is no dispute that the individual Plaintiffs have alleged actual and direct injury – being driven out of a public park and surrounding areas, as well as physical injury. Each Plaintiff has alleged that he (or she) was present at MacArthur Park as a demonstrator, observer of the rally, or recreational user of the park at the time of the forceful dispersal, and that he (or she) suffered physical injury due to the LAPD’s use of force. FAC ¶¶ 40, 56-67.

But a class representative plaintiff also “must demonstrate ‘that he is realistically threatened by a repetition of [the violation].’” Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 860-61 (quoting Lyons, 461 U.S. at 109). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs do not face a real and immediate threat of being prevented by the LAPD from participating in a lawful and peaceful demonstration in the future.

Nine of the twelve individual Plaintiffs have submitted declarations making it clear that they frequent MacArthur Park and other public areas, whether for demonstrations or recreation, and intend to do so in the future. See Reply Ex. B (Declarations of Breslin, Cuellar, Eng, Galvez, Gomez, Maldonaldo, Ortiz, Pedro and Rothe-Kushel). Breslin, Gomez, Galvez, and Ortiz submitted supplemental declarations after the hearing indicating that they also attended the May Day 2006 rally. Pls.’ Supp. Mem. Exs. A-D. Defendants do not dispute that those Plaintiffs who have submitted supporting declarations are likely to attend demonstrations in the future. They argue only that the LAPD’s behavior will not occur again.

/ / /
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 6 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 7 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

One way to meet the “realistic repetition” requirement is to “demonstrate that the harm is part of a ‘pattern of officially sanctioned ... behavior, violative of the plaintiffs’ [federal] rights.’” Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 961 (quoting LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1323 (9th Cir. 1985)). As the Ninth Circuit elaborated, “where the defendants have repeatedly engaged in the injurious acts in the past, there is a sufficient possibility that they will engage in them in the near future to satisfy the ‘realistic repetition’ requirement.” Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 961; see also Thomas v. County of Los Angeles, 978 F.2d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that the “possibility of recurring injury ceases to be speculative when actual repeated incidents are documented.”) (citation omitted).

The LAPD has issued unlawful dispersal orders and displayed excessive force orders against demonstrators in the past. Some of the incidents are documented in lawsuits, such as the Los Angeles Superior Court cases Marmillion v. City of Los Angeles (BC 059778), arising out of a large demonstration in October 1991; and Vassos v. City of Los Angeles (BC 080155) and Shefik v. City of Los Angeles (BC 080092), arising from mass arrests of protesters in 1992. Declaration of Carol A. Sobel in Support of Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum (“Sobel Supp. Decl.”) ¶¶ 2, 4. Vassos and Shefik ended in a combined settlement agreement in 1995, involving monetary payment as well as LAPD policy changes and training requirements. Id. ¶¶ 5-6 & Ex. C. Notably, that settlement included provisions defining an unlawful assembly, distinguishing an unlawful assembly from unlawful conduct by isolated individuals, and setting forth requirements for dispersal orders. Id., Ex. C, ¶¶ 10, 12, 14.

At the Democratic National Convention in 2000, the LAPD declared an unlawful assembly in the public demonstration area, ordered the crowd to disperse, and used rubber bullets, batons and other forms of physical force as the crowd attempted to disperse. That mêlée led to three federal lawsuits in this District: National Lawyers Guild v. City of Los Angeles (CV 01-6877) (“NLG”), Berg v. City of Los Angeles (CV 01-7046), and Crespo v. City of Los Angeles (CV 00-8869). The NLG and Crespo cases ended in settlements that set forth standards for the LAPD in regards to unlawful assemblies, dispersal orders, and treatment of the media. See Mem. Ex. 37 (Settlement agreement in NLG) (“NLG Settlement”); LAPD Report, Appendix A, p. 85 (summary of standards from NLG and Crespo settlement agreements).

/ / /

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 7 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 8 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

The Court in NLG found that plaintiffs had established sufficient likelihood of repetition to have Article III standing to seek equitable relief, citing numerous demonstrations at which the LAPD allegedly acted unlawfully. Sobel Supp. Decl., Ex. E (Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at 12-13 (CV 01-6877, Dec. 3, 2003)).

The LAPD itself has acknowledged that what happened on May Day 2007 was not an isolated incident: “Chief Bratton was concerned that the Department had identified many of these problems in the past and that the lessons learned had been forgotten.” LAPD Report at 74. The LAPD Report also acknowledges that the treatment of the media at May Day 2007 failed to comply with the NLG and Crespo settlement agreements. LAPD Report at 10, 11, 48. The Report further identified a number of reasons for the repetition on May Day 2007 of the kind of police misconduct that occurred at the Democratic National Convention some seven years earlier. For example, it noted: “Over the past several years, there appears to have been a gradual diminution of an arrest posture during organized crowd control situations. The Department has moved from a posture of isolating and arresting those who are engaging in unlawful activity or disrupting a rally or demonstration, to a posture of declaring an unlawful assembly and clearing the entire area.” Id. at 52. The report also faulted the scaling back of training in crowd control and treatment of the media, suggesting it was “non-required” training that was “not a priority,” given other demands on LAPD resources. Id. at 63-64.

In short, May Day 2007 was not an isolated event caused by unusual or isolated factors.

The injunction that Plaintiffs now seek generally mirrors the standards set forth in

the NLG Settlement and incorporates the principles from the Vassos-Shefik settlement.

See Mem. Ex. 37; Sobel Supp. Decl., Ex. C. Indeed, the LAPD Report explicitly

recognizes that standards in the NLG and Crespo settlements apply. LAPD Report

Appendix 1 (Summary of the measures that the LAPD agreed to enact as part of the

settlements resulting from the 2000 Democratic National Convention). However, those

settlements were private agreements, not consent decrees or court injunctions. Moreover,

some of the settlement language was permissive, lacking the precision and force of a

legal decree. For example, the NLG Settlement provided that the LAPD may use less-

lethal weapons under certain circumstances, rather than that the LAPD is prohibited from

using those weapons except under certain circumstances. See Mem. Ex. 37 at 4. So if an

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 8 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 9 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

injunction were to ensue in this case, it probably would have a greater likelihood of compliance.

Defendants argue that the LAPD already has institutionalized the policies and training needed to prevent a recurrence of the misconduct that took place on May Day. They declare that they “can now provide assurance that the alleged misconduct of May 1, 2007 will not occur in the future.” Def. Resp. to Pls.’ Supp. Mem. at 2. Defendants cite to the LAPD Report’s description of the Incident Management and Training Bureau, established in July 2007, the institution of Department-wide training in crowd control and First Amendment issues, and several examples of successful LAPD management of mass demonstrations since May 2007. Id., Hillman Decl. ¶¶ 1-8. Defendants also emphasize that historically there have been more events and rallies with no LAPD misconduct than those with problems, pointing to May Day 2006 as an example of a very similar demonstration that was successful. Id. ¶ 9.

Defendants’ showing is insufficient to deny Plaintiffs standing to seek injunctive relief. In the past, the LAPD has undertaken efforts to revise its policies and train LAPD officers to ensure proper management of demonstrations, albeit those efforts were not as extensive as the post-May Day 2007 efforts are touted to be. See Sobel Supp. Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. C ¶¶ 7-17 (policies and training changes as part of the Vassos-Shefik settlement). Although steps were taken in the immediate aftermath of previous litigation, nevertheless new instances of misconduct occurred. The Court cannot find that the measures the LAPD took after May 2007 have achieved, in a mere six months, the reforms that plaintiffs in previous cases sought for over a decade.

Defendants’ contention that their overall record of complying with constitutional requirements relating to crowd control is more positive than negative is similarly unpersuasive. Defendants suggest that Plaintiffs lack standing because the LAPD’s record with regards to May Day immigration rallies is “1 and 1" – i.e., as successful in 2006 as it was unsuccessful in 2007. Def. Resp. at 3. This argument actually hurts Defendants: if the odds of an alleged constitutional violation recurring were 50 percent, a sufficient case or controversy would be present.

/ / /

/ / /
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 9 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 10 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

In any event, to establish a case or controversy Plaintiffs need not establish that future harm is certain, or even probable. What they must establish is that recurrence is not “conjectural” or “hypothetical,” as it would be if future injury were contingent on multiple unlikely assumptions. See Lyons, 461 U.S. at 105-08 (threat of future injury not sufficiently real and immediate to establish existing controversy where the claim of future injury rested on assumption that plaintiffs would engage in conduct leading to an encounter with police involving the use of a chokehold). Given Plaintiffs’ declarations, the contents of the LAPD Report and the unfortunate history of civil rights violations by LAPD officers,5 it is clear that here the threat of future injury is not merely conjectural or hypothetical. Although the Court applauds the LAPD’s remedial actions since May Day 2007, the Court finds that the individual Plaintiffs are “realistically threatened by a repetition of [the violation.]” Lyons at 109.

This conclusion is consistent with Lyons and Ninth Circuit precedent. In HodgersDurgin v. De La Vina, a case which Defendant cites, the Ninth Circuit distinguished Lyons on the ground that in Lyons, the police chokehold that was the alleged injury occurred during a traffic stop prompted by Lyons’s misconduct. 199 F.3d 1037, 1041-42 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (stating that the Supreme Court in Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 15 (1998) “characterized the denial of Article III standing in Lyons as having been based on the plaintiff's ability to avoid engaging in illegal conduct.”). The plaintiffs in Hodgers-Durgin had standing to challenge the Border Patrol’s practice of stopping motorists without reasonable suspicion because driving vehicles near the Mexican border is innocent conduct and therefore they had no duty to avoid another stop by the Border Patrol. Id. at 1041. Moreover, there was “no string of contingencies necessary to produce an injury.” Id. at 1042-43. This case is like Hodgers-Durgin and not like Lyons for the same reasons. Plaintiffs claim that they were engaged in innocent conduct when they were unjustifiably driven from MacArthur Park and surrounding areas. Like the plaintiffs in Hodgers-Durgin, they are neither able to nor required to prevent the possibility of that injury being repeated.

5See Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department (1991) (the

“Christopher Commission Report”); Consent Decree, United States v. City of Los Angeles (CV 00-

11769, Jun. 19, 2001) (settlement of lawsuit brought by Department of Justice for systematic violations

of civil rights).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 10 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 11 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

B. Adequacy of Class Definitions

Rule 23 requires that a class be defined. See Board of School Commissioners of City of Indianapolis v. Jacobs, 420 U.S. 128, 130 (1975) (finding error in district court’s failure to identify a class). However, the contours of the class need not be so clear that every potential member may be identified at the time of class certification. Probe v. State Teachers’ Retirement System, 780 F.2d 776, 780 (9th Cir. 1986). Rather, “a class will be found to exist if the description of the class is definite enough so that it is administratively feasible for the court to ascertain whether an individual is a member.” O'Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 184 F.R.D. 311, 319 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (citing Aiken v. Obledo, 442 F.Supp. 628, 658 (E.D. Cal. 1977)); Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.222 (2004).

Based on the proposals the Court circulated at the hearing and the minor modifications Plaintiffs suggested in their supplemental brief, the Court will certify the following classes:

1. Damages class definition.

“Those persons who were present on May 1, 2007 in the geographic area bounded by 6th Street (on the north), Alvarado Street (on the east), 7th Street (on the south), and Park View Street (on the west), or the immediately adjacent areas, including from 6th Street west to Lafayette Park, at any point between the hours of 5:00 and 7:00 p.m., who did not engage in any conduct justifying Defendants’ dispersal order or the use of force, and who were subjected to the LAPD’s use of force, dispersal order or other unlawful police activity arising from the police response to the immigration march and rally.”

2. Injunctive class definition.

“Those who in the past have engaged in or who in the future may engage in peaceful

demonstrations or protest in the City of Los Angeles and who, at the time they engage in

such peaceful demonstrations or protest, were or are:

(a) The following organizations: Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing

Network, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Koreatown Immigrant

Workers Alliance, Institute for Popular Education of Southern California, Pilipino

Workers Center, Garment Workers Center (“Plaintiff Associations”);

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 11 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 12 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

(b) Officers, representatives, or members of Plaintiff Associations; (c) Persons who attend or participate in Plaintiff Associations’ events, including but not limited to their rallies; (d) Organizations that advocate, organize, or both advocate and organize on behalf of the rights of individuals and associations to engage in speech, assembly, and expression within the scope of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. (e) Persons who participate in public assemblies organized by the organizations described in paragraph (d).”

Defendants object that the size of this injunctive class is open-ended and without temporal limit (i.e., it could include persons who first became eligible for class membership only after the class was certified). They also contend that the terms “peaceful” and “demonstration” are not defined. Finally, they argue that class membership cannot be objectively determined, because it would turn on each potential class member’s state of mind. Not so.

As a general matter, less precision is required of class definitions under Rule 23(b)(2) than under Rule 23(b)(3), where mandatory notice is required by due process. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 812 (holding that notice of right to opt-out of suit for money damages is required by the Due Process Clause); Yaffe v. Powers, 454 F.2d 1362, 1366 (1st Cir. 1972) (stating that in contrast to certification of a subdivision (b)(3) class, “notice to the members of a (b)(2) class is not required and the actual membership of the class need not therefore be precisely delimited.”). Manageability is not as important a concern for injunctive classes as for damages classes. See Elliott v. Weinberger, 564 F.2d 1219, 1229 (9th Cir. 1977) (“by its terms, Rule 23 makes manageability an issue important only in determining the propriety of certifying an action as a (b)(3), not a (b)(2), class action.”), aff’d in pertinent part sub nom, Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 701 (1979).

Defendants’ objection to the lack of a temporal limit lacks merit. Indeed, the very

nature of an injunctive class contemplates that there will be class members who can only

be determined in the future. See Probe, 780 F.2d at 780; see also Carpenter v. Davis,

424 F.2d 257, 260 (1st Cir. 1970) (approving injunctive class consisting of all who wish

or expect to write for, publish, sell or distribute the newspaper in the future and

emphasizing that “[t]he record is ample to show numerous such people in existence, as

well as the probability of others who may become members of the class in the future.”).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 12 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 13 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

Any temporal limit on the injunctive class in this case would be arbitrary.

Although class definitions should avoid criteria that are subjective, the words “peaceful” and “demonstration” are objectively determinable descriptors of class members’ behavior. Other courts have certified a class defined with similar language. See, e.g., Washington Mobilization Committee v. Cullinane, 400 F.Supp. 186, 218 (D.D.C. 1975), rev’d in part on other grounds, 566 F.2d 107 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (certifying class of “all persons who have participated in or observed and who intend to participate in or observe lawful, peaceful, orderly and non-obstructive public demonstrations for the exercise of their Constitutional rights of free speech and assembly”); Medrano v. Allee, 1972 WL 714, *3 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 1972), vac’d in part on other grounds, Allee v. Medrano, 416 U.S. 802 (1974).

This case is distinguishable from cases in which the class definition depended on the states of mind of class members or defendants, such as Vietnam Veterans Against the War v. Beinecke. 63 F.R.D. 675, 679-80 (W.D. Mo. 1974). There, like here, plaintiffs alleged that the police deprived them of their right to assemble peacefully when their protest march was cut short. Id. at 677. The proposed class definition encompassed “persons who attend or participate or who wish to attend or participate in any public assembly or demonstration in Kansas City, Missouri held by citizens groups or organizations whose political or social views conflict with those of the officials in the government or the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department.” Id. at 678. This definition, the court held, was insufficient for determining membership in the class, because it was “based upon such a general and indefinite state of mind, encompassing a kaleidoscopic variety of mental positions. . . .” Id. at 680. Similarly, in Koen v. Long, a class consisting of people belonging to organizations “that are unpopular with defendants, and who participate in activities which are “controversial and unpopular with defendants” was found to depend on the state of mind of defendants, and therefore inadequate. 302 F.Supp. 1383, 1387-89 (E.D. Mo. 1969), aff’d 428 F.2d 876 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 923 (1971).

Unlike those cases, membership in the injunctive class proposed here does not

depend on the beliefs or state of mind of any individuals. Rather, membership is based

on the putative class members’ conduct, activities, and affiliations. These criteria are

readily susceptible to judicial determination. See Alliance to End Repression v. American

Civil Liberties Union, 565 F.2d 975, 978 (7th Cir. 1977) (holding that the injunctive class

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 13 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 14 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

was adequately defined because its scope is defined by the activities of the defendants with no particular state of mind required).

C. Rule 23(a) Requirements

1. Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Dukes, 2007 WL 4303055 at *4. The damages and injunctive classes indisputably meet this requirement.

Based on the LAPD’s estimates of turnout, Plaintiffs logically estimate the damages class to include over 6,000 people.6 As the LAPD Report confirmed, only a very few people were disobedient or disorderly (or attacked the police), and therefore potentially ineligible. Given these estimates, the damages class meets the numerosity requirement.

Defendants’ objection to Plaintiffs’ vague estimate of the size of the injunctive class is not well taken. Rule 23 does not require a numeric estimate of the number of class members, if certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is sought. See Advisory Committee Notes, 39 F.R.D. 69, 102 (“Illustrative [of 23(b)(2)] are various actions in the civil-rights field where a party is charged with discriminating unlawfully against a class, usually one whose members are incapable of specific enumeration.”) (emphasis added).

2. Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). “Rule 23(a)(2) has been construed permissively. All questions of fact and law need not be common to satisfy the rule. The existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with disparate legal remedies within the class.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998).

6The LAPD Report estimates that 6,000 to 7,000 were present in MacArthur Park at 5:00 p.m.

The damages class is comprised of those present in the park or immediately adjacent areas between 5:00

and 7:00 p.m.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 14 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 15 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

The LAPD’s command decisions to declare an unlawful assembly, disperse the crowd, and authorize the use of force constitute the “common core of salient facts” that support commonality. See FAC ¶¶ 77, 78 (listing common questions of law and fact). Defendants do not challenge any of these commonalities. Accordingly, the Court finds that there are sufficient shared factual and legal issues to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2).

3. Typicality

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The typicality requirement “is designed to assure that the named representative’s interests are aligned with those of the class.” Jordan v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311, 1321 (9th Cir.), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 459 U.S. 860 (1982). Where such an alignment exists, a representative who vigorously pursues her own interests will necessarily advance the interests of the class. Id. The Ninth Circuit interprets the typicality requirement permissively. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. Named plaintiffs’ claims need not be identical to the claims of the class; rather, their claims are typical if they are “reasonably coextensive with those of absent class members.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. “As long as the named representative’s claim arises from the same event, practice, or course of conduct that forms the basis of the class claims, and is based upon the same legal theory, varying factual differences between the claims or defenses of the class and the class representative will not render the named representative’s claim atypical.” Jordan, 669 F.2d at 1321.

All of the proposed representatives claim they were driven from the park, all claim

physical injury and some claim to have had physical contact with the police. Defendants

nevertheless argue that typicality is lacking because the May Day incident gave rise to

different rights, injuries, and claims, depending on whether one was a participant, legal

observer, or bystander, whether one heard the dispersal order, whether one had physical

contact with the police, and whether one suffered physical injury. Plaintiffs correctly

respond that one’s status as participant, observer or bystander does not defeat typicality

as to their First Amendment claim, because that claim alleges that everyone had a First

Amendment right to be in the park. Similarly, one’s right to be free from excessive force

does not depend on whether one was participating in the protest. Nor do differences in

physical contact and injury defeat typicality as to the Fourth Amendment claim, because

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 15 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 16 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

they are permissible variations within a class. See Vodak v. City of Chicago, 2006 WL 1037151 at *6 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (similar variations in arrest and detention within large group of protesters did not defeat typicality). As the Ninth Circuit noted in Hanlon, “[u]nder the rule’s permissive standards, representative claims are ‘typical’ if they are reasonably coextensive with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical.” 150 F.3d at 1020. Under these standards, the proposed representatives’ claims are typical.

4. Adequacy of representation

The adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a) is that the “representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). This factor requires: (1) that the proposed representative Plaintiffs do not have conflicts of interest with the proposed classes, and (2) that Plaintiffs are represented by qualified and competent counsel who will prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class. Dukes, 2007 WL 4303055 at *11 (citations omitted). The declarations of Plaintiffs and their counsel satisfy these requirements. Defendants’ only argument regarding adequacy is that the class representatives lack standing to seek an injunction. The Court rejected that argument, above.

(a) Class representatives.

Plaintiffs request that the twelve individually named plaintiffs be appointed class representatives. The Court will appoint as class representatives only those named plaintiffs who have filed declarations attesting to their understanding of their obligations as class representatives. They are: Kevin Breslin, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jaime Maldonado, Leopoldo Ortiz, Romualdo Pedro, and Jeremy RotheKushel.7

7Each of these eight individuals has submitted a second declaration with the Reply

in support of their standing to represent an injunctive class. Four of these individuals,

Breslin, Gomez, Galvez, and Ortiz, submitted a third declaration after the hearing in

support of their standing.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 16 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 17 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

(b) Class counsel and steering committee.

The Court appoints Barrett Litt, Carol Sobel and Paul Hoffman as lead class counsel. Those attorneys who filed actions on behalf of other clients who agree to be members of the damages class may serve on a steering committee.

D. Rule 23(b)(2) Requirements

Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate where the opposing party “has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Originally designed for civil rights cases, Rule 23(b)(2) class actions are limited to those class actions seeking primarily injunctive or corresponding relief. Newberg on Class Actions, § 4.11 (4th ed. 2002).

Other courts have certified Rule 23(b)(2) classes in cases involving police action against demonstrators. See Chang v. United States, 217 F.R.D. 262, 264, 267 (D.D.C. 2003) (certifying a class of persons arrested en masse during an anti-World Bank/IMF protest in September 2002 in Washington D.C.); Washington Mobilization Committee v. Cullinane, 400 F. Supp. 186, 219 n. 2 (D. D.C. 1975); Sullivan v. Murphy, 478 F.2d 938, 967 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (noting class treatment was appropriate, despite the highly individualized nature of probable cause, because it was “a situation in which the police did not govern themselves by their ordinary procedures. . .And the arrests that were made were the product of a common course of conduct by the police.”); Sullivan v. Murphy, 380 F.Supp 867, 868 (D.D.C. 1974).8

8Defendants cited one mass demonstration case in which Rule 23(b)(2) certification

was denied, but on the ground that the class definition was inadequate (because it

depended on the “state of mind” of class members and defendants). See Vietnam

Veterans Against the War v. Benecke, 63 F.R.D. 675, 679-80 (W.D. Mo. 1974) (proposed

class “would encompass all persons of political or social persuasion different than

government officials and officers” of the city).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 17 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 18 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

1. Act or refusal to act.

The mere fact that the LAPD declared an unlawful assembly and dispersed the crowd at MacArthur Park is enough to meet the requirement that defendants acted on grounds generally applicable to the class. Moreover, Plaintiffs have alleged (and at this stage the Court must accept as true) that the LAPD has failed to adopt and/or implement policies to prevent the infringement of the rights of demonstrators. See FAC ¶¶ 28-39. That Defendants have “acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class” is patently obvious based on the LAPD Report and the allegations at the heart of this lawsuit.

2. Impact of money damages on injunctive class certification.

The Ninth Circuit recently reiterated that Rule 23(b)(2) class actions can include claims for monetary damages, so long as such damages are not the “predominant” relief sought, but instead are “secondary to the primary claim for injunctive or declaratory relief.” Dukes, 2007 WL 4303055 at *11 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Moreover, “the predominance test turns on the primary goal of the litigation--not the theoretical or possible size of the damage award.” Id. at *13.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory and special damages, damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 52, and exemplary damages “in an amount sufficient to deter and to make an example of [] defendants.” FAC ¶¶ 118-120. The Court should not and will not speculate as to the possible size of the damage award. “Focusing predominantly on the plaintiffs' intent in bringing the suit,” it is clear that injunctive relief predominates in this case. Id. at 1234. Plaintiffs’ prayer for injunctive relief and the declarations supporting this motion plainly demonstrate that the primary goal of the litigation is to secure the rights of demonstrators in the future, i.e. by holding the LAPD accountable for failing to comply with policies and practices that it promised to implement pursuant to prior settlement agreements. See FAC ¶¶ 114-117; Reply Ex. A (LAPD’s summary of NLG Settlement); Reply Ex. B (Plaintiffs’ supplemental declarations); Mem. Ex. 37 (text of NLG Settlement).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 18 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 19 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

3. Manageability considerations.

Defendants raise vague concerns about manageability in connection with the potential size of the injunctive class. Manageability considerations do not justify denial of certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class. See Elliott, 564 F.2d at 1229 (“The [defendant] does not cite, nor can we find, any authority which supports his rather novel theory limiting (b)(2) class actions because of their numerosity and manageability problems. By its terms, Rule 23 makes manageability an issue important only in determining the propriety of certifying an action as a (b)(3), not a (b)(2), class action.”).

E. Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements

The key questions under this analysis are: (1) whether common issues predominate over questions affecting only individual members and (2) whether the putative class action is superior to other methods for fair and efficient adjudication of the issues. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). “Subdivision (b)(3) encompasses those cases in which a class action would achieve economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable results.” Advisory Committee Notes, 39 F.R.D. 69, 102-103.

1. Rule 23(b)(3) factor one: Predominance.

“When common questions present a significant aspect of the case and they can be

resolved for all members of the class in a single adjudication, there is clear justification

for handling the dispute on a representative rather than on an individual basis.” Hanlon,

150 F.3d at 1022. When one or more of the central issues in the action are common to

the class, the action may be considered proper under Rule 23(b)(3) even though other

important matters will have to be tried separately, such as damages or some affirmative

defenses peculiar to some individual class members. See Local Joint Executive Bd. of

Culinary/Bartender Trust Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1152, 1163 (9th Cir.

2001) (holding that Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement was satisfied where all

liability issues in employment case were the same and the only individualized issues

related to the calculation of damages); Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs., Inc., 348 F.3d 417,

428 (4th Cir.), cert. denied 124 S.Ct. 2837 (2003) (stating that because Rule 23(b)(3)

actions usually require individual proof of damages, courts usually find predominance

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 19 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 20 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

requirement satisfied if common questions predominate over individual questions as to liability).

As discussed below, the common issues in the First Amendment claim, Fourth Amendment claim, Monell claim, and respondeat superior liability are more than sufficient to meet the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). Because the record thus far is insufficiently developed as to the alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations, the Court declines at this time to include those claims among those the class may pursue.

(a) First Claim for Relief: First Amendment, § 1983 claim.

As to the First Amendment claim, Plaintiffs are correct that the only material fact is that the LAPD decided to declare an unlawful assembly and disperse the crowd. Even the LAPD Report states that the First Amendment rights of peaceful individuals and members of media were curtailed. LAPD Report at 51-52. However, an individual question exists as to whether each class member, such as a random passerby, actually was engaged in protected First Amendment activity.

From a practical point of view, common questions predominate, largely because most of those present were engaged in protected activity. See LAPD Report at 4, 51, 52. Given the intangible nature of First Amendment rights and values, it makes sense to assess damages on this claim on the basis of criteria applicable to the class as a whole, such as the degree to which the police action curtailed the planned events. The court or jury could then determine the total compensation appropriate for that loss or the reasonable award for each victim. See, e.g., Dellums, 566 F.2d at 174 (jury awarded uniform compensatory damages per class member for violations of First Amendment rights).

(b) Third, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Claims for Relief: Fourth Amendment and related state claims for excessive force.9

/ / /

9Counsel for Defendants acknowledged at the hearing that the Fourth Amendment claim will be

similar to the state law claims for most putative class members.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 20 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 21 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of unreasonable force in effecting a search or seizure of a suspect. The LAPD use or threat of force against the assembled crowd may constitute a seizure,10 although there are individual factual questions as to whether a given officer caused a particular individual to be displaced by the use or threat of force. The parties focus their arguments not on whether there was a seizure, but on whether the actions of the police officers were reasonable. Thus, Plaintiffs focus on the LAPD commanders’ authorization of “less lethal” force (as distinct from the application of such force).

At the hearing on this motion, Defendants opposed certification because the LAPD is in the process of investigating which individual officers may be subject to discipline or liability. However, the scope of the Department’s investigation is necessarily limited. It is difficult to determine the identity of the officers responsible for any particular injuries, because the officers wore riot gear that obscured their name tags and they fired munitions from various skirmish lines. Despite the extensive video coverage of the event, thus far the LAPD has identified only twenty-six officers for individual investigations. Hence, individualized assessments of whether an officer’s use of force was reasonable will not be possible for the majority of putative class members. The LAPD’s internal investigation is not a reason to defer certification.

The Court recognizes that the conduct of individual officers in the field may present individual issues of reasonableness, namely whether it was reasonable under the circumstances for a particular officer to fire less-lethal munitions, use his baton to strike people, or use other forms of force, such as pushing and shoving.

Nonetheless, the individual issues share a common source: the command decisions to disperse the crowd and to authorize the use of less-lethal munitions if the crowd’s behavior warranted it. LAPD Report at 8, 34-35. Because the legality of these command decisions is the overriding common question, the predominance requirement is met as to the Fourth Amendment claim.

10See California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626 (1991) (“The word ‘seizure’ readily bears the

meaning of laying on of hands or application of physical force to restrain movement, even when it is

ultimately unsuccessful.”); Marbet v. City of Portland, 2003 WL 23540258 (D. Or. 2003) (holding that

plaintiffs stated a Fourth Amendment claim where police moved a crowd of protestors 120 feet through

use of pepper spray and physical force).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 21 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 22 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

(c) The Monell claim and respondeat superior.

Municipal liability for civil rights violations and employer liability under tort law present predominantly common issues as well. Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof of three elements: a policymaker, an official policy, and a violation of constitutional rights whose “moving force” is the policy or custom. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). To hold the municipality liable, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the official policy “evidences ‘a deliberate indifference’ to his constitutional rights,” and caused his injury. See Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389-91 (1989)). Plaintiffs allege that the City’s failure to implement policies to ensure the rights of demonstrators, given the City’s obligations under the NLG and Crespo settlements, arises to a municipal policy or custom of deliberate indifference to the First Amendment rights of the public. The elements of Plaintiffs’ Monell claim rely on proof involving the City of Los Angeles’s policies and practices, and will not require facts individual to each class member’s claims.

For an employer to be liable for an assault or other intentional tort, the tort must have a causal nexus to the employee’s work. Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital, 12 Cal.4th 291, 297 (1995). Here, for the most part whether the actions of the individual police officers have the requisite causal nexus will be a common question, because the police officers had been assigned to crowd control for the event and most incidents of use of force occurred as a result of the command decisions.

2. Rule 23(b)(3) factor two: Class treatment is a superior method of adjudication.

Rule 23(b)(3) specifies four nonexclusive factors that are “pertinent” to a

determination of whether class certification is the superior method. Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(b)(3). They are: (A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling

the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation

concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (C)

the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the

particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a

class action. Id. Courts have discretion under Rule 23 to decline to certify a class action

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 22 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 23 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

when it would bring about “undesirable results.” Advisory Committee Notes, 39 F.R.D. 69, 103.

(a) The interests of class members in individually controlling separate actions and the extent and nature of litigation already commenced.

Defendants argue that class members’ individual damages are not small, that they have an emotional stake in the litigation and that they will therefore want to individually prosecute the action. Defendants further claim there is a likelihood of more opt-outs than class members. Defendants provide little support for this argument. Of the more than 6,000 people in the damages class, 300 or so have filed claims (individually or in a group) against the City. Thirteen lawsuits are currently pending: six before this Court and seven in state court. MIWON counsel claims to represent over 176 claimants who have agreed to be a part of the class action. Realistically, the only people who may choose to opt out are those who are prosecuting their own lawsuits in federal or state court. Whatever the number, they will represent a small minority of claimants. In any event, the fact that some class members may wish to opt out does not lead to the conclusion that a class action is inappropriate, because it is their right under Rule 23(b)(3) and not uncommon in large class actions.

(b) The desirability of concentrating the action.

This factor favors class certification because all claims arise from same location, date, and time period. FAC ¶ 87. The Court is amenable to coordinating the federal cases with those in state court.

(c) Manageability.

Plaintiffs have anticipated many of the management concerns the Court might

have. A number of management tools are available to addressed individualized damages

issues, such as bifurcating liability and damages trials, appointing a magistrate judge or

special master to preside over damages proceedings, and creating subclasses as permitted

under Rule 23(c)(4). Plaintiffs note that damages may be assessed class-wide based on a

formula or through test trials. Plaintiffs also have contemplated various methods of

providing the best notice practicable. See FAC ¶ 89. In general, their proposals and the

Court’s willingness to consider other proposals dispel any real concerns about

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 23 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 24 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

manageability.

(d) General appropriateness.

Rule 23(b)(3) classes certified in mass demonstration cases are not new. See Vodak v. City of Chicago, 2006 WL 1037151 at *1, *6 ( (N.D. Ill. 2006) (protesters were detained, arrested, and/or charged); Hickey v. City of Seattle, 236 F.R.D. 659, 660-61, 664-67 (W.D. Wash. 2006) (protesters were surrounded by police in a “no protest zone” and arrested). Vietnam War protests in Washington D.C. also gave rise to a prominent Rule 23(b)(3) class action. See Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167, 174 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (a class consisting of “all persons who were arrested while assembled on the Capitol steps on May 5, 1971). But see McCarthy v. Kleindienst, 741 F.2d 1406, 1415 n. 11 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (deferring to district court’s denial of class certification and noting that “Dellums consisted only of those persons arrested on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, a much more cohesive group than the approximately 7,000 putative class members here who were arrested throughout the city.”). Courts have also certified Rule 23(b)(3) classes in contexts analogous to mass demonstrations. See, e.g., Tardiff v. Knox County, 365 F.3d 1, 6-7 (1st Cir. 2004) (strip searches of pre-arraignment jail detainees); Williams v. Brown, 214 F.R.D. 484, 485 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (detention and searches of neighborhood residents during a basketball tournament); Doe v. Calumet City, Illinois, 754 F.Supp. 1211, 1212 (N.D. Ill. 1990) (strip searches of female arrestees).

It bears emphasizing that the primary policy of the class action mechanism is to enable the collective vindication of the rights of numerous persons whose claims are not worth litigating in individual actions. See Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997). As Plaintiffs point out, this rationale is particularly applicable here, where some class members may feel hesitant about coming forward on their own because they may be (or were at the time) in this country unlawfully. Cf. Patrykus v. Gomilla, 121 F.R.D. 357, 361 (N.D. Ill. 1988) (certifying a class of 50 patrons of gay bars who were harassed and arrested by police, taking into consideration the potential social prejudice against homosexuals that may deter class members from suing in their own names).

/ / /

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 24 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 40 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 25 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. By not later than January 4, 2008 Plaintiffs shall lodge a proposed order consistent with this ruling and with practice under Rule 23.

:

Initials of Preparer

SMO

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 25 of 25

 
 Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Page 1 of 31

Cas~JN~ .. CV 07-307~(FMCOIXV)IL MINUTES - GENERAL 1'0$ January 8, 2007
Title' . MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et at. v.
. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Stephen Montes Deputy Clerk

Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)

The Court, having considered the memoranda, declarations and exhibits filed by Plaintiffs and Defendants in support of and in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and having heard oral argument by both parties on October 29,2007, grants the motion for the reasons fully elaborated in the Court's civil minutes dated December 14,2007. A true and correct copy of the Court's civil minutes is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference. This order specifically makes the findings required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
1. The Court makes the following findings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), upon which the Court elaborates in detail at pages 14-17 of Exhibit 1:
a. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; the LAPD's own estimate of the size of the May 1, 2007, march is over 6000 people.
b. There are questions of law or fact common to the class, which include the LAPD's command decisions to declare an unlawful assembly, disperse the crowd, and authorize the use of force.
c. The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; all the proposed representative parties claim to have been driven from the park or immediately surrounding areas and to have

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 ofS

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Page 2 of 31

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

~:~' CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)

/D~t¢:::' January 8, 2007

:fr"K~ MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

suffered injury as a result, in violation of both their First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights.

d. The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

i. The Court appoints Kevin Breslin, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jaime Maldonado, Leopoldo Ortiz, Romualdo Pedro, and Jeremy Rothe-Kushel as class representatives.

ii. The Court appoints Barrett Litt, Carol Sobel and Paul Hoffman as lead class counsel, who will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. The Court finds that those counsel have all of the characteristics identified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(g)(1)(A), to wit, a) they have identified and investigated the potential claims in the action, b) they have extensive experience in handling class actions and other complex litigation, particularly in the civil rights area, c) they are knowledgeable regarding the applicable law, and d) they have committed the resources necessary to representing the class. The Court considers these counsel best able to represent the interests of the class.

c. Those attorneys who filed actions on behalf of other clients who agree to be members of the damages class may serve on a steering committee.

2. The Court finds, pursuant to the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), that, based upon Plaintiffs' allegations, defendants, who are the party opposing the class, have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. The actions alleged that qualify as acting or refusing to act include declaration of an unlawful assembly and dispersal of the crowd, and failure to adopt and/or implement policies to prevent the infringement of the rights of demonstrators.

3. The Court further finds that injunctive relief to secure the rights of demonstrators in the future by holding the LAPD accountable for failing to comply with policies and practices that it previously promised to implement is the primary goal of the

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of5

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Page 3 of 31

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
.......~~ CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)
MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.
..,;·];f:~;jir~*i._C.:::.I:..:T~Y.....:O::::F:......::.LO.:::..:..S.:.:A~N:...:G=E=L=E.:..:S,:...:e:.:..ta=l..:....._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

litigation. Because injunctive relief predominates, certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) is permissible despite Plaintiffs' additional claims for monetary damages.

4. The Court further finds that manageability considerations do not justify denial ofa Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) class.

5. The Court certifies a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), which class is defined as follows:

"Those who in the past have engaged in or who in the future may engage in peaceful demonstrations or protest in the City of Los Angeles and who, at the time they engage in such peaceful demonstrations or protest, were or are:

(a) The following organizations: Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance, Institute for Popular Education of Southern California, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center ("Plaintiff Associations");

(b) Officers, representatives, or members of Plaintiff Associations;

(c) Persons who attend or participate in Plaintiff Associations' events, including but not limited to their rallies;

(d) Organizations that advocate, organize, or both advocate and organize on behalf of the rights of individuals and associations to engage in speech, assembly, and
expression within the scope of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; and

(e) Persons who participate in public assemblies organized by the organizations described in paragraph (d).

6. The Court also finds, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. The common issues in the First Amendment claims (decisions to declare an unlawful assembly and disperse the crowd), Fourth Amendment claims

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of5

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Page 4 of 31

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
:Ng~i~ CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)

. ;.• January 8, 2007

i: r;'ht~~; ..••. MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v. •:ll· . CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

(command decisions to disperse the crowd and to authorize the use of less-lethal munitions), Monell claims and respondeat superior liability (whether the allegedly unlawful actions of individual police officers have the requisite causal nexus to the employees' work in light of command decisions about how to proceed) are more than sufficient to meet the predominance requirement. The Court's conclusions in this regard are set out in further detail at pages 19-22 of Exhibit 1.

7. The Court also finds, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The Court's conclusions in this regard are set out in further detail at pages 19-22 of Exhibit 1. Below, each additional factor listed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) is discussed:

a. There are approximately 300 individual claims filed from among the over 6000 class members, and over half of those appear to be represented by the MIWON counsel. Thus, the interests of class members in individually controlling separate actions and the extent and nature of litigation already commenced, do not lead to the conclusion that class treatment is inappropriate.

b. The desirability of concentrating the action weighs in favor of class certification since all claims arise from a common core of facts.

c. The Court finds that the class is manageable. Many tools are available to manage the class, including bifurcating liability and damages, appointing a magistrate judge or special master to preside over damages proceedings, and creating subclasses as permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).

d. In addition, the Court notes that certification of demonstration classes is well established in the law, and is consistent with the primary policy goal of the class action mechanism -- to enable the collective vindication of the rights of numerous persons whose claims are not worth litigating in individual actions.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of5

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Page 5 of 31

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL :;, .' ..'. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)
.,·.•Q. ;t);t3/:

: D'.;;a:;.~.e;;~;; January8, 2007
----=--~---

./i,".' MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

8. The Court certifies a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), which class is defined as follows:

"Those persons who were present on May 1,2007 in the geographic area bounded by 6th Street (on the north), Alvarado Street (on the east), 7th Street (on the south), and Park View Street (on the west), or the immediately adjacent areas, including from 6th Street west to Lafayette Park, at any point between the hours of 5:00 and 7:00 p.m., who did not engage in any conduct justifying Defendants' dispersal order or the use of force, and who were subjected to the LAPD's use of force, dispersal order or other unlawful police activity arising from the police response to the immigration march and rally."

9. The Court defers notice to the class at this time. Notice is not generally required for a class certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (c)(2)(A). Notice is required for classes certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), but, as no determination has yet been made regarding bifurcation of liability and damages, and as the parties have discussed that there is the possibility of an early settlement, it is premature to determine when class notice should be provided.

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 5 of5

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 6 of 31
Exhibit 1

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Page 7 of 31

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
,e;~·! ~::~~:'~~I:::~TWORKERS ORGANIZIN~NE::=:~a;.~.2007

,)~.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

,<;;,-

. A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Stephen Montes Deputy Clerk

Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)

I. INTRODUCTION

This is one of several civil rights actions arising from the Los Angeles Police Department's ("LAPD") forceful dispersal of the May 1,2007 immigration rally at MacArthur Park. It is, of course, not surprising that such a momentous clash would spawn litigation, but because that event was so highly publicized, it has also triggered extensive commentary. The Court will not add to others' reflections about what May Day 2007 says about the City of Los Angeles. In this order the Court will only rule on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS that motion. 1

II. BACKGROUND
The LAPD recently issued a detailed report containing a minute-by-minute account of the events of May Day 2007 ("LAPD Report,,).2 It is largely consistent with the factual allegations in the FAC. The events were also extensively captured on video. The following facts are evidently undisputed (unless otherwise noted).

IDocket No. 17.

2Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice, Los Angeles Police Department Report to the Board of

Commissioners, An Examination of May Day 2007 (Oct. 9,2007), Reply Ex. A. Available at

http://www.lapdonline.org/home/pdf view/36560 (last visited Dec. 14,2007).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Page 8 of 31

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
;c~~l.i()t;; CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

Title ;:.'::·,~~;;:t.

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

On May 1, 2007, an association of five non-profit organizations comprising
Plaintiff Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network ("MIWON") conducted a march and rally, as they had done previously on "May Day" for several years. FAC ~ 50. The permitted events consisted of a morning march and rally in downtown Los Angeles3
and a final rally at MacArthur Park. LAPD Report at 7. The MacArthur Park rally was permitted to continue until 9:00 p.m. FAC ~ 6. By 5:00 p.m, an estimated 6,000 to 7,000
people were present in or around MacArthur Park. LAPD Report at 7. A number of events created tensions among demonstrators and police.4 In the immediately precipitating incident, a group of20 or 30 "anarchist kids" began throwing objects at the
police, including water bottles and gravel. LAPD Report at 8,32-33.

As officers in the field radioed in reports that they were "taking rocks and bottles" and that unruly elements were inciting the crowd, two groups of supervising officers discussed plans to disperse the crowd. LAPD Report at 33-34. Despite some miscommunication along the chain of command, the discussions resulted in "a decision to declare an unlawful assembly and disperse the crowd." LAPD Report at 8. "[The] plan involved the use of Metropolitan Division [an elite LAPD unit] resources to move the crowd from the south side of the park northbound from 7th and Alvarado toward the north side of the park." Id. The LAPD commanders also gave authorization to use "lesslethal" munitions if the behavior of the crowd warranted it. Id. at 34-35.

"At 6: 17 p.m., the Metropolitan Division B-Platoon formed a skirmish line, and without a dispersal order being given, moved the crowd northbound, pushing and striking some individuals in the crowd, including some members of the media, and firing lesslethal munitions." Id. at 8; FAC ~ 7. A few minutes later, a police helicopter broadcast a partial dispersal order: "This is the Los Angeles Police Department. (Inaudible) ... This is now an unlawful assembly. Everybody needs to leave the park immediately." LAPD Report at 38. This order was broadcast in English and was inaudible to many in the park, including certain LAPD commanders, who in the next ten minutes sought confirmation that an order had been given. See LAPD Report at 40; FAC ~ 7. By 6:41 p.m., when the

3The LAPD Report states that the morning events took place in "Central Area," which is an LAPD designation for downtown Los Angeles. MacArthur Park is in the "Rampart Area."

4For example, at one of the entrances to the park, the police formed a skirmish line to direct the

crowd into a particular entrance, thereby raising tensions with the crowd. LAPD Report at 8.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 9 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
>!~&.~; CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)

December 14, 2007

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

LAPD drive to clear the park ended, "officers had driven thousands of people from the park, knocked over and struck some individuals - including media and non-media, peaceful or not - and deployed a total of 146 less-lethal impact munitions and over 100 uses of the baton." LAPD Report at 9.

As a result of the LAPD's forceful dispersal of the rally, MIWON, its five member organizations, and twelve individuals filed this putative class action against the City of Los Angeles, William Bratton (the Chief of Police), Cayler Carter (Deputy Chief of Police), Louis Gray (an LAPD commander), and Does 1 through 10. A group of attorneys from over a dozen law firms ("MIWON counsel") jointly represent the named plaintiffs as well as a large number of unnamed plaintiffs, totaling over 180 people. Plaintiffs seek appointment of the twelve named individual plaintiffs as class representatives and appointment of MIWON counsel as class counsel.

The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") contains seven claims seeking relief for violations of various rights:
1. Freedom of speech and association, pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
2. Equal protection, pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
3. Right to be free from excessive force, pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
4. Due process, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 5. Right to be free from threats, intimidation or coercion under California Civil
Code § 52.1; 6. Right to be free from violence or intimidation under California Civil Code §
51.7; and 7. Right to be free from assault and battery.

The organizational plaintiffs seek only injunctive relief. The individual plaintiffs seek compensatory, statutory and exemplary damages, and injunctive relief individually and as class representatives.

III

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Page 10 of 31

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
'~e'NJ; CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)

r",. ,,-'
Date December 14, 2007

Titl~ ..• . .. MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v. .);~~ CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et at.

Plaintiffs initially moved to certify the following two classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3):

(1) An injunctive class defined as "all persons who in the past, or may in the future, engage in peaceful demonstrations or protest in the City of Los Angeles."

(2) A damages class defined as "those persons who were present on May 1, 2007 in or around MacArthur Park at any point between the hours of 5:00 and 7:00 p.m., who did not engage in any conduct justifying Defendants' dispersal order or the use of force, and who were subjected to the LAPD's use of force, dispersal order or other unlawful police activity in MacArthur Park, or along Wilshire Boulevard, Alvarado Boulevard, 7th Street or Park View Street, or in the vicinity of those streets."

At a hearing conducted on October 29,2007, the Court pointed out various problems with the proposed class definitions. Those problems related primarily to whether the proposed class representatives had standing to pursue the injunctive class and whether the proposed damages class was sufficiently discrete and manageable to warrant certification. Following the hearing, Plaintiffs modified their proposals and now they propose these classes:

(1) An injunctive class defined as: "Those who in the past have engaged in or who in the future may engage in peaceful demonstrations or protest in the City of Los Angeles and who, at the time they engage in such peaceful demonstrations or protest, were or are:
(a) The following organizations: Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance, Institute for Popular Education of Southern California, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center ("Plaintiff Associations");
(b) Officers, representatives, or members of Plaintiff Associations; (c) Persons who attend or participate in Plaintiff Associations' events, including but not limited to their rallies; (d) Organizations who advocate and/or organize on behalf of the rights of individuals and associations to engage in speech, assembly, and expression within the scope of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution."

(2) A damages class defined as: "Those persons who were present on May 1,2007

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page4of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 11 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
~-;-:-u~-:-~-~-~_i_~-sH_~-N-~~:-:-~-~~:e-~-a-r-~-o-~~-R-S~O-R-G-A-N-IZ-I~N~~~2007
in the geographic area bounded by 6th Street (on the north), Alvarado Street (on the east), 7th Street (on the south), and Park View Street (on the west), or the immediately adjacent areas, including along 6th Street to Lafayette Park, at any point between the hours of 5:00 and 7:00 p.m., who did not engage in any conduct justifying Defendants' dispersal order or the use of force, and who were subjected to the LAPD' s use of force, dispersal order or other unlawful police activity arising from the police response to the immigration march and rally."
III. LEGAL STANDARD
The party seeking class certification bears the burden of establishing that each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one requirement of Rule 23(b) have been met. Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., --- F.3d ---, 2007 WL 4303055 *4 (9th Cir., Dec. 11, 2007) (citing Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001), amended, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001)). A district court may certify a class only if, after "rigorous analysis," it determines that the party seeking certification has met its burden. General Telephone Co. o/the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 158-161 (1982). However, in determining whether plaintiffs have carried their burden, the court may not consider the merits of their claims. See Dukes, 2007 WL 4303055 at *4. Rather, in reviewing a motion for class certification, the Court generally is bound to take the substantive allegations of the complaint as true. In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litig., 691 F.2d 1335, 1342 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891,901 (9th Cir. 1975)). Nevertheless, the Court may look beyond the pleadings to determine whether the requirements of Rule 23 have been met. Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497,509 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In fact, "courts are not only at liberty to but must consider evidence which goes to the requirements of Rule 23 [at the class certification stage] even [if] the evidence may also relate to the underlying merits of the case." Dukes, 2007 WL 4303055 at *4 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Ultimately, it is within the district court's broad discretion to determine whether a class should be certified. Id. at *3.
III

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 5 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 12 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)

···le December 14, 2007

~f~----------------------------------~

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Standing

A party cannot be a proper representative of a class if such party lacks standing individually to pursue the claims of the class. Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230, 1238 (9th Cir. 2001).

To have Article III standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of a class, a named plaintiff must have suffered harm constituting "actual injury." Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 860-61 (9th Cir. 200 I) (internal citations omitted) (citing 0 'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974), Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,348-49 (1996), and City ofLos Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109 (1983». There is no dispute that the individual Plaintiffs have alleged actual and direct injury - being driven out of a public park and surrounding areas, as well as physical injury. Each Plaintiff has alleged that he (or she) was present at MacArthur Park as a demonstrator, observer of the rally, or recreational user of the park at the time of the forceful dispersal, and that he (or she) suffered physical injury due to the LAPD's use of force. FAC ~~ 40,56-67.

But a class representative plaintiff also "must demonstrate 'that he is realistically threatened by a repetition of [the violation].'" Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 860-61 (quoting Lyons, 461 U.S. at 109). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs do not face a real and immediate threat of being prevented by the LAPD from participating in a lawful and peaceful demonstration in the future.

Nine of the twelve individual Plaintiffs have submitted declarations making it clear that they frequent MacArthur Park and other public areas, whether for demonstrations or recreation, and intend to do so in the future. See Reply Ex. B (Declarations of Breslin, Cuellar, Eng, Galvez, Gomez, Maldonaldo, Ortiz, Pedro and Rothe-Kushel). Breslin, Gomez, Galvez, and Ortiz submitted supplemental declarations after the hearing indicating that they also attended the May Day 2006 rally. PIs.' Supp. Mem. Exs. A-D. Defendants do not dispute that those Plaintiffs who have submitted supporting declarations are likely to attend demonstrations in the future. They argue only that the LAPD's behavior will not occur again.

III
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 6 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 13 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

i December 14 2007

,,<:\<

'

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v. .. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

One way to meet the "realistic repetition" requirement is to "demonstrate that the harm is part of a 'pattern of officially sanctioned ... behavior, violative of the plaintiffs' [federal] rights. '" Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 961 (quoting LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1323 (9th Cir. 1985)). As the Ninth Circuit elaborated, "where the defendants have repeatedly engaged in the injurious acts in the past, there is a sufficient possibility that they will engage in them in the near future to satisfy the 'realistic repetition' requirement." Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 961; see also Thomas v. County ofLos Angeles, 978 F.2d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that the "possibility of recurring injury ceases to be speculative when actual repeated incidents are documented.") (citation omitted).

The LAPD has issued unlawful dispersal orders and displayed excessive force orders against demonstrators in the past. Some of the incidents are documented in lawsuits, such as the Los Angeles Superior Court cases Marmillion v. City ofLos Angeles (BC 059778), arising out of a large demonstration in October 1991; and Vassos v. City of Los Angeles (BC 080155) and Shejik v. City ofLos Angeles (BC 080092), arising from mass arrests of protesters in 1992. Declaration of Carol A. Sobel in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum ("Sobel Supp. Decl."),-r,-r 2,4. Vassos and Shejik ended in a combined settlement agreement in 1995, involving monetary payment as well as LAPD policy changes and training requirements. Id. ,-r,-r 5-6 & Ex. C. Notably, that settlement included provisions defining an unlawful assembly, distinguishing an unlawful assembly from unlawful conduct by isolated individuals, and setting forth requirements for dispersal orders. Id., Ex. C, ,-r,-r 10, 12, 14.

At the Democratic National Convention in 2000, the LAPD declared an unlawful assembly in the public demonstration area, ordered the crowd to disperse, and used rubber bullets, batons and other forms of physical force as the crowd attempted to disperse. That melee led to three federal lawsuits in this District: National Lawyers Guild v. City ofLos Angeles (CV 01-6877) ("NLG"), Berg v. City ofLos Angeles (CV 01-7046), and Crespo v. City ofLos Angeles (CV 00-8869). The NLG and Crespo cases ended in settlements that set forth standards for the LAPD in regards to unlawful assemblies, dispersal orders, and treatment of the media. See Mem. Ex. 37 (Settlement agreement in NLG) ("NLG Settlement"); LAPD Report, Appendix A, p. 85 (summary of standards from NLG and Crespo settlement agreements).
III

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 70f25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 14 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case~~. CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)

Date December 14, 2007

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

The Court in NLG found that plaintiffs had established sufficient likelihood of repetition to have Article III standing to seek equitable relief, citing numerous demonstrations at which the LAPD allegedly acted unlawfully. Sobel Supp. Decl., Ex. E (Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment at 12-13 (CV 01-6877, Dec. 3,2003)).

The LAPD itself has acknowledged that what happened on May Day 2007 was not an isolated incident: "Chief Bratton was concerned that the Department had identified many of these problems in the past and that the lessons learned had been forgotten." LAPD Report at 74. The LAPD Report also acknowledges that the treatment of the media at May Day 2007 failed to comply with the NLG and Crespo settlement agreements. LAPD Report at 10, 11,48. The Report further identified a number of reasons for the repetition on May Day 2007 of the kind of police misconduct that occurred at the Democratic National Convention some seven years earlier. For example, it noted: "Over the past several years, there appears to have been a gradual diminution of an arrest posture during organized crowd control situations. The Department has moved from a posture of isolating and arresting those who are engaging in unlawful activity or disrupting a rally or demonstration, to a posture of declaring an unlawful assembly and clearing the entire area." Id. at 52. The report also faulted the scaling back of training in crowd control and treatment of the media, suggesting it was "non-required" training that was "not a priority," given other demands on LAPD resources. Id. at 63-64.

In short, May Day 2007 was not an isolated event caused by unusual or isolated factors.

The injunction that Plaintiffs now seek generally mirrors the standards set forth in

the NLG Settlement and incorporates the principles from the Vassos-Shejik settlement.

See Mem. Ex. 37; Sobel Supp. Decl., Ex. C. Indeed, the LAPD Report explicitly

recognizes that standards in the NLG and Crespo settlements apply. LAPD Report

Appendix 1 (Summary of the measures that the LAPD agreed to enact as part of the

settlements resulting from the 2000 Democratic National Convention). However, those

settlements were private agreements, not consent decrees or court injunctions. Moreover,

some of the settlement language was permissive, lacking the precision and force of a

legal decree. For example, the NLG Settlement provided that the LAPD may use less-

lethal weapons under certain circumstances, rather than that the LAPD is prohibitedfrom

using those weapons except under certain circumstances. See Mem. Ex. 37 at 4. So if an

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 8 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 15 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)

December 14, 2007

, . ,. MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.
. ::;£~L,?_ CI_ TY_O_ F L_ OS_ AN_G_ EL_ ES..,.:.e...-t_ al._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ X;i>~·ev;·

injunction were to ensue in this case, it probably would have a greater likelihood of compliance.

Defendants argue that the LAPD already has institutionalized the policies and training needed to prevent a recurrence of the misconduct that took place on May Day. They declare that they "can now provide assurance that the alleged misconduct of May 1, 2007 will not occur in the future." Def. Resp. to PIs.' Supp. Mem. at 2. Defendants cite to the LAPD Report's description of the Incident Management and Training Bureau, established in July 2007, the institution of Department-wide training in crowd control and First Amendment issues, and several examples of successful LAPD management of mass demonstrations since May 2007. Id., Hillman Decl. ~~ 1-8. Defendants also emphasize that historically there have been more events and rallies with no LAPD misconduct than those with problems, pointing to May Day 2006 as an example of a very similar demonstration that was successful. Id. ~ 9.

Defendants' showing is insufficient to deny Plaintiffs standing to seek injunctive relief. In the past, the LAPD has undertaken efforts to revise its policies and train LAPD officers to ensure proper management of demonstrations, albeit those efforts were not as extensive as the post-May Day 2007 efforts are touted to be. See Sobel Supp. Decl. ~ 6 & Ex. C ~~ 7-17 (policies and training changes as part of the Vassos-Shefik settlement). Although steps were taken in the immediate aftermath of previous litigation, nevertheless new instances of misconduct occurred. The Court cannot find that the measures the LAPD took after May 2007 have achieved, in a mere six months, the reforms that plaintiffs in previous cases sought for over a decade.

Defendants' contention that their overall record of complying with constitutional requirements relating to crowd control is more positive than negative is similarly unpersuasive. Defendants suggest that Plaintiffs lack standing because the LAPD's record with regards to May Day immigration rallies is "1 and 1" - i.e., as successful in 2006 as it was unsuccessful in 2007. Def. Resp. at 3. This argument actually hurts Defendants: if the odds of an alleged constitutional violation recurring were 50 percent, a sufficient case or controversy would be present.
III

III
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 9 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 16 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)

';;!::'" .~. December 14, 2007

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v. .'<"; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

In any event, to establish a case or controversy Plaintiffs need not establish that future harm is certain, or even probable. What they must establish is that recurrence is not "conjectural" or "hypothetical," as it would be if future injury were contingent on multiple unlikely assumptions. See Lyons, 461 U.S. at 105-08 (threat of future injury not sufficiently real and immediate to establish existing controversy where the claim of future injury rested on assumption that plaintiffs would engage in conduct leading to an encounter with police involving the use of a chokehold). Given Plaintiffs' declarations, the contents of the LAPD Report and the unfortunate history of civil rights violations by LAPD officers,5 it is clear that here the threat of future injury is not merely conjectural or hypothetical. Although the Court applauds the LAPD's remedial actions since May Day 2007, the Court finds that the individual Plaintiffs are "realistically threatened by a repetition of [the violation.]" Lyons at 109.

This conclusion is consistent with Lyons and Ninth Circuit precedent. In HodgersDurgin v. De La Vina, a case which Defendant cites, the Ninth Circuit distinguished Lyons on the ground that in Lyons, the police chokehold that was the alleged injury occurred during a traffic stop prompted by Lyons's misconduct. 199 F.3d 1037, 1041-42 (9th Cir. 1999) (en bane) (stating that the Supreme Court in Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 15 (1998) "characterized the denial of Article III standing in Lyons as having been based on the plaintiffs ability to avoid engaging in illegal conduct."). The plaintiffs in Hodgers-Durgin had standing to challenge the Border Patrol's practice of stopping motorists without reasonable suspicion because driving vehicles near the Mexican border is innocent conduct and therefore they had no duty to avoid another stop by the Border Patrol. Id. at 1041. Moreover, there was "no string of contingencies necessary to produce an injury." Id. at 1042-43. This case is like Hodgers-Durgin and not like Lyons for the same reasons. Plaintiffs claim that they were engaged in innocent conduct when they were unjustifiably driven from MacArthur Park and surrounding areas. Like the plaintiffs in Hodgers-Durgin, they are neither able to nor required to prevent the possibility of that injury being repeated.

5See Report ofthe Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department (1991) (the

"Christopher Commission Report"); Consent Decree, United States v. City ofLos Angeles (CV 00-

11769, Jun. 19,2001) (settlement oflawsuit brought by Department of Justice for systematic violations of civil rights).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 10 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 17 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CML MINUTES - GENERAL CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)

. . December 14, 2007

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

B. Adequacy of Class Definitions

Rule 23 requires that a class be defined. See Board ofSchool Commissioners of City ofIndianapolis v. Jacobs, 420 U.S. 128, 130 (1975) (finding error in district court's failure to identify a class). However, the contours of the class need not be so clear that every potential member may be identified at the time of class certification. Probe v. State Teachers' Retirement System, 780 F.2d 776, 780 (9th Cir. 1986). Rather, "a class will be found to exist if the description of the class is definite enough so that it is administratively feasible for the court to ascertain whether an individual is a member." O'Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 184 F.R.D. 311, 319 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (citing Aiken v. Obledo, 442 F.Supp. 628,658 (E.D. Cal. 1977)); Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.222 (2004).

Based on the proposals the Court circulated at the hearing and the minor modifications Plaintiffs suggested in their supplemental brief, the Court will certify the following classes:

1. Damages class definition.

"Those persons who were present on May 1, 2007 in the geographic area bounded by 6th Street (on the north), Alvarado Street (on the east), 7th Street (on the south), and Park View Street (on the west), or the immediately adjacent areas, including from 6th Street west to Lafayette Park, at any point between the hours of 5:00 and 7:00 p.m., who did not engage in any conduct justifying Defendants' dispersal order or the use of force, and who were subjected to the LAPD' s use of force, dispersal order or other unlawful police activity arising from the police response to the immigration march and rally."

2. Injunctive class definition.

"Those who in the past have engaged in or who in the future may engage in peaceful

demonstrations or protest in the City of Los Angeles and who, at the time they engage in such peaceful demonstrations or protest, were or are:

(a) The following organizations: Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing

Network, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Koreatown Immigrant

Workers Alliance, Institute for Popular Education of Southern California, Pilipino

Workers Center, Garment Workers Center ("Plaintiff Associations");

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 11 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 18 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

" . v':/>';~;;))'<'/:\/ :;,::<,.>:>';i-'.,\

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)

~:ft·'<
:Uatcr:;; December 14, 2007

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v. .. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et at.

(b) Officers, representatives, or members of Plaintiff Associations; (c) Persons who attend or participate in Plaintiff Associations' events, including but not limited to their rallies; (d) Organizations that advocate, organize, or both advocate and organize on behalf of the rights of individuals and associations to engage in speech, assembly, and expression within the scope of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. (e) Persons who participate in public assemblies organized by the organizations described in paragraph (d)."

Defendants object that the size of this injunctive class is open-ended and without temporal limit (i.e., it could include persons who first became eligible for class membership only after the class was certified). They also contend that the terms "peaceful" and "demonstration" are not defined. Finally, they argue that class membership cannot be objectively determined, because it would tum on each potential class member's state of mind. Not so.

As a general matter, less precision is required of class definitions under Rule 23(b)(2) than under Rule 23(b)(3), where mandatory notice is required by due process. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 812 (holding that notice of right to opt-out of suit for money damages is required by the Due Process Clause); Yaffe v. Powers, 454 F.2d 1362, 1366 (1st Cir. 1972) (stating that in contrast to certification of a subdivision (b)(3) class, "notice to the members of a (b)(2) class is not required and the actual membership of the class need not therefore be precisely delimited."). Manageability is not as important a concern for injunctive classes as for damages classes. See Elliott v. Weinberger, 564 F.2d 1219, 1229 (9th Cir. 1977) ("by its terms, Rule 23 makes manageability an issue important only in determining the propriety of certifying an action as a (b)(3), not a (b)(2), class action."), aff'd in pertinent part sub nom, Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 701 (1979).

Defendants' objection to the lack of a temporal limit lacks merit. Indeed, the very

nature of an injunctive class contemplates that there will be class members who can only

be determined in the future. See Probe, 780 F.2d at 780; see also Carpenter v. Davis,

424 F.2d 257,260 (1st Cir. 1970) (approving injunctive class consisting of all who wish

or expect to write for, publish, sell or distribute the newspaper in the future and

emphasizing that "[t]he record is ample to show numerous such people in existence, as

well as the probability of others who may become members of the class in the future.").

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 12 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 19 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL . CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)

;';"E:0';
~B~te:'" December 14, 2007

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK., et al. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

Any temporal limit on the injunctive class in this case would be arbitrary.

Although class definitions should avoid criteria that are subjective, the words "peaceful" and "demonstration" are objectively determinable descriptors of class members' behavior. Other courts have certified a class defined with similar language. See, e.g., Washington Mobilization Committee v. Cullinane, 400 F.Supp. 186,218 (D.D.C. 1975), rev'd in part on other grounds, 566 F.2d 107 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (certifying class of "all persons who have participated in or observed and who intend to participate in or observe lawful, peaceful, orderly and non-obstructive public demonstrations for the exercise of their Constitutional rights of free speech and assembly"); Medrano v. Allee, 1972 WL 714, *3 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 4,1972), vac'd in part on other grounds, Allee v. Medrano, 416 U.S. 802 (1974).

This case is distinguishable from cases in which the class definition depended on the states of mind of class members or defendants, such as Vietnam Veterans Against the War v. Beinecke. 63 F.R.D. 675, 679-80 (W.D. Mo. 1974). There, like here, plaintiffs alleged that the police deprived them of their right to assemble peacefully when their protest march was cut short. Id. at 677. The proposed class definition encompassed "persons who attend or participate or who wish to attend or participate in any public assembly or demonstration in Kansas City, Missouri held by citizens groups or organizations whose political or social views conflict with those of the officials in the government or the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department." Id. at 678. This definition, the court held, was insufficient for determining membership in the class, because it was "based upon such a general and indefinite state of mind, encompassing a kaleidoscopic variety of mental positions...." Id. at 680. Similarly, in Koen v. Long, a class consisting of people belonging to organizations "that are unpopular with defendants, and who participate in activities which are "controversial and unpopular with defendants" was found to depend on the state of mind of defendants, and therefore inadequate. 302 F.Supp. 1383, 1387-89 (E.D. Mo. 1969), afJ'd 428 F.2d 876 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 923 (1971).

Unlike those cases, membership in the injunctive class proposed here does not

depend on the beliefs or state of mind of any individuals. Rather, membership is based

on the putative class members' conduct, activities, and affiliations. These criteria are

readily susceptible to judicial determination. See Alliance to End Repression v. American

Civil Liberties Union, 565 F.2d 975, 978 (7th Cir. 1977) (holding that the injunctive class

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 13 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 20 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL _C_V_O_7_-3_0_72__AH_M_(.;...F_M_O_x~)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D,,~te December 14,2007
MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v. l'~! CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et at.
was adequately defined because its scope is defined by the activities of the defendants with no particular state of mind required).
C. Rule 23(a) Requirements
1. Numerosity
Rule 23(a)(l) requires that the class be "so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(l). Dukes, 2007 WL 4303055 at *4. The damages and injunctive classes indisputably meet this requirement.
Based on the LAPD's estimates of tumout, Plaintiffs logically estimate the damages class to include over 6,000 people.6 As the LAPD Report confirmed, only a very few people were disobedient or disorderly (or attacked the police), and therefore potentially ineligible. Given these estimates, the damages class meets the numerosity requirement.
Defendants' objection to Plaintiffs' vague estimate of the size of the injunctive class is not well taken. Rule 23 does not require a numeric estimate of the number of class members, if certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is sought. See Advisory Committee Notes, 39 F.R.D. 69, 102 ("Illustrative [of23(b)(2)] are various actions in the civil-rights field where a party is charged with discriminating unlawfully against a class, usually one whose members are incapable ofspecific enumeration.") (emphasis added).
2. Commonality
Rule 23(a)(2) requires that "there are questions of law or fact common to the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). "Rule 23(a)(2) has been construed permissively. All questions of fact and law need not be common to satisfy the rule. The existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with disparate legal remedies within the class." Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998).

6The LAPD Report estimates that 6,000 to 7,000 were present in MacArthur Park at 5:00 p.m.

The damages class is comprised ofthose present in the park or immediately adjacent areas between 5:00

and 7:00 p.m.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 14 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 21 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

~}~;,'
~tjtle

, CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)

~t;Date; December 14,2007

;4;'---------:....---~---------....;. . ,An3.[',--------:~--

;i MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

;<'T;k\?~t!!~;;i; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

The LAPD's command decisions to declare an unlawful assembly, disperse the crowd, and authorize the use of force constitute the "common core of salient facts" that support commonality. See FAC ~~ 77, 78 (listing common questions of law and fact). Defendants do not challenge any of these commonalities. Accordingly, the Court finds that there are sufficient shared factual and legal issues to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2).

3. Typicality

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that "the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The typicality requirement "is designed to assure that the named representative's interests are aligned with those of the class." Jordan v. County olLos Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311, 1321 (9th Cir.), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 459 U.S. 860 (1982). Where such an alignment exists, a representative who vigorously pursues her own interests will necessarily advance the interests of the class. Id. The Ninth Circuit interprets the typicality requirement permissively. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. Named plaintiffs' claims need not be identical to the claims of the class; rather, their claims are typical if they are "reasonably coextensive with those of absent class members." Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. "As long as the named representative's claim arises from the same event, practice, or course of conduct that forms the basis of the class claims, and is based upon the same legal theory, varying factual differences between the claims or defenses of the class and the class representative will not render the named representative's claim atypical." Jordan, 669 F.2d at 1321.

All of the proposed representatives claim they were driven from the park, all claim

physical injury and some claim to have had physical contact with the police. Defendants

nevertheless argue that typicality is lacking because the May Day incident gave rise to

different rights, injuries, and claims, depending on whether one was a participant, legal

observer, or bystander, whether one heard the dispersal order, whether one had physical

contact with the police, and whether one suffered physical injury. Plaintiffs correctly

respond that one's status as participant, observer or bystander does not defeat typicality

as to their First Amendment claim, because that claim alleges that everyone had a First

Amendment right to be in the park. Similarly, one's right to be free from excessive force

does not depend on whether one was participating in the protest. Nor do differences in

physical contact and injury defeat typicality as to the Fourth Amendment claim, because

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 15 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 22 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

..•;~;: CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)

,

c,'~,·,

kilate' December 14,2007
.___ ~t'::'S-<fB1/\:<;~>' _ _ _.:.....-_ _

:titt'!&!ii;S;{;;;i; MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

they are permissible variations within a class. See Vodak v. City ofChicago, 2006 WL 1037151 at *6 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (similar variations in arrest and detention within large group of protesters did not defeat typicality). As the Ninth Circuit noted in Hanlon, "[u]nder the rule's permissive standards, representative claims are 'typical' if they are reasonably coextensive with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical." 150 F.3d at 1020. Under these standards, the proposed representatives' claims are typical.

4. Adequacy of representation

The adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a) is that the "representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). This factor requires: (1) that the proposed representative Plaintiffs do not have conflicts of interest with the proposed classes, and (2) that Plaintiffs are represented by qualified and competent counsel who will prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class. Dukes, 2007 WL 4303055 at *11 (citations omitted). The declarations of Plaintiffs and their counsel satisfy these requirements. Defendants' only argument regarding adequacy is that the class representatives lack standing to seek an injunction. The Court rejected that argument, above.

(a) Class representatives.

Plaintiffs request that the twelve individually named plaintiffs be appointed class representatives. The Court will appoint as class representatives only those named plaintiffs who have filed declarations attesting to their understanding of their obligations as class representatives. They are: Kevin Breslin, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jaime Maldonado, Leopoldo Ortiz, Romualdo Pedro, and Jeremy RotheKushel. 7

7Each of these eight individuals has submitted a second declaration with the Reply

in support of their standing to represent an injunctive class. Four of these individuals,

Breslin, Gomez, Galvez, and Ortiz, submitted a third declaration after the hearing in support of their standing.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 16 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 23 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

::S!:~~O'l CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)

~i;J;),aie December 14,2007

Title

... MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

(b) Class counsel and steering committee.

The Court appoints Barrett Litt, Carol Sobel and Paul Hoffman as lead class counsel. Those attorneys who filed actions on behalf of other clients who agree to be members of the damages class may serve on a steering committee.

D. Rule 23(b)(2) Requirements

Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate where the opposing party "has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Originally designed for civil rights cases, Rule 23(b)(2) class actions are limited to those class actions seeking primarily injunctive or corresponding relief. Newberg on Class Actions, § 4.11 (4th ed. 2002).

Other courts have certified Rule 23(b)(2) classes in cases involving police action against demonstrators. See Chang v. United States, 217 F.R.D. 262, 264, 267 (D.D.C. 2003) (certifying a class of persons arrested en masse during an anti-World Bank/IMF protest in September 2002 in Washington D.C.); Washington Mobilization Committee v. Cullinane, 400 F. Supp. 186,219 n. 2 (D. D.C. 1975); Sullivan v. Murphy, 478 F.2d 938, 967 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (noting class treatment was appropriate, despite the highly individualized nature of probable cause, because it was "a situation in which the police did not govern themselves by their ordinary procedures...And the arrests that were made were the product of a common course of conduct by the police."); Sullivan v. Murphy, 380 F.Supp 867, 868 (D.D.C. 1974).8

8Defendants cited one mass demonstration case in which Rule 23(b)(2) certification

was denied, but on the ground that the class definition was inadequate (because it

depended on the "state of mind" of class members and defendants). See Vietnam

Veterans Against the War v. Benecke, 63 F.R.D. 675, 679-80 (W.D. Mo. 1974) (proposed

class "would encompass all persons of political or social persuasion different than

government officials and officers" of the city).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 17 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 24 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

w)/,,~:'f '

',: CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx) December 14,2007 \:~Jl)ateJ _ _ _ _ _ _.....;....._-.;..._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- '•,. .,'"'

,'1%'......_ _ _----:_ __

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v. :,·'.F/1"i".'_ CI_ TY_ OF_ LO_ S _ AN_ GE_ LE-S-..,;..e_ t a_ l. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

1. Act or refusal to act.

The mere fact that the LAPD declared an unlawful assembly and dispersed the crowd at MacArthur Park is enough to meet the requirement that defendants acted on grounds generally applicable to the class. Moreover, Plaintiffs have alleged (and at this stage the Court must accept as true) that the LAPD has failed to adopt and/or implement policies to prevent the infringement of the rights of demonstrators. See FAC ~~ 28-39. That Defendants have "acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class" is patently obvious based on the LAPD Report and the allegations at the heart of this lawsuit.

2. Impact of money damages on injunctive class certification.

The Ninth Circuit recently reiterated that Rule 23(b)(2) class actions can include claims for monetary damages, so long as such damages are not the "predominant" relief sought, but instead are "secondary to the primary claim for injunctive or declaratory relief." Dukes, 2007 WL 4303055 at *11 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Moreover, "the predominance test turns on the primary goal of the litigation--not the theoretical or possible size of the damage award." ld. at *13.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory and special damages, damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 52, and exemplary damages "in an amount sufficient to deter and to make an example of [] defendants." FAC ~~ 118-120. The Court should not and will not speculate as to the possible size of the damage award. "Focusing predominantly on the plaintiffs' intent in bringing the suit," it is clear that injunctive relief predominates in this case. ld. at 1234. Plaintiffs' prayer for injunctive relief and the declarations supporting this motion plainly demonstrate that the primary goal of the litigation is to secure the rights of demonstrators in the future, i. e. by holding the LAPD accountable for failing to comply with policies and practices that it promised to implement pursuant to prior settlement agreements. See FAC ~~ 114-117; Reply Ex. A (LAPD' s summary of NLG Settlement); Reply Ex. B (Plaintiffs' supplemental declarations); Mem. Ex. 37 (text of NLG Settlement).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 18 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 25 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

;,1 CV 07-3072 ARM ( F M O x ) D { i t l December 14,2007

" " '~~

"

., K';:

:,;,':fitle:,ifi;Yi'{" ~l MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

y';'i '........• ' ; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

3. Manageability considerations.
Defendants raise vague concerns about manageability in connection with the potential size of the injunctive class. Manageability considerations do not justify denial of certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class. See Elliott, 564 F.2d at 1229 ("The [defendant] does not cite, nor can we find, any authority which supports his rather novel theory limiting (b)(2) class actions because of their numerosity and manageability problems. By its terms, Rule 23 makes manageability an issue important only in determining the propriety of certifying an action as a (b)(3), not a (b)(2), class action.").
E. Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements
The key questions under this analysis are: (1) whether common issues predominate over questions affecting only individual members and (2) whether the putative class action is superior to other methods for fair and efficient adjudication of the issues. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). "Subdivision (b)(3) encompasses those cases in which a class action would achieve economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable results." Advisory Committee Notes, 39 F.R.D. 69, 102-103.

1. Rule 23(b)(3) factor one: Predominance.

"When common questions present a significant aspect of the case and they can be

resolved for all members of the class in a single adjudication, there is clear justification

for handling the dispute on a representative rather than on an individual basis." Hanlon,

150 F.3d at 1022. When one or more of the central issues in the action are common to

the class, the action may be considered proper under Rule 23(b)(3) even though other

important matters will have to be tried separately, such as damages or some affirmative

defenses peculiar to some individual class members. See Local Joint Executive Bd. of

Culinary/Bartender Trust Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1152, 1163 (9th Cir.

2001) (holding that Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement was satisfied where all

liability issues in employment case were the same and the only individualized issues

related to the calculation of damages); Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs., Inc., 348 F.3d 417,

428 (4th Cir.), cert. denied 124 S.Ct. 2837 (2003) (stating that because Rule 23(b)(3)

actions usually require individual proof of damages, courts usually find predominance

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 19 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 26 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

;~~~N;:!{ CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)

IDate December 14, 2007

~k'! ,;:fiL - - - - - - - - - - - - . ; - - - - - - - - - -

':~~t ~~T6:r~~~~~k~~~i WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

requirement satisfied if common questions predominate over individual questions as to liability).
As discussed below, the common issues in the First Amendment claim, Fourth Amendment claim, Monell claim, and respondeat superior liability are more than sufficient to meet the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). Because the record thus far is insufficiently developed as to the alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations, the Court declines at this time to include those claims among those the class may pursue.
(a) First Claim for Relief: First Amendment, § 1983 claim.
As to the First Amendment claim, Plaintiffs are correct that the only material fact is that the LAPD decided to declare an unlawful assembly and disperse the crowd. Even the LAPD Report states that the First Amendment rights of peaceful individuals and members of media were curtailed. LAPD Report at 51-52. However, an individual question exists as to whether each class member, such as a random passerby, actually was engaged in protected First Amendment activity.
From a practical point of view, common questions predominate, largely because most of those present were engaged in protected activity. See LAPD Report at 4, 51, 52. Given the intangible nature of First Amendment rights and values, it makes sense to assess damages on this claim on the basis of criteria applicable to the class as a whole, such as the degree to which the police action curtailed the planned events. The court or jury could then determine the total compensation appropriate for that loss or the reasonable award for each victim. See, e.g., Dellurns, 566 F.2d at 174 (jury awarded uniform compensatory damages per class member for violations of First Amendment rights).
(b) Third, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Claims for Relief: Fourth Amendment and related state claims for excessive force. 9
III

9Counse1 for Defendants acknowledged at the hearing that the Fourth Amendment claim will be

similar to the state law claims for most putative class members.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 20 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 27 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
.~CV_O_7_-3_0_72_A_H_M_(~F_M_O_x~)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~J?~t~;ii!._D_e_c_em_be_r_1-.4,_2_00_7_
MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v. ; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of unreasonable force in effecting a search or seizure of a suspect. The LAPD use or threat of force against the assembled crowd may constitute a seizure,1O although there are individual factual questions as to whether a given officer caused a particular individual to be displaced by the use or threat of force. The parties focus their arguments not on whether there was a seizure, but on whether the actions of the police officers were reasonable. Thus, Plaintiffs focus on the LAPD commanders' authorization of "less lethal" force (as distinct from the application of such force).
At the hearing on this motion, Defendants opposed certification because the LAPD is in the process of investigating which individual officers may be subject to discipline or liability. However, the scope of the Department's investigation is necessarily limited. It is difficult to determine the identity of the officers responsible for any particular injuries, because the officers wore riot gear that obscured their name tags and they fired munitions from various skirmish lines. Despite the extensive video coverage of the event, thus far the LAPD has identified only twenty-six officers for individual investigations. Hence, individualized assessments of whether an officer's use of force was reasonable will not be possible for the majority of putative class members. The LAPD's internal investigation is not a reason to defer certification.
The Court recognizes that the conduct of individual officers in the field may present individual issues of reasonableness, namely whether it was reasonable under the circumstances for a particular officer to fire less-lethal munitions, use his baton to strike people, or use other forms of force, such as pushing and shoving.
Nonetheless, the individual issues share a common source: the command decisions to disperse the crowd and to authorize the use of less-lethal munitions if the crowd's behavior warranted it. LAPD Report at 8, 34-35. Because the legality of these command decisions is the overriding common question, the predominance requirement is met as to the Fourth Amendment claim.

!OSee California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626 (1991) ("The word 'seizure' readily bears the

meaning oflaying on of hands or application of physical force to restrain movement, even when it is

ultimately unsuccessful."); Marbet v. City ofPortland, 2003 WL 23540258 (D. Or. 2003) (holding that

plaintiffs stated a Fourth Amendment claim where police moved a crowd of protestors 120 feet through

use of pepper spray and physical force).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 21 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 28 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
txt CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx)

·"t,$tI:h?i!f t~r144iLvl December 14, 2007

Y i\+k

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

',",~~ + CIT"Y O"F,LO,S-A-NG-EL-ES-, e-t a-l. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(c) The Monell claim and respondeat superior.
Municipal liability for civil rights violations and employer liability under tort law present predominantly common issues as well. Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof of three elements: a policymaker, an official policy, and a violation of constitutional rights whose "moving force" is the policy or custom. Monell v. Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658,694 (1978). To hold the municipality liable, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the official policy "evidences 'a deliberate indifference' to his constitutional rights," and caused his injury. See Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting City ofCanton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378,389-91 (1989)). Plaintiffs allege that the City's failure to implement policies to ensure the rights of demonstrators, given the City's obligations under the NLG and Crespo settlements, arises to a municipal policy or custom of deliberate indifference to the First Amendment rights of the public. The elements of Plaintiffs' Monell claim rely on proof involving the City of Los Angeles's policies and practices, and will not require facts individual to each class member's claims.
For an employer to be liable for an assault or other intentional tort, the tort must have a causal nexus to the employee's work. Lisa M v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital, 12 Ca1.4th 291,297 (1995). Here, for the most part whether the actions of the individual police officers have the requisite causal nexus will be a common question, because the police officers had been assigned to crowd control for the event and most incidents of use of force occurred as a result of the command decisions.
2. Rule 23(b)(3) factor two: Class treatment is a superior method of adjudication.

CV-90 (06/04)

Page 22 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 29 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

;~~~~~()~\ CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx)

~;D~e " December 14,2007

"!;~>i;;';tf; MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et at. v.

:!:~;'* CITY OF LOS ANGELES et at.

1'4:::,;- ;%;

,

when it would bring about "undesirable results." Advisory Committee Notes, 39 F.R.D. 69, 103.

(a) The interests of class members in individually controlling separate actions and the extent and nature of litigation already commenced.

Defendants argue that class members' individual damages are not small, that they have an emotional stake in the litigation and that they will therefore want to individually prosecute the action. Defendants further claim there is a likelihood of more opt-outs than class members. Defendants provide little support for this argument. Of the more than 6,000 people in the damages class, 300 or so have filed claims (individually or in a group) against the City. Thirteen lawsuits are currently pending: six before this Court and seven in state court. MIWON counsel claims to represent over 176 claimants who have agreed to be a part of the class action. Realistically, the only people who may choose to opt out are those who are prosecuting their own lawsuits in federal or state court. Whatever the number, they will represent a small minority of claimants. In any event, the fact that some class members may wish to opt out does not lead to the conclusion that a class action is inappropriate, because it is their right under Rule 23(b)(3) and not uncommon in large class actions.

(b) The desirability of concentrating the action.

This factor favors class certification because all claims arise from same location, date, and time period. FAC ~ 87. The Court is amenable to coordinating the federal
cases with those in state court.

(c) Manageability.

Plaintiffs have anticipated many of the management concerns the Court might

have. A number of management tools are available to addressed individualized damages

issues, such as bifurcating liability and damages trials, appointing a magistrate judge or

special master to preside over damages proceedings, and creating subclasses as permitted

under Rule 23(c)(4). Plaintiffs note that damages may be assessed class-wide based on a

formula or through test trials. Plaintiffs also have contemplated various methods of

providing the best notice practicable. See FAC ~ 89. In general, their proposals and the

Court's willingness to consider other proposals dispel any real concerns about

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 23 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 30 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
bate CV 07-3072 ARM ( F M O x ) J .+, December 14,2007
~'·;/1}t------~-~--------~.p'/,<,.,;<"-------
.;,:t:t' MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.
.... '" CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.
manageability.
(d) General appropriateness.
Rule 23(b)(3) classes certified in mass demonstration cases are not new. See Vodak v. City o/Chicago, 2006 WL 1037151 at *1, *6 ( (N.D. Ill. 2006) (protesters were detained, arrested, andlor charged); Hickey v. City o/Seattle, 236 F.R.D. 659, 660-61, 664-67 (W.D. Wash. 2006) (protesters were surrounded by police in a "no protest zone" and arrested). Vietnam War protests in Washington D.C. also gave rise to a prominent Rule 23(b)(3) class action. See Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167, 174 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (a class consisting of "all persons who were arrested while assembled on the Capitol steps on May 5, 1971). But see McCarthy v. Kleindienst, 741 F.2d 1406, 1415 n. 11 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (deferring to district court's denial of class certification and noting that "Dellums consisted only of those persons arrested on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, a much more cohesive group than the approximately 7,000 putative class members here who were arrested throughout the city."). Courts have also certified Rule 23(b)(3) classes in contexts analogous to mass demonstrations. See, e.g., Tardiffv. Knox County, 365 F.3d 1, 6-7 (1 st Cir. 2004) (strip searches of pre-arraignment jail detainees); Williams v. Brown, 214 F.R.D. 484, 485 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (detention and searches of neighborhood residents during a basketball tournament); Doe v. Calumet City, Illinois, 754 F.Supp. 1211, 1212 (N.D. Ill. 1990) (strip searches of female arrestees).
It bears emphasizing that the primary policy of the class action mechanism is to enable the collective vindication of the rights of numerous persons whose claims are not worth litigating in individual actions. See Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997). As Plaintiffs point out, this rationale is particularly applicable here, where some class members may feel hesitant about coming forward on their own because they may be (or were at the time) in this country unlawfully. Cf Patrykus v. Gomilla, 121 F.R.D. 357, 361 (N.D. Ill. 1988) (certifying a class of 50 patrons of gay bars who were harassed and arrested by police, taking into consideration the potential social prejudice against homosexuals that may deter class members from suing in their own names).
III

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 24 of25

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 31 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

, A/1j;.;:; ~
CV 07-3072 ARM (FMOx):D~~"~ December 14, 2007

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

"""

,', MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

v. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. By not later than January 4,2008 Plaintiffs shall lodge a proposed order consistent with this ruling and with practice under Rule 23.

Initials of Preparer

SMO

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 25 of25

 
 Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 1 of 98

1

_--FiFlilELE:OORIC" COURl

2

CLERK. U.S. OIS1'

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT
12 WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et aI.
13 Plaintiffs,
14 vs.

15 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et aI.,

16

Defendants.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No.: CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx) [Hon. A. Howard Matz]

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER

DATE:

March 13, 2009

TIME:

3:00 P.M.

COURTROOM: 14

1

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 2 of 98

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 I. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT .....................................3

3 II. DEADLINES FOR NOTICE, FILING OBJECTIONS AND OPT-OUTS,

4

AND DATE OF FAIRNESS HEARING.........................................................7

5 III. CLASS REPRESENTATIVES ........................................................................9
6 IV. CLAIMS ADMINISTRA.TOR .........................................................................9 7
V. CLASS COUNSEL ..........................................................................................10 8
9 VI. CLASS AND SETTLEMENT NOTICE .......................................................10

10 VII. THE FAIRNESS HEARING ........................................................................12

11 VIII. OTHER PROVISIONS ...............................................................................13

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 3 of 98

1

Upon review and consideration of the Settlement Agreement (a copy of

2 which is attached to this Order as Exhibit A) and the exhibits attached thereto,

3 between the Class Representatives in the above-captioned action, individually and

4 as representatives of the classes certified in this case, and the plaintiffs in the

5 related cases set forth in Paragraph 1, below ("Related Cases"), on the one hand

6 (collectively "Plaintiffs"); and defendants City of Los Angeles (the "City"), Los

7 Angeles Police Chief William Bratton, Cayler Carter, Louis Gray and the other

8 defendants in the Related Cases, on the other hand (collectively "Defendants"),

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

10 I.

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

11

1. This is a class action brought in connection with events at and

12 surrounding a protest at MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007 ("May 1"). Plaintiffs

13 allege that the Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD"), an agency of the City,

14 violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights by, among other things,

declaring an unlawful assembly and engaging in excessive force. The Court, with 15

the approval of all Plaintiffs' counsel, ordered the captioned MIWON class action

16

into mediation, along with the following Related Cases, all of which involved

17

similar allegations:

18 r-----------------------~----------~------------------~I

RELATED CASES

NUMBER

ATTORNEY

19 Santiago v. City ofLos Angeles 2:07 CV-02966 Gregory Yates

20 Brandon Aguilar v. City ofLos 2:07 CV-04131 Luis Carrillo

Angeles

21 Newton v. City ofLos Angeles 2:07 CV-04455 Ellen Ellison

22 Lopez v. City ofLos Angeles

2:07 CV-05555 Susan Pintar

Ajuria v. City ofLos Angeles

2:07 CV-08433 Luis Carrillo

23 Gudiel v. City ofLos Angeles

2:08 CV-01370 Louis Krass

24 Reyes v. City ofLos Angeles

2:08 CV-02225 Carl Douglas

25 Sal Aguilar v. City ofLos Angeles 2:08 CV-02301 Jaime Segall- Gutierrez

Ponce v. City ofLos Angeles

2:08 CV-02710 Leo Hernandez

26

27

2. The parties have settled the case as a hybrid settlement. The MIWON

28 counsel represented both the certified 3 class and individual class members in

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 4 of 98

1 the MIWON case, who alleged they had been injured as a result of the actions of

2 the LAPD on May 1. Other counsel represent additional individuals in the Related

3 Cases who also alleged they had been injured as a result of the actions of the

4 LAPD on May 1. The 297 total individuals represented by the MIWON counsel

5 and other counsel in the Related Cases are hereafter referred to collectively as the

6 "Represented Individuals" whether they are named in any complaint or not. Their

7 names and counsel are listed in Exhibit E to the Settlement Agreement. The

8 settlement negotiations were conducted in such a manner as to compensate the

9 Represented Individuals, inclusive of attorney's fees and costs, and to compensate

10 a residual class composed of class members who do not opt out and who file

11 claims against a residual Class Fund.

12

3. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement

13 Agreement (Exhibit A), and also incorporates Exhibits B through H, thereto. All

terms defined therein shall have the same meaning in this Order. This Order is not 14
intended to modify any of the terms of provisions of the Settlement Agreement. 15
4. The Settlement Agreement provides for a total of$12,600,000 to be 16
paid to the 297 represented individuals and a residual Class Fund of $250,000 17
(inclusive of costs of class administration). The plaintiffs' counsel who are 18
signatories to the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit A) have warranted that, with the 19
exception of the Missing Represented Individuals and Antonio Lopez, (1) they
20 have authority from each Represented Individual whom they represent to settle the

21 cases on the terms set forth herein, (2) each of their clients is aware of and has

22 authorized the amount each will receive from the settlement, and (3) each of their

23 clients is aware of and has approved the attorney's fee arrangement between

24 counsel and client.

25

5. The parties' Settlement Agreement contemplates that there may be

26 some structured settlements for individual plaintiffs. (A structured settlement

27 refers to an agreement under which a third party is paid by the Defendants to

28

4

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 5 of 98

1 provide agreed upon periodic payments over a defined period of time, rather than a

2 single lump sum payment.) To the extent there are such agreements, funds will not

3 be deposited into any individual accounts but will be directed as required under

4 the terms of the structured settlement agreement. Thus, this Preliminary Approval

5 Order preliminarily approves only the total amount that the City will be

6 responsible to pay plaintiffs collectively, either directly or in the form of a

7 structured settlement. To the extent there are structured settlements, they will be

8 negotiated by counsel for that plaintiff individually, memorialized in individual

9 settlement agreements, and provided to the court as part of the Consent Judgment.

10 It will be the Consent Judgment, should there be one, consistent with the terms of

11 the Settlement Agreement, that will constitute the binding settlement terms among

12 the parties.

13

6. Class Counsel have represented to the Court that they believe that

most of those filing Class Fund claims (as distinct from Represented Individuals) 14

will not have suffered physical injury, and the value of those claims is 15
considerably lower than the value of the claims of those who suffered physical 16
InJury. 17
7. Class Counsel have also represented to the Court that they believe that 18
a minority of class members (but most Represented Individuals) received physical 19
injuries while most class members (but few Represented Individuals) received no
20
physical injury. Class Counsel consider a hybrid settlement appropriate as a class

21 settlement because (1) they have been able to assess the damages for the

22 Represented Individuals, the majority of whom received physical and/or

23 significant psychological injury, (2) they consider it likely that most of those who

24 received physical injuries are among the Represented Individuals, and (3) those

25 few class members who have serious injuries and are not among the Represented

26 Individuals will be able to opt out of the settlement and pursue individual

27 remedies.

28

5

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 6 of 98

1

8. The Court is also advised that, pursuant to contract terms between

2 attorney and client, some of the non-MIWON attorneys - but not the MIWON

3 counsel- may receive a percentage of the client's recovery, as negotiated between

4 attorney and client. Since these agreements are in the non-MIWON cases, they are

5 not subject to court approval. (See Exhibit E for the clients and for their counsel;

6 the non-MIWON clients are those listed as represented by the following non-

7 MIWON counsel: Carl Douglas; Ellen Ellison; Leo Hernandez; Louis Krass; Luis

8 Carrillo; Susan Pintar; James Segall-Gutierrez; and Gregory Yates.)

9

9. The Court is also advised that the settlement provides that minors'

10 claims at or below $6000 will be designated for general use for the minor's health

11 and well-being in whatever manner the parent or guardian sees fit, with certain

12 other conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement and proposed Consent

13 Judgment. For minors receiving above $6000, they will be either placed in a blocked account or, for those who are 16 or above this year, they will be placed in
14

counsel's trust account until they tum 18. There are also provisions for 15
withdrawals for the minor's benefit from any blocked account. 16
10. The Court is further advised that the settlement provides that the 17
awards for Missing Represented Individuals should be approved by the Court 18
unless such individuals have opted out. Prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the
19 Court will be provided with a list of the Represented Individuals who are then

20 missing, and with declarations from their respective counsel regarding the efforts

21 made to locate those individuals.

22

11. The Court is further advised that there is a draft of a Structural Relief

23 Order, attached as Exhibit D, to resolve the injunctive relief claims in this case,

24 which the Court will also be asked to approve at the Fairness Hearing.

25

12. The Court is advised that the settlement includes a component for

26 attorney's fees amounting to less than the hours recorded and spent on the case

27 multiplied by Plaintiffs' counsel's hourly rates, to be taken from the $12,600,000

28

6

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 7 of 98

1 Represented Individuals' Fund. This fee, not to exceed $3,713,000 (inclusive of

2 litigation costs and medical costs and medical liens), will be presented to the Court

3 in the form of a motion for approval of attorney's fees ("Fee Motion"), to be

4 considered and ruled on by the Court at the same time as the Fairness Hearing.

5

13. The Court is aware that this matter was mediated by Magistrate Judge

6 Carla Woehrle, and that this settlement was reached at arm's length.

7

14. The Settlement Agreement is hereby preliminarily approved, subject

8 to further consideration thereof at the Fairness Hearing provided for below. The

9 Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is within the range of what would

10 constitute a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement in the best interests of the

11 class as a whole. The Court also preliminarily finds that it is reasonable to

12 distinguish between the Represented Individuals, whose damages could be

individually assessed, and most of whom suffered physical injury, from the 13

residual class, on the assumption that most residual class members did not suffer 14
significant physical or psychological injury, and that those who did would have 15
the choice to opt out of the settlement. 16
15. This preliminary approval includes preliminary approval of the 17
handling of minors' claims and Missing Represented Individuals' claims, as set 18
forth in the Settlement Agreement.
19 16. The Court approves the process for notifying possible class members

20 of the settlement, and the claims process, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

21

17. The Court approves the publication of summary Class Notice, as set

22 forth in the Settlement Agreement.

23

18. The Court has previously certified classes under Federal Rules of

24 Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). The Court hereby reaffirms the class

25 definitions as set forth in its order of January 8, 2008.

26 II. DEADLINES FOR NOTICE, FILING OBJECTIONS AND OPT-

27

OUTS, AND DATE OF FAIRNESS HEARING

28

7

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 8 of 98

1

19. The Court has set the following dates for purposes of this class action:

2

(a) Distribution of Class Notices to participating organizations as

3

provided in the Settlement Agreement - to begin as soon as

4

practicable;

5

(b) Publication of summary notice as provided in the Settlement

6

Agreement (Exhibit A): to begin by the week of March 30,2009;

7

(c) Filing of Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs:

8

Must be filed by April 20, 2009;

9

(d) Filing of class members' Objections to any aspect of the Settlement

10

(including Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Settlement of

11

Attorneys' Fees and Costs): Must be filed by April 27, 2009;

12

(e) Deadline to opt-out: Must be postmarked or received by April 27,

13

2009;

(f) Deadline for filing class claims: Must be postmarked or received by 14

May 27, 2009; 15

(g) Opposition or Reply to Objections (including to objections to award 16
of attorneys' fees and costs): Must be filed by June 8, 2009; 17
(h) Proposed Final Order of Approval of Settlement: Must be filed by 18
June 15,2009; and

19 (i) Fairness Hearing: June 22,2009.

20 20. In the event that the Class Notice is not distributed and initially

21 published within the time specified herein, the subsequent dates referenced herein

22 will be deferred for the number of additional days before such notice occurs

23 without the need for additional court approval. However, the Court must approve

24 any change of the date of the Fairness Hearing.

25

21. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, if the total number

26 of Opt-Outs exceeds 25 persons, the City, in its sole discretion, may rescind the

27 Settlement Agreement. The City may also rescind the Settlement Agreement if

28

8

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 9 of 98

1 any of the Represented Individuals, who are listed in Exhibit E, is for any reason

2 excluded from the settlement. The City, in exercising a right of rescission under

3 the terms of this paragraph, shall provide the Administrator and Class Counsel

4 with written notice of rescission (1) within 20 days after receipt of the

5 Administrator's report providing the total number of Opt-Outs, and/or (2) within

6 20 days after the Bar Date or date of any Represented Individual's exclusion from

7 the settlement, whichever is later. In the event the City exercises a right of

8 rescission under the terms of this paragraph, any funds paid or deposited pursuant

9 to this Settlement Agreement shall be returned to the City within 10 days of the

10 exercise of the right to rescind, less any expenses, fees and costs incurred by the

11 Administrator, and the case shall return to active litigation status.

12 III. CLASS REPRESENTATIVES

13

22. The Class Representatives are: Kevin Breslin, David Gabriel Eng,

Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jaime Maldonado, Leopoldo Ortiz, Romualdo 14
Pedro, and Jeremy Rothe-Kushel (per the Court's January 8, 2008, class 15
certification order). 16
IV. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR 17
23. The Court approves Class Counsel's retention of Gilardi & Co. LLC 18
as Administrator to administer the distribution of the Class Notice and publication 19
of summary Class Notice, and to distribute the proceeds of the settlement to all 20
eligible class members pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement 21 (Exhibit A) and the Consent Judgment (Exhibit C) should the Court grant final
22 approval. Gilardi & Co LLC were chosen by Plaintiffs' counsel and is a reputable,
23 experienced Third Party Administrator that is in the business of class
24 administration.

25

24. The Administrator's responsibilities shall include publishing notice,

26 processing claims and otherwise engaging in the activities needed to administer

27 the class claims. The specific duties of the Administrator between this Preliminary

28

9

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 10 of 98

1 Approval Order and the Consent Judgment are set forth in Paragraphs 46-58 of the

2 Settlement Agreement, the provisions of which are incorporated herein and

3 approved.

4

25. The Administrator shall be compensated for its services out of the

5 $250,000 set aside for the residual Class Fund. The City shall advance $50,000 for

6 class notice, processing, and administration.

7 V.

CLASS COUNSEL

8

26. Barrett S. Litt, Carol A. Sobel and Paul L. Hoffman are hereby re-

9 confirmed as counsel for the Class Representatives and the Class ("Class

10 Counsel").

11

27. Class Counsel are authorized to act on behalf of the class with respect

12 to all acts or consents required by, or which may be given pursuant to, the
13 Settlement Agreement, and such other acts reasonably necessary to consummate the Settlement Agreement.
14 28. At the Fairness Hearing, Class Counsel shall make an application for
15 approval of Class Attorneys' Fees not to exceed $3,713,000, including litigation
16 costs and medical costs and medical liens, to be paid from Represented
17 Individuals' Fund of$12,600,000.
18 VI. CLASS AND SETTLEMENT NOTICE
19 29. In these cases, there are not any mailing lists that contain information
20 allowing identification of potential class members. The most practical way to
21 locate potential class members is through dissemination of Class Notices to those
22 in contact with the organizations who organized the May 1 protest. Accordingly,
23 the Court approves payment of up to $4000 as a cost of class administration from

24 the Class Fund to each Plaintiff Organization. These expenditures shall be

25 considered a class administration cost. In exchange, each such organization must

26 distribute Class Notices in areas in which it believes it most likely that class

27 members may be present. Each such organization shall provide an attestation of

28

10

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 11 of 98

1 compliance with these provisions, including the time spent, prior to the Fairness
2 Hearing.

3

30. The Class Notice shall include a Proof of Claim Form to be used in

4 connection with any claims made against the Class Fund. It shall require a

5 statement, made under penalty of perjury, that the individual claimant (1) was

6 present on May 1, 2007 in the geographic area bounded by 6th Street (on the

7 north), Alvarado Street (on the east), 7th Street (on the south), and Park View

8 Street (on the west), or the immediately adjacent areas, including from 6th Street

9 west to Lafayette Park, at any point between the hours of 5:00 and 7:00 p.m., (2)

10 did not engage in any conduct justifying Defendants' dispersal order or the use of

11 force, (3) and was subjected to the LAPD's use of force, dispersal order or other

12 unlawful police activity arising from the police response to the immigration march

13 and rally. The Proof of Claim Form shall require an additional statement in the

claimant's own words setting forth specific facts supporting his/her claim against 14

the Class Fund. 15

31. The Court approves the substance of the draft Class Notice attached as 16
Exhibit B.

17 32. The Court approves the substance of the draft Proof of Claim Form

18 attached as the last page of Exhibit B.

19 33. The Administrator shall be responsible for publishing a summary

20 Class Notice once a week for three consecutive weeks in La Opinion, which the

21 parties agree is the publication most likely to reach class members.

22

34. The Court finds that the notice required by the foregoing provisions of

23 this Order is the best notice practicable under the circumstances and shall

24 constitute due and sufficient notice of the settlement and the Fairness Hearing to

25 all class members and other persons affected by, or entitled to participate in, the

26 settlement, and is in full compliance with the notice requirements of Rule 23 of the

27 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process of law.

28

11

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 12 of 98

1

35. Except for publication in La Opinion, preparation of 10,000 class

2 notices, and providing class notices to those who request them from the

3 Administrator, the Administrator's responsibility shall be to process and pay class

4 claims, to provide documents required by court orders to finalize the class

5 settlement, and to engage in other activities assigned to the Administrator in the

6 Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit A.

7

36. A Proof of Claim Form shall be deemed timely submitted when

8 received by the Administrator, or postmarked, on or before the Claim Date.

9

37. An Unrepresented Class Member's objection or request for exclusion

10 shall be deemed timely submitted when received by the Administrator, or

11 postmarked, on or before the Bar Date.

12 VII. THE FAIRNESS HEARING

13

38. A Fairness Hearing shall be held on June 22,2009, to consider: (a) the

fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy ofthe settlement; (b) whether the Consent 14

Judgment, a draft of which is attached as Exhibit C, should be entered in its 15
current or some modified form; and (c) the application by Class Counsel for 16
approval of the settlement of attorneys' fees and expenses. 17
39. The date and time of the Fairness Hearing shall be subject to
18 adjournment by the Court without further notice to the class members other than

19 that which may be posted at the Court and on the Court's web site.

20

40. Any class member who objects to the approval of the Settlement

21 Agreement, the Represented Individuals' award, the Class Fund award or the Fee

22 Motion, and has filed a timely objection (i.e., by April 27, 2009), may appear at

23 the Fairness Hearing and show cause why the Settlement Agreement, the

24 Represented Individuals' award, the Class Fund award or the Fee Motion should

25 not be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and why the Consent Judgment

26 should not be entered; except that no such class member may appear at the

27 Fairness Hearing unless the class member, no later than May 15,2009, (a) files

28

12

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 13 of 98

1 with the Clerk of the Court a notice of such person's intention to appear, a

2 statement that indicates the basis and grounds for such person's objection to the

3 Settlement Agreement, the Represented Individuals' award, the Class Fund award

4 or the Fee Motion, and all documentation, papers, or briefs in support of such

5 objection; and by the same date (b) serves upon all Counsel to the Parties (as listed

6 in the Notice of Proposed Settlement), either in person or by mail, copies of such

7 notice of intention to appear, statement of objections and all documentation,

8 papers, or briefs that such person files with the Court. The required documentation

9 shall include information demonstrating that the objector is a class member,

10 including name, address, date of birth, and a description of the class member's
11 experiences on May 1, entitling him or her to qualify as a class member (including
12 names of witnesses and all relevant documentation). Final determination whether
any such objector is a class member who has standing to object shall be made by 13
the Court if any party contests the issue. In the absence of the timely filing and 14
timely service of the notice of intention to appear and all other materials required 15
by this paragraph, any objection shall be deemed untimely and denied.
16
41. Pending final approval of the Settlement Agreement, no class member 17
shall, either directly, representatively, or in any other capacity, commence, 18
prosecute against any Defendant or participate in any action or proceeding in any 19
court or tribunal asserting any of the matters, claims, or causes of action that are to
20
be released by the Settlement Agreement upon final approval. 21
42. In the event of final approval of the Settlement Agreement, all class 22 members (except those who have requested exclusion and been excluded) shall be
23 forever enjoined and barred from asserting any of the matters, claims or causes of
24 action released by the Settlement Agreement, and all such class members shall be

25 deemed to have forever released any and all such matters, claims and causes of

26 action as provided for in the Settlement Agreement.

27 VIII. OTHER PROVISIONS

28

13

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 14 of 98

1

43. In the event the settlement is not finally approved or is otherwise

2 terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, the

3 settlement and all proceedings had in connection therewith shall be null and void,

4 except insofar as expressly provided to the contrary in the Settlement Agreement, 5 and without prejudice to the status quo ante rights of Plaintiffs, Defendants, and 6 class members.

7 DATED: ty\u- ~ \~la-OO~
8
9

A. HOWARD M TZ UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 15 of 98

1 LIST OF EXHIBITS TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER
2

3 Exhibit A Settlement Agreement

4 Exhibit B Class and Settlement Notice with attached Claim Form (Draft)

5 Exhibit C Final Order of Approval and Settlement (Draft)

6 Exhibit D Injunctive Relief Agreement and Order Thereon (Draft)

7 Exhibit E Names of, and Counsel for, Represented Individuals (Draft)

8 Exhibit F MIWON Minor Represented Individuals With Post-Fee Recoveries of

9

$6000 or Less

10 Exhibit G MIWON Minor Represented Individuals With Post-Fee Recoveries

11

Over $6000 And Under 16

12 Exhibit H MIWON Minor Represented Individuals With Post-Fee Recoveries

13

Over $6000 And 16 or Older

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 16 of 98
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 17 of 98

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING
11 NETWORK, et aI.
12 Plaintiffs, 13 vs. 14 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et aI.,
Defendants.
15

Case No.: CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx) [Hon. A. Howard Matz]
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
DATE: March 13,2009 TIME: 3:00 P.M. COURTROOM: 14

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 18 of 98

1
2 I.

TABLE OF CONTENTS RECITALS ..................................................................................................... 3

3 II. DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................... 4
4 III. DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY; NO ADMISSION OR WAIVER....... 10
5
IV. TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR DAMAGES ...........10
6
7 V. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR DAMAGES..........18

8 VI. HANDLING OF MINORS' CLAIMS.......................................................21

9 VII. HANDLING OF MISSING REPRESENTED INDIVIDUALS' 10 CLAIMS..................................................................................... 23

11 VIII. TERMS AND EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR STRUCTURA.L RELIEF ...................................................................................... 24
12
13 IX. CLASS COUNSEL FEES ...........................................................................25

14 X. CLASS NOTIFICATION AND CLAIMS ADMINISTRA.TION ..........25

15 XI. EXCLUSION FROM SETTLEMENT CLASS: OPT-OUTS.................30
16 XII. INTEGRA.TION .......................................................................................... 32
17
XIII. FAIRNESS HEARING AND FINAL ORDER OF APPROVAL ..........32
18
XIV. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS; FACSIMILE SIGNATURES ...32
19
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 19 of 98

1

2

Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez,

3 Jaime Maldonado, Leopoldo Ortiz, Romualdo Pedro, and Jeremy Rothe-Kushel

4 ("Class Representative Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of the classes

5 previously certified by the Court, and all the plaintiffs in the related cases listed in

6 Paragraph 4, infra, ("Related Cases"), on the one hand, (collectively "Plaintiffs");

7 and defendants City of Los Angeles (the "City"), Los Angeles Police Chief William

8 Bratton, Assistant Chief Jim McDonnell, Deputy Chief Cayler "Lee" Carter, Jr.,

9 Commander Louis Gray, Deputy Chief Michael Hillman, Deputy Chief Earl

10 Paysinger, Captain John Egan, Captain Tom MacDonald, and any other individual

11 defendants named in the Related Cases, all in their individual and official 12 capacities, on the other hand, (collectively "Defendants"), by and through their

13 respective counsel, hereby submit the following settlement agreement ("Settlement

14 Agreement").

15 I. RECITALS

The Class Representative Plaintiffs filed the above-captioned action in the
16

United States District Court for the Central District of California ("Court") on May
17
9,2007. The several Related Cases were filed in the Central District as well.
18
The Class Representative Plaintiffs asserted they represented a class of
19
persons who were subjected to violation of their First and Fourth Amendment
20
rights, as well as other federal constitutional rights and rights under California state
21
law, as a result of actions by the Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD"), an 22
agency of the City, surrounding a protest at MacArthur Park on May I, 2007 ("May

23
I"). The Class Representative Plaintiffs alleged that the LAPD and its personnel,

24
pursuant to policy, violated their rights by, among other things, declaring an

25 unlawful assembly and engaging in excessive force.

26

Over the objections and opposition of the City and other defendants named in

27 the above-captioned case brought by plaintiff Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers

28 Organizing Network ("MIWON"), the Court certified a damages class and an

3 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 20 of 98

1 injunctive class on January 8,2008. Subsequently, the parties engaged in extensive

2 settlement negotiations over six sessions with United States District Court

3 Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle ("Judge Woehrle"). This settlement, which the

4 parties have reached through arms-length negotiations with the assistance of Judge

5 Woehrle, is the result of those negotiations.

6

The Defendants, the plaintiffs in the MIWON case, and the plaintiffs in the

7 Related Cases, now agree that they wish to avoid the cost, time and risks involved

8 in further litigation of these cases and to bring an end to the litigation.

9

Therefore, the parties agree as follows:

10 II. DEFINITIONS

11

1. "Administrator" means the claims administrator chosen by the

12 Plaintiffs and to be appointed by the Court to administer the claims process, pay

13 class claims, cause (if needed) English-language documents disseminated to class 14 members to be translated into Spanish prior to dissemination, issue deficiency

notices, publish summary Class Notice, discharge other duties set forth in this
15

Settlement Agreement and handle other tasks necessary and appropriate to
16
completing the claims process.
17
2. A "Damages Class Member" means any class member meeting the
18
following definition (as set forth in the Class Certification Order of January 8,
19
2008):
20
"Those persons who were present on May I, 2007 in the geographic area
21
bounded by 6th Street (on the north), Alvarado Street (on the east), 7th Street 22
(on the south), and Park View Street (on the west), or the immediately
23
adjacent areas, including from 6th Street west to Lafayette Park, at any point

24
between the hours of 5:00 and 7:00 p.m., who did not engage in any conduct

25
justifying Defendants' dispersal order or the use of force, and who were

26

subjected to the LAPD's use of force, dispersal order or other unlawful police

27

activity arising from the police response to the immigration march and rally."

28

3. A "Structural Relief Class Member" means any class member meeting

4 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 21 of 98

1 the following definition (as set forth in the Class Certification Order of January 8, 2 2008):

3

"Those who in the past have engaged in or who in the future may engage in

4

peaceful demonstrations or protest in the City of Los Angeles and who, at the

5

time they engage in such peaceful demonstrations or protest, were or are:

6

"(a) The following organizations: Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers

7

Organizing Network, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles,

8

Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance, Institute for Popular Education of

9

Southern California, Filipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center

10

("Plaintiff Associations");

11

"(b) Officers, representatives, or members of Plaintiff Associations;

12

"(c) Persons who attend or participate in Plaintiff Associations' events,

13

including but not limited to their rallies;

14

"(d) Organizations that advocate, organize, or both advocate and organize

on behalf of the rights of individuals and associations to engage in speech,
15
assembly, and expression within the scope of the First Amendment of the
16
United States Constitution.
17
"(e) Persons who participate in public assemblies organized by the
18
organizations described in paragraph (d)."
19
4. A "Represented Individual" is an individual class member who has 20
been represented individually and as a class member in either the above-captioned
21
MIWON case or in any of the following Related Cases: 22

23
RELATED CASES

NUMBER

PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY

24 Santiago v. City ofLos

2:07 CV-02966 Gregory Yates

25 Angeles and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive

26 Brandon Aguilar v. City ofLos 2:07 CV-04l3l Luis Carrillo

27 Angeles, Chief William Bratton, Assistant ChiefJim
28 McDonnell, Deputy Chief

5 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 22 of 98

1 RELATED CASES

NUMBER

2 Cayler "Lee" Carter, Jr., Deputy ChiefMichael

3 Hillman, Deputy ChiefEarl

4 Paysinger, Commander Louis Gray, Captain John Egan, and

5 Does 1 through 20

PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY

6
Newton v. City ofLos Angeles, 2:07 CV-04455 Ellen Ellison 7 Chief William Bratton, Deputy
8 Chief Cayler Carter, Commander Louis Gray and
9 DOES 1 through 100
10 Lopez v. City ofLos Angeles, 2:07 CV-05555 Susan Pintar Chief William Bratton, Deputy
11 Chief Cayler Carter,
12 Commander Louis Gray and Does 1 through 10
13 Ajuria v. City ofLos Angeles, 2:07 CV-08433 Luis Carrillo
14 Chief William Bratton, Assistant ChiefJim
15 McDonnell, Deputy Chief
16 Cayler "Lee" Carter, Jr., Deputy ChiefMichael
17 Hillman, Deputy ChiefEarl
18 Paysinger, Commander Louis Gray, Captain John Egan,
19 Captain Tom MacDonald and
20 Does 1 through 20
Gudiel v. City ofLos Angeles, 2:08 CV-01370 Louis Krass 21 Chief William Bratton,
22 Assistant ChiefJim
McDonnell, Deputy Chief 23 Cayler "Lee" Carter, Jr.,
24 Deputy ChiefMichael
Hillman, Deputy ChiefEarl 25 Paysinger, Commander Louis
26 Gray, Captain John Egan, and Does 1 through 100
27 Reyes v. City ofLos Angeles, 2:08 CV-02225 Carl Douglas 28 Chief William Bratton, Deputy

6 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 23 of 98

1 RELATED CASES

NUMBER

PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY

2 ChiefCayler Carter, Commander Louis Gray and

3 10 unknown other named

4 defendants Sal Aguilar v. City ofLos
5 Angeles, Chief William

2:08 CV-02301 Jaime Segall-Gutierrez

6 Bratton, Assistant ChiefJim McDonnell, Deputy Chief
7 Cayler "Lee" Carter, Jr.,

8 Deputy ChiefMichael Hillman, Deputy ChiefEarl
9 Paysinger, Commander Louis

10 Gray, Captain John Egan, Captain Tom MacDonald, and
11 Does 1 through10

12 Ponce v. City ofLos Angeles 2:08 CV-02710 Leo Hernandez
and DOES 1 to 100
13

14

The names of, and counsel for, the Represented Individuals are set forth in

15 Exhibit E. The term "Represented Individuals" in the plural refers collectively to all

16 the Represented Individuals in the MIWON and Related Cases.

17

5. An "Unrepresented Class Member" is a class member not currently

18 represented by any of the counsel in MIWON or the Related Cases, i.e., a class

19 member who is not a "Represented Individual" as defined in Paragraph 4.

20

6. "Class Counsel" means Barrett S. Litt, 1055 Wilshire Blvd., #1880,

21 Los Angeles CA. 90017; Carol A. Sobel, 429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550,

22 Santa Monica, California 90401; and Paul L. Hoffman, 723 Ocean Front Walk,

23 Venice, California 90291.

24

7. "Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit" refers to the claims for relief and

25 allegations in the MIWON Complaint dated May 9,2007 ("MIWON ComplainC),

26 as well as the claims for relief and allegations in the operative complaints filed in

27 the Related Cases ("Related Case Complaints"), all of which are based upon actions

28 of the LAPD or its personnel for allegedly violating First or Fourth Amendment

7 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 24 of 98

1 rights, as well as other federal and state-law rights, in or surrounding MacArthur

2 Park on May 1.

3

8. "Released Persons" means the Defendants and their affiliates,

4 subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, and/or assigns, together with past, present

5 and future officials, employees, representatives, attorneys, and/or agents.

6

9. "LAPD" refers to the Los Angeles Police Department.

7

10. "Class Notice" means the notice in a form substantially similar to that

8 attached hereto as Exhibit B.

9

11. "Effective Date" means the date upon which the anticipated Consent

10 Judgment and Order of Final Approval of Settlement ("Consent Judgment") entered

11 by the Court approving the Settlement Agreement becomes final. If a class member 12 objects to the settlement, the Consent Judgment will be deemed final upon

13 expiration of the time to appeal or, if one or more Notices of Appeal are filed in the

14 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, upon exhaustion of all such appeals and any

15 petitions for writs of certiorari. If no class member objects to the settlement, the

Consent Judgment will be deemed final upon its entry.
16
12. An "Opt-Out" is any Unrepresented Class Member who files with the
17
Administrator a timely request for exclusion from this Settlement Agreement.
18
13. "Proof of Claim Form" means the Proof of Claim and Release Form
19
that Unrepresented Class Members must use to make a claim for payment from the 20
Post Administration Class Fund, as that term is defined in Paragraph 15, under this
21
Settlement Agreement. A copy of the proposed Proof of Claim Form is attached as 22
the last page of Exhibit B.
23
14. The "Class Fund" is the monetary fund set aside for Unrepresented
24
Class Members who file timely class claims. The Class Fund amounts to $250,000,
25
inclusive of all costs of class administration.

26

15. The "Post Administration Class Fund" is the Class Fund less costs of

27 cIass adm"InIstratI.On.

28

16. The "Represented Individuals' Fund" encompasses all funds owed to

8 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 25 of 98

1 Represented Individuals under this Settlement Agreement. The Represented

2 Individuals' Fund amounts to $12,600,000, inclusive of all attorney's fees, medical

3 liens and costs.

4

17. "Class Attorney's Fees" are the attorney's fees the MIWON Plaintiffs

5 intend to request that the Court award Class Counsel and the MIWON counsel team

6 collectively pursuant to this Settlement Agreement, which includes the sum of

7 $3,713,000 for the MIWON counsel, inclusive of all MIWON-related litigation

8 costs, medical liens and medical costs. In addition, Class Attorney's Fees

9 encompass some additional sums allocated to non-MIWON counsel, sums agreed

10 to between MIWON counsel and non-MIWON counsel and in tum individually 11 addressed between non-MIWON counsel and their clients.l These fees are all based 12 on both a statutory and class fund fee award available on both the federal and state

13 claims brought in this case. Nothing in this paragraph in any way either increases

14 the total settlement amount owed by the City or imposes any payment obligation on

15 any other Defendant or Released Person.

18. The "Claim Cut-off Date" of May 27,2009, is the date by which any
16
Unrepresented Class Member who wishes to receive payment from the Post
17
Administration Class Fund must file hislher Proof of Claim Form (attached as the
18
last page of Exhibit B).
19
19. The "Bar Date," which is April 27, 2009, is the date by which any
20
class member must file objections, if any, to this Settlement Agreement, or any
21
class member must request exclusion from the settlement. An Unrepresented Class 22
Member requests exclusion from the settlement by sending a request to the
23
Administrator consistent with the terms of Paragraph 59, infra. A Represented
24
Individual requests exclusion from the settlement either by failing to provide
25
hislher counsel with a signed authorization or by providing written notice to the
26 Court and parties of hislher intent to exclude him or herself, in either case no later
27
1 MIWON counsel intend to advise the Court of the amounts they calculated for the 28 non-MIWON counsel based on the information made available to MIWON

9 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 26 of 98

1 than the Bar Date.

2 III. DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY; NO ADMISSION OR WAIVER

3

20. This Settlement Agreement is for settlement purposes only. Nothing in

4 the Settlement Agreement, its exhibits or other documents incorporated herein shall

5 be construed as, or deemed to be evidence of, a waiver of any defense or legal

6 position otherwise available to any of the Defendants or any other persons. Neither

7 the fact of settlement nor any provision contained in this Settlement Agreement, its

8 exhibits or other documents incorporated herein, nor any party's or other person's

9 performance hereunder shall constitute or be admissible anywhere as (a) evidence

10 establishing or otherwise relating to any claim for relief or any fact alleged by any

11 Represented Individual, Unrepresented Class Member or other person, whether in 12 this action or in any other pending or future action or proceeding; or (b) evidence of

13 any wrongdoing, fault, violation oflaw, or liability of any kind on the part of any

14 Defendant or other Released Person. The Defendants make no admission of any

15 claim, allegation or fact in the MIWON case, the Related Cases or any other action

16 or proceeding whatsoever. Rather they deny all allegations of wrongdoing and

deny any liability whatever to the Represented Individuals, to any Unrepresented
17
Class Member or to any other person. This Settlement Agreement does not create,
18
and is not intended to create, any rights belonging to any non-parties, except as
19
otherwise expressly provided herein. 20
IV. TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR DAMAGES
21
21. The parties enter into this Settlement Agreement solely for the 22
purposes of this settlement and its implementation. If the Settlement Agreement
23
does not receive final court approval as provided herein, then this Settlement
24
Agreement shall have no effect whatever, and the parties shall in all respects return
25 to their positions ex ante; provided, however, that said return to the parties' 26 positions ex ante shall not entitle any party to reimbursement of costs already
27 incurred under this Settlement Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided
28
counsel..
10
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 27 of 98

1 herein.

2

22. The total monetary settlement in the MIWON and Related Cases

3 collectively, including all payments to Represented Individuals and Unrepresented

4 Class Members, and all payments for class administration (except for special

5 payments for activities requested by the City as provided in Paragraph 54), is

6 $12,850,000. Payment of said amount shall be the obligation of the City and no

7 other Defendant or person. The City intends to use the proceeds from one or more

8 Judgment Obligation Bonds (hereafter the "Judgment Bond") to fund the Consent

9 Judgment resulting from this settlement. The City will deposit the funds required

10 under this Settlement Agreement forthwith after it receives the proceeds of the sale

11 of the Judgment Bond, the purpose of such sale being to fund the instant settlement.

12 The parties will use their best efforts to facilitate receipt of such funds within 120

13 days of the Effective Date. If, after six months from the Effective Date, the 14 Judgment Bond has not been sold, the City will provide a report to the Court and

15 Class Counsel regarding how it plans to fund the settlement. The failure or inability

of the City to sell the Judgment Bond shall not be cause for the City to rescind the
16
Settlement Agreement. The Consent Judgment shall in any event be considered a
17
final non-appealable judgment, collectible under the same legal standard as any
18
final judgment in federal court that has not been appealed, except as otherwise
19
provided in this Settlement Agreement. Other provisions of this paragraph
20
notwithstanding, the City shall advance to the Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson
21
Client Trust Account" $50,000 of the $250,000 constituting the Class Fund (the 22
"Advance Payment") for: dissemination of Class Notices and publication of
23
summary Class Notices; processing of class claims; and other reasonably necessary 24
class-administration activities after the Court issues its preliminary approval,
25 including other class administration activities set forth in the Settlement
26
Agreement. In the event no Consent Judgment becomes final, or if the Settlement
27 Agreement is rescinded, any portion of the Advance Payment that the
28 Administrator has used, including sums paid to organizations pursuant to Paragraph

11 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 28 of 98

1 46, infra, shall not be refundable; portions of the Advance Payment that the

2 Administrator has not used shall be refundable. Should the total amount required

3 by the Administrator exceed $50,000, such additional funds shall be drawn from the

4 $200,000 otherwise designated for payment of claims to Unrepresented Class

5 Members.

6

23. The Represented Individuals' Fund amount of$12,600,000 shall be

7 applied to settle all the claims of all the Represented Individuals, including all

8 attorney's fees, all liens and costs. Counsel for the MIWON Represented

9 Individuals and counsel for the other Represented Individuals have agreed among

10 themselves on the amounts that each of the Represented Individuals will receive.

11 Each Represented Individual, except Missing Represented Individuals, who are 12 addressed elsewhere in this Settlement Agreement, either has agreed or is expected

13 to agree, to settle hereunder in exchange for the amount designated for him/her by

14 counsel. (See Paragraph 28 for the City's right to rescind this Settlement

15 Agreement should the City fail to receive a signed authorization evidencing such

16 agreement.) Counsel for the MIWON Represented Individuals and counsel for the

other Represented Individuals have also agreed among themselves on the amounts
17
and manner in which attorney's fees included within the Represented Individuals'
18
Fund will be distributed among counsel; provided, however, that non-MIWON
19
Represented Individuals might have agreements with their counsel regarding
20
percentage divisions of their settlements as a means of determining attorney's fees.
21
24. It is expressly understood that Plaintiffs' potential claim for statutory 22
attorney's fees was a substantial factor in arriving upon the final settlement amount
23
of$12,850,000. Although the parties did not set a specific figure for attorney's fees

24
in agreeing upon the final settlement amount, they understood that the statutory

25 attorney's-fee claim materially and substantially increased the final settlement

26 amount from what it otherwise would have been.

27

25. Except as provided under Paragraph 29, infra, and subject to the terms

28 of Paragraph 22, supra, the City shall transfer the total settlement amount of

12 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 29 of 98

1 $12,850,000 via wire transfer into the "Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson Client Trust

2 Account".

3

26. After the City advances the total settlement amount referenced in the

4 preceding paragraph into the Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson Client Trust Account,

5 a portion of that amount shall be distributed to the Trust Accounts of plaintiffs'

6 counsel in each of the Related Cases as agreed to among all Plaintiffs' counsel.

7 (The MIWON counsel will determine separately and among themselves how to

8 divide attorney's fees among themselves and how to distribute the funds to the

9 Represented Individuals they represent.) The amounts to go to each Trust Account,

10 which constitute the complete payments to each attorney and hislher clients,

11 inclusive of attorney's fees, client damages and all liens and costs, if any, are as

12 follows:

13

A. Gregory Yates: $525,000

14

B. Ellen Ellison: $40,000

C. Susan Pintar: $530,000
15

D. Luis Carrillo: $2,090,000
16

E. Louis Krass: $50,000
17

F. Carl Douglas: $352,000
18
G. Leo Hernandez: $38,000
19
H. Jaime Segall-Gutierrez: $241,000. At an earlier stage in this 20
litigation, Mr. Segall-Gutierrez represented the following individuals:
21
Summer Reese, for herself and as guardian for her minor child Patrick 22
Reese; Geneva Reese; Ed Cotton; Pedro Reyes; Tania Torres; Miguel

23
Guzman; and Nadia Khan. Those individuals are no longer represented by

24 Mr. Segall-Gutierrez, and they will be paid directly from the Litt, Estuar et

25

al. Client Trust Account.

26

1. Litt, Estuar et al. (for MIWON): $8,984,000 (which includes the

27

entire $250,000 Class Fund).

28

27. It is expressly understood and agreed upon that any and all disputes, or

13 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 30 of 98
1 resolution of such disputes, between or among any of the Plaintiffs, or between or 2 among counsel for any of the Plaintiffs, or between or among any Plaintiffs, on the 3 one hand, and their counsel, on the other, over any apportionment, division or 4 transfer of the total settlement amount under the terms of Paragraph 26, supra, shall 5 not entitle any such plaintiff or any such counsel to any relief whatever against the
6 City or other Released Person, or impose any duty of any kind upon the City or 7 other Released Person. Plaintiffs and their counsel shall hold the City and all other 8 Released Persons harmless in any dispute, or for any alleged wrong, in any way 9 arising out of any and all distributions referenced in Paragraph 26, supra. Plaintiffs 10 and their respective counsel, as reflected in Exhibit E, shall respectively hold the
11 City and all other Released Persons harmless with regard to any dispute, or alleged
12 wrong, in any way relating to any claim by any third-party lienholder to any
13 amount distributed to any Represented Individual herein; provided, however, that
14 the Plaintiffs and their counsel shall only hold the City harmless under the terms of this sentence to the extent that counsel for the debtor-plaintiff(s) in issue have
15
received notice of the subject lien(s) on or before the date that the City has
16
deposited the total settlement amount into the Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson Client
17
Trust Account. Plaintiffs hereby expressly acknowledge receipt of the Notice of
18
Lien issued upon the assets of Tomasa Alvarez by LACIUSC Medical Center and
19
issued by USCB, Inc. by way of letter dated December 29,2008; and Plaintiffs also 20
expressly acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Lien upon the assets of Antonio
21
Lopez by Presbyterian Community and issued by Health Advocates by way of letter 22
dated January 28,2008.
23
28. Class Counsel shall provide a signed authorization from each
24
Represented Individual agreeing to the terms of the settlement as it relates to that
25
Represented Individual, redacted to omit personal identifying information other 26 than the Represented Individual's name and attorney, to counsel for the City, either 27 by personal delivery or facsimile, no later than the Bar Date. The City shall be 28 entitled to treat Class Counsel's failure to provide such a signed authorization for
14 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 31 of 98
1 any Represented Individual as that Represented Individual's request for exclusion
2 from the settlement. If any Represented Individual requests exclusion from the 3 settlement or is otherwise excluded from the Settlement, the City shall be entitled to 4 rescind the Settlement Agreement within 20 days after the Bar Date or date of
5 exclusion, whichever is later. Rescission shall return the MIWON and Related 6 Cases to active litigation status; shall provide Plaintiffs the right to reinstate all 7 dismissed individual defendants; and shall revoke and withdraw any and all
8 releases from liability provided by such individual defendants. In addition, the 9 tolling of the statute of limitations shall terminate for the claims for relief against 10 the individual defendants previously dismissed (such statute(s) of limitations 11 having been tolled at the time of the dismissal) on the earlier of (a) 30 days after the 12 rescission or (b) the filing of a notice of reinstatement of claims filed with the
13 Court. In the event the City exercises a right of rescission in accordance with this
14 paragraph, any funds that it has paid or otherwise has transferred or deposited 15 pursuant to this Settlement Agreement shall be returned to it within 10 days of the
rescission, less any expenses, fees and costs incurred by the Administrator, such
16
costs to include all sums paid to organizations pursuant to Paragraph 46, infra;
17
provided, however, that the Administrator shall make a written accounting, to
18
counsel for the City and to Class Counsel, of all such fees and costs. The
19
Administrator shall forward its written accounting at the same time it returns any
20
funds to the City pursuant to this paragraph.
21
29. Despite the provisions of Paragraph 26, this Settlement Agreement
22
contemplates that there may be some structured settlements for individual plaintiffs.
23
To the extent there are such structured settlements, the City will enter into the
24
appropriate agreements not in conflict with this Settlement Agreement or terms of
25
the Consent Judgment, and will follow any payment instructions it receives 26 pursuant to such structured settlements prior to directing payment of settlement 27 funds into the Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson Client Trust Account. To the extent
28 there are such structured settlements, the City will deduct payments made pursuant
15 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 32 of 98
1 to such instructions from the amount subsequently transferred into the Litt, Estuar,
2 Harrison & Kitson Client Trust Account. The City shall not enter into any
3 structured-settlement agreements or follow any payment instructions thereunder
4 after it directs payment to be made into the Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson Client
5 Trust Account. This Settlement Agreement fixes the total amount that the City will
6 be responsible to pay Plaintiffs collectively, either directly or in the form of a
7 structured settlement. To the extent there are structured settlements, they will be
8 negotiated by counsel for individual Represented Individuals, memorialized in
9 individual settlement agreements, and provided to the Court prior to entry of the
10 Consent Judgment. No structured settlement shall increase the total cost of this
11 settlement to the City or impose any obligations or duties of any kind upon any 12 defendant or Released Person other than the City whatever. Once the Consent 13 Judgment becomes final, it is the Consent Judgment that constitutes the binding
settlement terms among the parties. Plaintiffs and their counsel shall hold harmless
14
all Defendants or other Released Persons with regard to any dispute between or
15
among any Plaintiffs, between or among any Plaintiffs' counsel, or between or
16
among any Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Plaintiffs' counsel, on the other, in any
17
way related to any structured settlement.
18
30. Upon deposit of the total settlement amount into the Litt, Estuar,
19
Harrison & Kitson Client Trust Account, payment of the Post Administration Class
20
Fund shall issue therefrom to the Administrator to permit payment of claims to
21
Unrepresented Class Members who file timely Proof of Claim Forms that the
22
Administrator does not reject. Each such payment shall be issued in an amount not
23
to exceed $1000. In the event that there are more such claims than can be paid in
24
the amount of $1000 from the Post Administration Class Fund without depleting it, 25 then the Post Administration Class Fund will be distributed proportionally to each 26 Unrepresented Class Member who files a timely Proof of Claim Form that the 27 Administrator does not reject. If, after payment to each Unrepresented Class 28 Member the amount owed under the terms of this paragraph, there are funds
16 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 33 of 98
1 remaining in the Post Administration Class Fund, then that remaining amount shall
2 revert to the City. Whether or not a portion of the Post Administration Class Fund
3 remains for reversion to the City, the Administrator shall make a written
4 accounting, to counsel for the City and to Class Counsel, of all sums, fees, costs
5 and expenses paid from the Class Fund, including from the Advance Payment. The
6 Administrator shall make the accounting within 60 days from the date the
7 Administrator receives the Post Administration Class Fund for disbursement. Along
8 with the accounting, the Administrator shall provide Class Counsel and counsel for 9 the City with a written report listing the total number of Proof of Claims Forms it
10 received, the total number of claims it paid, and the total number of claims it
11 rejected broken down by the reasons for rejection. The City makes no
12 representations about, and makes no guarantee to any person with regard to, the
13 amount that will ultimately constitute the Post Administration Class Fund. All
14 Plaintiffs and their counsel shall hold the City and all other Released Persons
15 harmless in any dispute in any way arising from the determination of the amount
constituting the Post Administration Class Fund or any transfer or distribution of
16
any portion of the Post Administration Class Fund.
17
31. If the City fails to exercise any right of rescission pursuant to this
18
Settlement Agreement, then after all such rights to rescind have expired, but before
19
entry of the Consent Judgment, Plaintiffs shall dismiss from the above-captioned
20
MIWON case and from all the Related Cases, all defendants other than the City,
21
including each and every defendant other than the City named in the Related Cases 22
listed in Paragraph 4, supra; provided, however, that in the event the Matters
23
Alleged in the Lawsuit are not resolved with a Consent Judgment that becomes
24
final, such dismissed defendants shall be reinstated to permit the parties to proceed
25
upon the Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit as the parties deem appropriate. In the 26 event of reinstatement, the applicable statute(s) of limitations governing claims for 27 relief related to Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit for each such reinstated defendant
28 shall be tolled from the date of dismissal to the earlier of (a) 30 days after the
17 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 34 of 98
1 rescission or (b) the filing of a notice of reinstatement of claims filed with the
2 Court.. Plaintiffs shall lose any right of reinstatement once the total settlement
3 amount is deposited into the Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson Client Trust Account.
4 Notwithstanding this paragraph or any other paragraph in this Settlement
5 Agreement, Plaintiffs shall promptly dismiss from the MIWON case and all Related
6 Cases any defendant other than the City once Class Counsel receives a document,
7 signed by that defendant, containing the defendant's (a) release of all Plaintiffs
8 from any and all liability, claims for relief or actions in any way arising from the
9 Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit, (b) acknowledgement that the defendant's
10 dismissal under the terms of this sentence shall be withdrawn, and the defendant
11 reinstated into all cases from which the defendant had been dismissed under the 12 terms of this paragraph, should the instant settlement fail to produce a Consent
13 Judgment that becomes final, and (c) acknowledgement that any statute(s) of
14 limitations governing any of the Plaintiffs' claims against the defendant in any way
15 arising from the Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit shall be tolled from the date of
dismissal to the earlier of (a) 30 days after the rescission or (b) the filing of a notice
16
of reinstatement of claims filed with the Court. No defendant shall be dismissed
17
under the terms of the preceding sentence until and unless the Court enters a
18
preliminary approval order. Upon reinstatement of any defendant pursuant the
19
terms of this paragraph, such reinstatement automatically triggers revocation and 20
withdrawal of all releases and acknowledgements on the part of that defendant
21
made under the terms of this paragraph.
22 v. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR DAMAGES
23
32. This Settlement Agreement is subject to and conditioned on a Fairness
24
Hearing conducted by the Court, the Court's final approval of this Settlement
25
Agreement, and entry of the Consent Judgment. The Consent Judgment shall be 26
deemed final only on expiration of the time to appeal by a class member who has 27 filed a timely objection to the settlement, or if a Notice of Appeal by any such
28 person is filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, upon exhaustion of all appeals
18 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 35 of 98

1 and petitions for writs of certiorari or the expiration of the time to file such writ

2 petitions. Once final, the Consent Judgment shall be a judgment of this Court,

3 binding and enforceable in accordance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement

4 and applicable law. Subject to any continuing rights of Opt-Outs, the Consent

5 Judgment shall:

6

A. Dismiss with prejudice, in the above-captioned MIWON

7

case and all Related Cases, all claims for damages or other relief against any

8

and all Defendants or other Released Persons, each party therein to bear all

9

its own costs and attorney's fees except as otherwise expressly provided for

10

in this Settlement Agreement;

11

B. Enjoin all Damages Class Members, Structural Relief

12

Class Members and Unrepresented Class Members from asserting against

13

any Defendant or other Released Person any and all claims for damages or

other relief which any such class member had, has, or may have in the future
14

in any way arising out of the facts alleged, or in any way related to the claims
15

for relief pleaded, in the MIWON Complaint or Related Case Complaints,
16

which are fully incorporated herein by reference;
17

C. Release each Defendant and other Released Person from
18
all claims for damages or other relief which any Damages Class Member,
19
Structural Relief Class Member or Unrepresented Class Member had, has, or
20
may have in the future, against such Defendant or other Released Person in
21
any way arising out of the facts alleged, or in any way related to the claims 22
for relief pleaded, in the MIWON Complaint or Related Case Complaints;

23
D. Determine that this Settlement Agreement is entered into

24
in good faith, is reasonable, fair and adequate, and in the best interest of all

25

the class members; and

26 E. Reserve the Court's continuing jurisdiction over the

27

parties to this Settlement Agreement, including Defendants, Represented

28

Individuals and Unrepresented Class Members, to administer, supervise,

19 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 36 of 98

1

construe and enforce the Settlement Agreement and/or Consent Judgment in

2

accordance with their terms for the benefit of all parties.

3

F. Reserve the Court's continuing jurisdiction over the

4

parties to this Settlement Agreement to enforce the terms of the separate

5

Structural Relief Agreement and Order thereon ("Structural Relief Order")

6

entered by the Court, and fully incorporated herein, regarding resolution of

7

the injunctive relief class certified by the Court on January 8,2008.

8

33. The parties will take all necessary and appropriate steps to obtain

9 preliminary and final approvals of the Settlement Agreement, dismissal of the

10 defendants other than the City as provided in Paragraph 31, and dismissal of the

11 MIWON and Related Cases with prejudice at the time the Court enters its Consent 12 Judgment, all parties bearing all their own attorney's fees and costs unless

13 otherwise expressly provided in this Settlement Agreement. If the Consent

14 Judgment is entered and there is an appeal therefrom by an objector, the City will

15 not oppose Plaintiffs' efforts to defend the Settlement Agreement and/or Consent

16 Judgment, which shall be at Plaintiffs' sole expense.

34. The Consent Judgment that this Settlement Agreement contemplates
17
resolves in full as of the Effective Date all claims for relief, actions, causes of
18
action, or allegations of any kind that in any way arise from or relate to the Matters
19
Alleged in the Lawsuit, against any or all of the Defendants and other Released
20
Persons by any and all of the Represented Individuals and Unrepresented Class
21
Members, whether based upon any federal, state or local law, law of any foreign 22
nation, regulation, duty, obligation, promise, ordinance or any other legal rule. As
23
of the Effective Date, all the Represented Individuals and Unrepresented Class
24
Members, except Opt-Outs, waive all rights to any and all claims for relief, actions
25
or causes of action in any way arising from or related to the Matters Alleged in the
26 Lawsuit against any and all of the Defendants and other Released Parties, whether
27 based upon any federal, state or local law, law of any foreign nation, regulation,
28 duty, or obligation, promise, ordinance or any other legal rule.

20 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 37 of 98

1

35. As of the Effective Date, the Represented Individuals and the

2 Unrepresented Class Members, except Opt-outs, and all their agents, attorneys and

3 assigns, on the one hand, and the Defendants and all of their agents, attorneys and

4 assigns, on the other, hereby waive and release one another from any and all claims

5 or rights to pursue, initiate, prosecute, or commence any action or proceeding

6 against one another before any court, administrative agency or other tribunal, or to

7 file against one another any complaint regarding acts or omissions with respect to

8 any Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit, including but not limited to any claims of

9 malicious prosecution or abuse of process; and further, as it relates to this mutual

10 waiver and release, expressly waive the provisions of California Civil Code Section

11 1542, which provides that

12

"a general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not

13

know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the

14

release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or

her settlement with the debtor."
15

36. Upon Entry of the Consent Judgment, each Represented Individual and
16

Unrepresented Class Member shall be deemed to have consented to the jurisdiction
17
of the Court. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to negate any prior or other
18
consent to this Court's jurisdiction by any Represented Individual, Unrepresented
19
Class Member or other person. 20
VI. HANDLING OF MINORS' CLAIMS
21
37. Included among the Represented Individuals are minors, some of 22
whose settlements hereunder are $6000 or less, and some of whose settlements
23 exceed $6000. For those minors who receive, exclusive of attorney's fees and costs,

24
settlements of $6000 or less, blocked accounts are not to be opened, and the money

25 shall be paid to the parent or other guardian ad litem of the minor for general use

26 for the minor's health and well-being in whatever manner the parent or guardian

27 sees fit; MIWON plaintiffs within this category, along with their counsel, are listed

28 in Exhibit F. Non-MIWON counsel shall provide their own lists, in a form

21 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 38 of 98

1 substantially similar to Exhibit F, to Class Counsel by March 13,2009. This

2 paragraph does not impose any duties upon any of the Defendants or other Released

3 Persons.

4

38. For those minors who receive, exclusive of attorney's fees and costs,

5 settlements over $6000, and who are under the age of 16 as of December 31, 2009,

6 their counsel shall cause to be opened for them blocked interest bearing bank

7 accounts on terms further elaborated in the proposed Consent Judgment (attached

8 as Exhibit C). MIWON plaintiffs within this category, along with their counsel, are

9 listed in Exhibit G. Non-MIWON counsel shall provide their own lists, in a form

10 substantially similar to Exhibit G, to Class Counsel by March 13, 2009. Counsel for

11 any minor encompassed within the first sentence of this paragraph shall file with

12 the Court a record of each such blocked interest bearing account within 90 days

13 from the date the City deposits the total settlement amount into the Litt, Estuar, 14 Harrison & Kitson Client Trust Account pursuant to Paragraph 25, supra. It shall be

15 the duty of plaintiffs' counsel to coordinate with Class Counsel to learn the date

that such amount is deposited into the Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson Client Trust
16
Account. This paragraph does not impose any duties upon any of the Defendants or
17
other Released Persons.
18
39. Settlement funds for those minors who will be 16 years of age or older
19
as of December 31, 2009, and whose individual settlements exceed $6000 exclusive
20
of attorney's fees and costs, shall be maintained in their counsel's Client Trust
21
Account so that each such settlement can be expeditiously paid to each such minor 22 at the time ofhis/her 18th birthday. MIWON plaintiffs within this category, along
23
with their counsel, are listed in Exhibit H. Non-MIWON counsel shall provide their
24
own lists, in a form substantially similar to Exhibit H, to Class Counsel by March
25
13,2009. This paragraph does not impose any duties upon any of the Defendants or

26 other Released Persons.

27

40. The parties recognize that there may be circumstances in which a

28 parent or other guardian has a need for the funds in a blocked account for the direct

22 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 39 of 98

1 and immediate benefit of a minor plaintiff with an interest in funds in a blocked

2 account, such as for a medical emergency or braces. The Consent Judgment

3 contains procedures under which such parents and guardians may withdraw funds

4 in such cases without the need for court approval.

5 VII. HANDLING OF MISSING REPRESENTED INDIVIDUALS' CLAIMS

6

41. There are Represented Individuals whose whereabouts are currently

7 unknown ("Missing Represented Individuals"). Plaintiffs' counsel are currently

8 unable to secure the consent of the Missing Represented Individuals to the

9 settlement.

10

42. The Court has the authority to approve the amount of settlement for

11 the Missing Represented Individuals and to bind them under this Settlement

12 Agreement and the Consent Judgment. Counsel for the Missing Represented

13 Individuals will send written notice to the last known address of each Missing 14 Represented Individual, such notice to set forth the material terms of the settlement,

15 including all waivers and releases and any sum hereunder payable to such Missing

Represented Individual, as those terms relate specifically to him/her. The parties
16
shall request, and hereby do so request, that the Court approve settlements as shall
17
be designated for the Missing Represented Individuals. Should the Court fail to
18
approve settlement for all the Missing Represented Individuals in the Consent
19
Judgment, the City and other Defendants reserve the right to rescind this Settlement 20
Agreement. In the event a defendant exercises a right of rescission in accordance
21
with this paragraph, any funds that the City has paid or otherwise has transferred or 22
deposited pursuant to this Settlement Agreement shall be returned to it within 10
23
days of the rescission, less any expenses, fees and costs incurred by the 24
Administrator, such costs to include all sums paid to organizations pursuant to
25
Paragraph 46, infra; provided, however, that the Administrator shall make a written
26 accounting, to counsel for the City and to Class Counsel, of all such fees and costs.
27 The Administrator shall forward its written accounting at the same time it returns
28 any funds to the City pursuant to this paragraph.

23 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 40 of 98

1

43. Assuming the Court approval referenced in the preceding paragraph,

2 each Missing Represented Individual's settlement funds will be placed in a

3 separate, special interest bearing trust account, where, absent the Missing

4 Represented Individual's appearance and claim of such funds via such Missing

5 Represented Individual's counsel in the MIWON or Related Cases, the funds will

6 remain until December 31, 2012. If any Missing Represented Individual has not

7 claimed hislher funds by December 31, 2012, then the funds in the account for such

8 individual shall revert to the City. Counsel for any Missing Represented Individual

9 who opens a trust account pursuant to this paragraph shall, at the time the trust

10 account is opened, provide the financial institution holding the funds written notice

11 of the City's reversionary right and all instructions necessary to facilitate such

12 reversion on January 1,2013. It shall then be the responsibility of the City to

13 initiate the reversionary process and contact any holders of the trust accounts

14 necessary to accomplish it, with which process all Plaintiffs' counsel shall

15 cooperate. Despite the provisions ofthis paragraph, between January 1,2013, and

16 December 31,2018, each Missing Represented Individual shall retain the right to

receive from the City (and no other person) the amount of net principal and accrued
17
interest, if any, that was in the trust account at the time the City received funds from
18
it; provided, however, that said Missing Individual shall not be entitled to receive
19
interest accrued after December 31,2012, if any. The names of, and counsel for, the 20
Missing Represented Individuals will be provided as an exhibit to the proposed
21
Consent Judgment submitted to the Court before the Fairness Hearing. 22
VIII. TERMS AND EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR
23
STRUCTURAL RELIEF
24
44. This Settlement Agreement contemplates the Court's separate entry of
25 the Structural Relief Order. A copy of that Order is attached to this Settlement
26 Agreement at Exhibit D and incorporated as though fully set forth herein. The
27 Structural Relief Order provides support for the First Amendment right to assemble
28 in public places to engage in expressive activity and, thereby, provides a substantial

24 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 41 of 98

1 benefit to all the Rule 23(b)(2) class members. In addition, the Court has retained

2 jurisdiction for a period of not less than four (4) years to enter any orders necessary

3 to enforce the terms of the Structural Relief Order.

4 IX. CLASS COUNSEL FEES

5

45. The parties agree that the total settlement amount of$12,850,000

6 includes all attorney's fees and costs and is the total amount that the City owes

7 hereunder. Of the $12,600,000 from the total settlement amount, Class Counsel

8 shall seek an attorney's fee award of no more than $3,713,000, inclusive of all

9 litigation costs, medical liens and medical costs, for the MIWON-plaintiffs'

10 counsel. This award encompasses all the attorney's fees and costs for all the

11 MIWON-plaintiffs' counsel, who carried the great burden of the work on behalf of

12 all Plaintiffs' counsel in this case. To the limited extent non-MIWON plaintiffs'

13 counsel are entitled to any statutory or other attorney's fees in the Related Cases, 14 such fees are encompassed in the amounts designated for them and their clients in

15 Paragraph 26 (A)-(I), supra. Class Counsel shall provide the Court the amounts

they considered in the total amounts paid to non-MIWON plaintiffs' counsel as part
16
of the fee motion. Defendants take no position on the amount of the fees and costs
17
herein sought by Class Counsel.
18
X. CLASS NOTIFICATION AND CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION
19
46. In this case, there are not any known mailing lists that contain 20
information allowing identification of Unrepresented Class Members. The most
21
practical way to locate Unrepresented Class Members is through dissemination of 22
Class Notices to those in contact with the organizations that organized the May 1
23
events in and around MacArthur Park, i.e., MIWON, CHIRLA, IDEPSCA, KlWA,
24
Filipino Workers Center, and Garment Workers Center. Such dissemination may be
25
accomplished by distributing Class Notices and Proof of Claim Forms to members
26 of the organizations and to the general population living in, and using the facilities
27 of, MacArthur Park; by distributing Class Notices at various immigrant-rights
28 rallies, events and meetings, if any, between the Court's preliminary approval and

25 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 42 of 98

1 the Claim Cut-Off Date; and by other means of outreach as the Court may order. 2 Accordingly, the Court authorizes each such organization to be paid up to $4000 3 (with the actual amount to be determined by Class Counsel in consultation with the 4 Administrator) from the Class Fund as a cost of class administration. These 5 expenditures shall be funded from the Advance Payment or, if necessary, from the 6 Class Fund. In exchange, each such organization must devote 100 hours to 7 distribution of Class Notices in areas in which the organization believes it most 8 likely that Unrepresented Class Members may be present. Each such organization 9 shall complete its dissemination of Class Notices and Proof of Claim Forms no later 10 than May 6,2009, and shall further provide the Administrator written attestation of 11 compliance with the provisions of this paragraph, including compliance with the 12 100-hour distribution requirement herein, no later than the Claim Cut-Off Date. The 13 Administrator shall file all such attestations with the Court no later than June 3,

14 2009.

47. All Class Notices shall include a Proof of Claim Form to be used in
15

connection with any claims made against the Class Fund. (See Exhibit B.) The
16

Proof of Claim Form shall require a statement, made under penalty of perjury, that
17

the individual (1) was present on May 1, 2007, in the geographic area bounded by
18
6th Street (on the north), Alvarado Street (on the east), 7th Street (on the south),
19
and Park View Street (on the west), or the immediately adjacent areas, including 20
from 6th Street west to Lafayette Park, at some point between the hours of 5:00
21
p.m. and 7:00 p.m., (2) did not engage in any conduct justifying Defendants' 22
dispersal order or the use of force, and (3) was subjected to the LAPD's use of
23
force, dispersal order or other unlawful police activity arising from the police

24
response to the immigration march and rally. The Proof of Claim Form shall require

25
an additional statement in the claimant's own words setting forth specific facts

26 supporting his/her claim against the Class Fund.

27

48. The Administrator shall be responsible for publishing a summary Class

28 Notice in La Opinion, once a week for at least three consecutive weeks beginning

26
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 43 of 98

1 no later than the week of March 30, 2009. The parties agree that La Opinion is the

2 publication most likely to reach Unrepresented Class Members.

3

49. Except for publication of summary Class Notice in La Opinion,

4 preparation of approximately 10,000 Class Notices for distribution, and provision

5 of Class Notices to those who request them from the Administrator, the

6 Administrator's only responsibilities shall be (a) to process and pay class claims,

7 (b) to process Unrepresented Class Members' objections and requests for exclusion,

8 (c) to file attestations as provided in paragraph 46, supra, (d) to use the database(s)

9 normally used by the Administrator to verify the social security number or TIN a

10 claimant has provided on the Proof of Claim Form ("SS Database") (see Paragraph

11 52, infra); (e) to select the Investigator referenced in Paragraph 54, infra, and cause 12 investigations to be undertaken upon request from the City; (f) to provide

13 documents required by court orders to finalize the class settlement, (g) to provide 14 the accountings, reports and notices to parties and/or counsel, including the total

15 number of Opt-Outs under Paragraph 63, infra, pursuant to the terms of this

Settlement Agreement, (h) to provide and maintain the lists of rejected claims
16
pursuant to Paragraph 57, infra, (i) to return to the City any unused portion of the
17
Post Administration Class Fund or Advance Payment, (j) to return to the City any
18
funds due the City upon rescission of the Settlement Agreement, and (k) to perform
19
any other tasks specified for it in this Settlement Agreement.
20
50. A Proof of Claim Form shall be deemed timely submitted when
21
received by the Administrator, or postmarked for delivery to the Administrator, on 22
or before the Claim Cut-Off Date.
23
51. An Unrepresented Class Member's objection to or request for
24
exclusion from the settlement shall be deemed timely submitted if received by the
25
Administrator, or postmarked for delivery to the Administrator, on or before the

26 Bar Date.

27

52. Prior to payment of any Unrepresented Class Member's claim against

28 the Class Fund, the Administrator shall ensure that every claimant has provided all

27 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 44 of 98

1 the information required by the terms of the Proof of Claim Form. The

2 Administrator shall also take such other steps as it deems reasonably necessary to

3 satisfy itself that claimants were present at MacArthur Park between the hours of

4 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on May 1, and that there is a factual basis for the claims.

5 These steps may include (a) checking a social security number or TIN appearing on

6 a Proof of Claim Form, (b) comparing the name of any claimant to the name listed

7 in the SS Database, (c) checking with witnesses listed in the Proof of Claim Form,

8 (d) communicating with the claimant, and (e) otherwise following up on claims.

9 The Administrator shall preliminarily reject any claim upon discovery of any claim

10 in which a social security number or TIN has been used on more than one Proof of

11 Claim Form. The Administrator shall similarly preliminarily reject any claim in 12 which the claimant has not provided all the information required by the terms of the

13 Proof of Claim Form. If the Administrator rejects a claim under the terms of the

14 preceding sentences in this paragraph, such rejection shall not be final. Instead, the

15 Administrator shall provide the claimant a deficiency notice by First Class Mail,

and such written notice shall (1) identify the deficiency or deficiencies in the claim
16
and (2) designate a 30-day time limit to provide an opportunity for the claimant to
17
cure all deficiencies. The Administrator shall prepare form deficiency notices and
18
provide them to the parties, who shall have the opportunity to make suggestions
19
regarding the final forms. In determining whether to finally accept or reject a claim,
20
it shall be the responsibility of the Administrator to assess the accuracy and
21
reliability of the claim, including the claimant's response to any deficiency notice.
22
If, upon the expiration of the 30-day period after mailing a deficiency notice, no
23
written explanation is received by, or postmarked for delivery to, the Administrator,
24
the Administrator shall finally reject that claim. The Administrator may finally

25
reject a claim that remains deficient notwithstanding the claimant's response to a

26 deficiency notice.

27

53. Immediately upon entry of the Consent Judgment, the Administrator

28 shall provide to Class Counsel and counsel for the City, via U.S. Mail, redacted

28
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 45 of 98

1 copies of all Proof of Claim Forms that the Administrator determines warrant

2 payment from the Class Fund. The Administrator shall redact such copies to omit

3 all information on each Proof of Claim Form except the specific facts set forth by

4 the claimant to support the claim and the unique Proof of Claim Form number,

5 which the Administrator shall assign to each Proof of Claim Form. Only the

6 Administrator and any Investigator it selects pursuant to Paragraph 54 shall be

7 privy to the other information contained in the Proof of Claim Forms, subject to the

8 terms of Paragraph 64, infra. In providing counsel with the redacted copies herein,

9 the Administrator shall identify, by cover letter or other means, all Proof of Claim

10 Forms that the Administrator does not intend to pay, or intends to send deficiency

11 notices on, for whatever reason. If a Proof of Claim Form has not been so 12 designated, that means the Administrator intends to pay the claim without further 13 mqUIry.

14

54. Upon receipt of the redacted copies of Proof of Claim Forms

15 referenced in the preceding paragraph, the City shall be entitled to designate Proof

of Claim Forms on which it wishes to cause an investigation to be conducted by a
16
private, neutral investigator ("Investigator") of the Administrator's choosing, into
17
truthfulness and merits of any claim raised. In addition, the City may designate
18
categories of claims to be investigated, e.g., claims where more than a certain
19
number of individuals use the same address or claims where the same witness is
20
listed for unrelated claimants. The Administrator shall cause investigations in such
21
cases to be undertaken by the Investigator. The Investigator shall conduct 22
investigations with all due speed. The Investigator shall provide the written results
23
of his/her investigation, including a written conclusion whether the Investigator is 24
reasonably satisfied that the claim is meritorious, to the Administrator. If the
25 Administrator concludes that the claim lacks merit, then the Administrator shall
26 send the claimant a deficiency notice and afford the claimant 30 days from the date
27 the deficiency notice is mailed to provide a written explanation, under penalty of
28 perjury, for the deficiency. If, upon the expiration of the 30-day period, no written

29 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 46 of 98

1 explanation is received by, or postmarked for delivery to, the Administrator, the

2 Administrator shall reject the claim. If the Claimant timely responds to the

3 deficiency notice, the Administrator and the Investigator shall confer. If the

4 Administrator determines that the weight of the evidence in the Proof of Claim

5 Form and response to the deficiency notice indicates that the claim lacks merit, the

6 claim will be rejected. If the Administrator concludes that the weight of the

7 evidence indicates that the claim is meritorious, the claim will be honored and paid.

8 Nothing in this paragraph or any other paragraph in this Settlement Agreement shall

9 require the Administrator or Investigator to inquire into any claimant's citizenship

10 or immigration status.

11

55. Class Counsel shall receive copies of all requests regarding possible

12 investigations of claims and may submit their views regarding the propriety of any

13 investigation sought, and their reasons therefore. Such views expressed by Class 14 Counsel shall not affect the Administrator's duty to cause an investigation to be

15 undertaken upon request by the City.

56. The costs of all investigations under Paragraph 54, but not activities
16

listed in Paragraph 52, shall be at the City'S sole expense, to be paid by the City
17
based upon bills sent by the Administrator. Accordingly, no portion of the Class
18
Fund, as defined herein, shall be used to pay for any investigation or verification of
19
class claims under Paragraph 54.
20
57. The Administrator will prepare a list of all rejected claims, with the
21
reasons for rejection, and maintain the list until at least December 31, 2014. 22
58. The Parties agree that untimely filed Proof of Claim Forms shall be

23
finally rejected by the Administrator and no payments thereon shall be made.

24
XI.

EXCLUSION FROM SETTLEMENT CLASS: OPT-OUTS

25
59. Any Unrepresented Class Member who wishes to be excluded from

26 the terms of this Settlement Agreement must submit a request for exclusion by the

27 Bar Date. The request for exclusion must be delivered to the Administrator, or

28 postmarked for delivery to the Administrator, on or before the Bar Date.

30 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 47 of 98

1

60. Each Unrepresented Class Member who requests exclusion from, or

2 objects to, this settlement shall be deemed to have consented to the jurisdiction of

3 the Court with respect to hislher claim, if any.

4

61. Any Unrepresented Class Member who does not request exclusion

5 from the settlement as set forth in this Settlement Agreement shall conclusively be

6 deemed to be bound by the Settlement Agreement and Consent Judgment, including

7 all release provisions, as well as by all subsequent proceedings, orders and

8 judgments herein.

9

62. Any Unrepresented Class Member who becomes an Opt-Out shall not

10 share in any monetary benefits provided by this Settlement Agreement.

11

63. The Administrator will report in writing, via facsimile and electronic

12 mail, to counsel for the City and Class Counsel the names of, and total number of,

13 all Opt-Outs no later than 10 days after the Bar Date. If the total number of Opt-

14 Outs exceeds 25, the City, in its sole discretion, may rescind this Settlement

15 Agreement. In exercising this right of rescission, the City shall provide the

Administrator and Class Counsel with written notice of rescission within 20 days
16
after receipt of the Administrator's report providing the total number of Opt-Outs.
17
In the event the City exercises the right of rescission in accordance with this
18
paragraph, any funds paid or deposited pursuant to this Settlement Agreement shall
19
be returned to the City within 10 days of the rescission, less any expenses, fees and
20
costs incurred by the Administrator, such costs to include all sums paid to
21
organizations pursuant to Paragraph 46, supra. Rescission shall return the MIWON
22 and Related Cases to active litigation status and result in other actions as set forth in
23
Paragraph 28, supra.
24
64. The Administrator shall maintain copies of all Opt-Out forms and data.
25 If the City does not rescind pursuant to the preceding paragraph, and one or more
26 Opt-Outs sue upon Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit, any of the Defendants may
27 inquire of the Administrator for identifying information, not previously provided,

28 reasonably necessary to determine whether the individual suing opted out of the

31 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 48 of 98

1 settlement.

2 XII. INTEGRATION

3

65. This Settlement Agreement, together with all exhibits and other

4 documents expressly incorporated herein by reference, supersedes all prior and

5 contemporaneous written or oral agreements and understandings between or among

6 the signatories hereto or their representatives, agents or principals regarding the

7 matters contained herein. As such, this Settlement Agreement is an integrated

8 agreement and contains the entire agreement regarding the matters herein, and no

9 representations, warranties or promises have been made or relied on by any of the

10 signatories hereto, or by their representatives, agents or principals, other than as set

11 forth herein. This Settlement Agreement was drafted by counsel for the parties

12 hereto, and there shall be no presumption or construction against any party.

66. Should the Court change any material terms of this Settlement
13
14 Agreement (which shall expressly include the total settlement amount and other

15 payment terms, conditions and amounts; dismissals and releases; and rescissionary

16 rights specified in different parts of this Settlement Agreement) or the proposed

Consent Judgment attached as Exhibit C, the City and the Plaintiffs shall each have
17
the right of rescission, the case will return to active litigation status, the plaintiffs
18
will have the right to reinstate dismissed individual defendants, and all releases
19
shall be withdrawn.
20
XIII. FAIRNESS HEARING AND FINAL ORDER OF APPROVAL
21
67. Before this Settlement Agreement becomes final and binding on the 22
parties, the Court shall hold a Fairness Hearing to determine whether to enter the
23
Consent Judgment.
24
XIV. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS; FACSIMILE SIGNATURES
25
68. This Settlement Agreement may be signed in counterparts which,
26 when taken together, shall constitute a single, executed agreement. Facsimile
27 signatures shall have the same force and effect as originals.
28

32 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 49 of 98
By: ____________________ Barrett S. Litt Class Counsel and Attorney for MIWON Plaintiffs (See Exhibit E)
By: ____________________ Carol S. Sobel Class Counsel and Attorney for MIWON Plaintiffs (See Exhibit E)
By: ____________________ Paul L. Hoffman Class Counsel and Attorney for MIWON Plaintiffs (See Exhibit E)
By: _____________________ Gregory Yates Attorney for Santiago Plaintiffs (See
Exhibit E)
By: ____________________ Luis Carrillo Attorney for Brandon Aguilar Plaintiffs
(See Exhibit E)
By: ____________________ Luis Carrillo Attorney for Ajuria Plaintiffs (See Exhibit
E)
By: -------------------Carl Douglas Attorney for Reyes Plaintiffs (See Exhibit
E)
33
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 50 of 98

1 DATED: 2 3 4 5 DATED: 6 7 8 9 DATED: 10
11
12 13 DATED: 14 15 16 17 DATED: 18 19 20 21 DATED: 22 23 24 25 DATED: 26 27 28

By: ______________________ Ellen Ellison Attorney for Newton Plaintiffs (See
Exhibit E)
By: _____________________ Susan Pintar Attorney for Lopez Plaintiffs (See Exhibit
E)
By: ____________________ Louis Krass Attorney for Gudiel Plaintiffs (See
Exhibit E)
By: ______________________ Jaime Segall-Gutierrez Attorney for Sal Aguilar Plaintiffs (See
Exhibit E)
By: _____________________ Leo Hernandez Attorney for Ponce Plaintiff (See Exhibit
E)
By: _____________________ Cory Brente Attorney for Defendants City of Los
Angeles and William Bratton
By: ______________________
Attorney for Defendant Cayler Carter
34
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 51 of 98

1 DATED: 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

By: ______________________ Attorney for Defendant Louis Gray
35
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 52 of 98

1 LIST OF EXHIBITS TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

2

3 Exhibit B Class Notice and Proof of Claim & Release Form (Draft)

4 Exhibit C Final Order of Approval and Settlement (Draft)

5 Exhibit D Structural Relief Order (Draft)

6 Exhibit E List of Represented Individuals and their Counsel (Draft)

7 Exhibit F
8 9 Exhibit G
10 Exhibit H
11
12

MIWON Minor Represented Individuals With Post-Fee Recoveries of $6000 or Less
MIWON Minor Represented Individuals With Post-Fee Recoveries Over $6000 And Under Age 16
MIWON Minor Represented Individuals With Post-Fee Recoveries Over $6000 And Age 16 or Older

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

36
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 53 of 98
EXHIBIT B

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 54 of 98

Class and Settlement Notice

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT AND HEARING

RE: MIWON v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 07-3072 AHM (FMOx).

This Class Notice is available on line at www.maydaylitigation.comorby calling toll-free: 1 - - - - -
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, alleging that the Los Angeles Police Department violated civil rights by declaring an unlawful assembly and forcing people out of MacArthur Park and surrounding areas. The Court has certified the case as a class action. The parties have reached a proposed settlement. If the proposed settlement receives final court approval, class members are eligible to receive money.

If you 1) were present on May 1, 2007, in or around the MacArthur Park area at any point between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., 2) did not engage in any conduct justifying Defendants' dispersal order or the use of force, and 3) were subjected to the Los Angeles Police Department's use of force, dispersal order or other unlawful police activity arising from the police response to the immigration march and rally, you may be entitled to MONEY as a CLASS MEMBER.

This case was filed as a class action because it affected a large number of people who were at or near MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007. Many individuals with serious physical or psychological injuries went to lawyers and are included individually in the settlement. The settlement for these 297 people constitutes the great majority of the settlement of $12,850,000.

However, the parties agreed that, in addition to the 297 represented individuals, there were others who qualified as class members, many of whom experienced minor injuries. Thus, a CLASS FUND of $250,000 (including costs of administration) was established for such individuals. This $250,000 fund approximately $200,000 after class administration costs) will be divided equally among those who file claims, up to a maximum of$1000 per person. If money is left after such a distribution, it will be returned to the City of Los Angeles.

ATTORNEY'S FEES: There will be a claim for attorney's fees based on the recovery for the individual plaintiffs and the changes in policy mandated by the settlement. The attorney's fees will come from a separate fund set up for the represented individuals and will be based upon the legal standards governing attorney fee awards. It will not exceed $3,713,000 (including fees, litigation costs, and medical liens and medical costs). A fees motion will be filed on April 20, 2009. No attorney's fees will be taken out of the $250,000 class fund described above. You may object to the fees requested by filing a timely objection.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF (DEADLINE: APRIL 27): All class members have the right to exclude themselves or "opt

out" from the settlement. If you exclude yourself, you may file an individual lawsuit but would need your own attorney.

Exclusions must be in writing, POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN APRIL 27, 2009, and mailed to MIWON v. City

ofLos Angeles Class Administrator, P.O. Box __,

. Your exclusion must prominently state

"EXCLUSION FROM SETTLEMENT IN MIWON V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Case No.: CV 07-3072."

OBJECTIONS (DEADLINE: APRIL 27):: All class members who do not exclude themselves from the settlement may file objections to either the settlement, or the attorneys fee request. Objections must be in writing, POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN APRIL 27, 2009, and mailed toMIWONv. City ofLos Angeles Class Administrator, P.O. Box _ _, -=-----,--",.-::-_----::-:=-=-:=----:. Your objection must prominently state "OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT IN MIWON V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Case No.: CV 07-3072."

MAKING A CLAIM (DEADLINE: MAY 27): All class claims must be on the attached form. All timely claims will receive an equal share of the $250,000 fund, up to $1000.

ALL CLAIMS MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN MAY 27, 2009, and mailed to MIWON v. City ofLos

Angeles Class Administrator, P.O. Box __,

. A claim form is attached to this Notice. IF YOU

WISH TO MAKE A CLAIM, DO IT RIGHT AWAY. DO NOT DELAY.

If you qualify as a class member but do not file a timely claim or exclude yourself from the settlement, you (a) will not receive any share of the $250,000 settlement fund, (b) will still be bound by the settlement, (c) will not receive

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 55 of 98
anything from the settlement, and (d) will be barred from pursuing future claims based upon the events in or around MacArthur Park as alleged in the above-entitled lawsuit.
ATTORNEYS: The Court has appointed attorneys for the Class, who represent all class members. You may hire your own attorneys at your own expense if you wish, but need not do so even if you object or exclude yourself.
APPROVAL HEARING (JUNE 22, 2009): A hearing at which the Court will decide whether to approve the settlement will be held on June 22,2009, in the courtroom of Judge Howard Matz, 312 N. Spring St., Courtroom 14, Los Angeles, Calif. 90012. You may attend, but need not do so. If you wish to object to the settlement or to the award of attorney's fees, you MUST file an objection according to the instructions above. The hearing may be continued without notice, so check with the Class Administrator or the website www.maydaylitigation.comifyou plan to attend. Under certain circumstances, the settlement might not become final; if that happened, the lawsuit would proceed.
DELAYS: It will likely take at least six months after that hearing before you will receive money, if you are entitled to any. If you have not received money by the end of the year, you may contact the Class Administrator.
This Notice merely summarizes the proposed settlement. A copy of the complete settlement is available at www.maydaylitigation.com. That website will also have the attorney's fees motion when it is filed.
AGAIN, IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM MONEY, FILL OUT AND MAIL THE ACCOMPANYING CLAIM FORM RIGHT AWAY.

2

Class Notice - MIWON v. City ofLos Angeles

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 56 of 98

MIWON v. City ofLos Angeles Class Administrator P.O. Box

CLASS ACTION CLAIM FORM

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _(Bar Code)
Name ------------------------Address ------------------------City, State, Zip Code,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Claim No.---------------Date of Birth _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Phone# ________________________ SSorTIN# _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I was 1) present on May 1, 2007 in or around the MacArthur Park area at some point between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., 2) I did not engage in any conduct justifying Defendants' dispersal order or the use of force, and 3) I was subjected to the LAPD's use of force, dispersal order or other unlawful police activity arising from the police response to the immigration march and rally. Your representations may be checked and are under penalty ofperjury,

Provide the names, addresses and telephone numbers of two people who can verify your presence during the events that are the subject of the lawsuit, or explain on a separate SHEET why you are unable to do so.

I WITNESS NAME

I~TNESSADDRESSANDPHONE#

This Claim Form must be postmarked or received by the Administrator NO LATER THAN DO NOT DELAY. Mail it right away to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _'

,2009.

Any information that you provide in this Claim Form is private and will be held in strictest confidence, except as needed

by the Parties and Class Administrator. It will not be provided to any Government Agency, and will be used solely for

purposes of this settlement. If you have any questions about this lawsuit, write to us at MIWON v. City ofLos Angeles

Class Administrator, P.O. Box __,

or contact us bye-mail at

or visit our web site at

YES, I QUALIFY AND WISH TO MAKE A CLAIM.
By signing this form below, I am confirming that the above information is correct and that:
1. I am the person identified above and I am over the age of 18, or, if I am a juvenile, my parent or guardian has signed below.
2. I will abide by, and be limited to, the formula for damages approved by the Court. 3. I will keep the Class Administrator informed of my whereabouts at all times.

I declare under penalty of petjury that the information given above is true and correct.

Date: _________________ (mm/dd/yyyy)

Signamre: ___________________________________________________

If you are signing as a Parent or Guardian, please print your first and last names on the lines below and include
verification of3'ourguardianship status ifyou are a guardian:

Print Parent/Guardian First Name:

Last Name: _______________________________

3

Class Notice - MIWON v. City ofLos Angeles

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 57 of 98
EXHIBITC

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 58 of 98

1 BARRETT S. LITT, SBN 45527 E: blitt@littlaw.com
2 LITT, ESTUAR, HARRISON & KITSON,LLP
3 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1880
Los Angeles, California 90017 4 T: (213) 386-3114; F: (213) 380-4585

5 CAROL A. SOBEL, SBN 84483 E: carolsobel@aol.com
6 LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 7 429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550
Santa Monica, California 90401 8 T: (310) 393-3055; F: (310) 393-3605
9 ROBERT MANN, SBN 48293 DONALD W. COOK, SBN 116666
10 E: doncook@earthlink.net 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2900
11 Los Angeles, California 90010 T: (213) 252-9444; F: (213) 252-0091
12 ROBERT M. MYERS, SBN 66957
13 E: rmmyers@ix.netcom.com NEWMAN.AARONSON.VANAMAN
14 14001 Ventura Boulevard Sherman Oaks, California 91423
15 T: (818) 990-7722; F: (818) 501-1306
16

PAUL L. HOFFMAN, SBN 71244 BENJAMIN SCHONBRUN, SBN 118323 JAMES DeSIMONE, SBN 119668 E: hoffpaul@aol.com SCHONBRUN, DE SIMONE, et al. 723 Ocean Front Walk Venice, California 90291 T: (310) 396-0731; F: (310) 399-7040
CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER SBN 175764 E: cablaw@hotmail.com 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, California 90010 T: (213) 381-3246; F: (213) 252-0091

17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT

Case No.: CV 07-3072 AHM (FMMx)

21 WORKERS ORGANIZING

[Hon. A. Howard Matz]

22 NETWORK, et aI.

[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER OF

23 Plaintiffs,

APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT.

24 vs.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et aI.,

25

Defendants.

DATE: February 13,2009 TIME: 4:00 P.M. COURTROOM: 14

26

27

28

1

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 59 of 98

1

2

3

ADDITIONAL CLASS COUNSEL

4 NANCY RAMIREZ, SBN 152629 GLADYS LIMON, SBN 228773
5 KRISTINA M. CAMPBELL, SBN 248738
6 E: kcampbell@maldef.org MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL
7 DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
8 634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90014
9 T: (213) 629-2512; F: (213) 629-0266
10 CHRIS FORD, SBN 239376
11 LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS FORD E: cfordlaw@earthlink.net
12 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, California 90010
13 T: (213) 487-8000; F: (213) 487-8001
14 ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, SBN 51443 15 E: antoniohr@arodriguezlaw.com
LAW OFFICE OF ANTONIO H. 16 RODRIGUEZ
5429 East Beverly Boulevard 17 Los Angeles, California 90022
T: (323) 869-9909; F: (323) 869-9911 18
19
20
21
22
23
24

JORGE GONZALEZ, SBN 100799 E: jggorgeous@aol.com A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2485 Huntington Drive, Suite 238 San Marino, California 91108 T: (626) 683-3922; F: (626) 683-3944
OLU ORANGE, SBN 213653 E:o.orange@orangelawoffices.com ORANGE LAW OFFICES 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, California 90010 T: (213) 736-9900; F: (775) 416-9221
ADALILA GARCIA, SBN 216281 E: adalila76@yahoo.com LAW OFFICE OF ADALILA ZELADA-GARCIA 1475 Echo Park Avenue Los Angeles, California 90026 T: (213) 250-5500; F: (213) 250-2846
REBECCAF.THORNTON SBN 231128 E: rebecca@humanrightsesq.com LAW OFFICE OF REBECCA F. THORNTON 429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550 Santa Monica, California 90401 T: (310) 393-3055; F: (310) 393-3605
LUZ E. HERRERA E: attorney@luzherrera.com LAW OFFICE OF LUZ E. HERRERA 1216 East Compton Boulevard Compton, California 90221 T: (310) 635-8181; F: (310) 638-4644

25

26

27

28

2

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 60 of 98

1 I. 2

INTRODUCTION This Lawsuit having come before this Court for a hearing, pursuant to this

3 Court's Order Preliminarily Approving Proposed Settlement Between Plaintiffs and

4 Defendant, dated

,2009 (the "Preliminary Approval Order") to consider

5 and determine the matters set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order; and due

6 notice of said hearing having been published and given; and all persons that made

7 timely objections to the proposed settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement,

8 and described in the Class Notice, having been given an opportunity to present

9 such objections to the Court; and the Court having considered the matter, including

10 all papers filed in connection therewith, and the oral presentations of counsel at

11 said hearing; and good cause appearing,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

II. 13

DEFINITIONS

1. Each term and phrase used in this Final Order of Approval and 14

Settlement shall have the same definition and meaning as in the Settlement 15

Agreement, as follows.

16

2. "Administrator" means the claims administrator

as

17

agreed upon by the parties and to be appointed by the Court, to administer the

18 claims process, to pay class claims, and to handle any other tasks appropriate to

19 completing the claims process.

20 3. A "Damages Class Member" means any class member meeting the

21 following definition (as set forth in the Class Certification Order of December 14,

22 2007): "Those persons who were present on May 1,2007 in the geographic area

23 bounded by 6th Street (on the north), Alvarado Street (on the east), 7th Street (on

24 the south), and Park View Street (on the west), or the immediately adjacent areas,

25 including from 6th Street west to Lafayette Park, at any point between the hours of

26 5:00 and 7:00 p.m., who did not engage in any conduct justifying Defendants'

27 dispersal order or the use of force, and who were subjected to the LAPD's use of

28 force, dispersal order or other unlawful police activity arising from the police

1

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 61 of 98

1 response to the immigration march and rally."

2

4. An "Injunction Class Member" means any class member meeting the

3 following definition (as set forth in the Class Certification Order of December 14,

4 2007):

5

"Those who in the past have engaged in or who in the future may

6

engage in peaceful demonstrations or protest in the City of Los Angeles and

7

who, at the time they engage in such peaceful demonstrations or protest, were

8

or are:

9

"(a) The following organizations: Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers

10

Organizing Network, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los

11

Angeles, Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance, Institute for Popular

12

Education of Southern California, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers

Center ("Plaintiff Associations"); 13

"(b) Officers, representatives, or members of Plaintiff Associations; 14

"(c) Persons who attend or participate in Plaintiff Associations' events, 15
including but not limited to their rallies; 16
"(d) Organizations that advocate, organize, or both advocate and 17
organize on behalf of the rights of individuals and associations to engage in 18
speech, assembly, and expression within the scope of the First Amendment of

19 the United States Constitution.

20

"(e) Persons who participate in public assemblies organized by the

21

organizations described in paragraph (d)."

22

5. A "Represented Individual" is an individual class member who was

23 represented individually and as a class member in either the MIWON case, or in

24 any of the following related cases:

25 RELATED CASES

NUMBER

ATTORNEY

26 Santia~o v. City ofLos Angeles 2:07 CV-02966 Gregory Yates

Brandon Aguilar v. City ofLos 2:07 CV-04131

27

An~eles

Luis Carrillo

28 Newton v. City ofLos An~eles 2:07 CV-04455 Ellen Ellison

2

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 62 of 98

1 RELATED CASES
2 Lopez v. City ofLos Ant<eles Ajuria v. City ofLos Anf,!eles
3 Gudiel v. City ofLos Anf,!eles
4 Reyes v. CiJy ofLos Ant<eles
Sal Aguilar v. City ofLos 5 Ant<eles
6 Ponce v. CifY ofLos Anf,!eles

NUMBER 2:07 CV-05555 2:07 CV-08433 2:08 CV-01370 2:08 CV-02966 2:08 CV-02301

ATTORNEY Susan Pintar Luis Carrillo Louis Krass Carl Douglas Jaime Segall- Guttierrez

2:08 CV-02710 Leo Hernandez

7 The names of, and counsel for, the Represented Individuals are set forth in
8 Exhibit E to the Preliminary Approval Order.
9 The phrase "Represented Individuals" in the plural refers collectively to all
10 the Represented Individuals in the MIWON and above listed cases.
11 6. The phrase "Remaining Class Members" refers to Damages Class
12 Members who are not "Represented Individuals" as defined above.

13

7. "Class Counsel" means Barrett S. Litt, Litt, Estuar, Harrison &

14 Kitson, 1055 Wilshire Blvd., #1880, Los Angeles CA. 90017; Carol A. Sobel, 429

15 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550, Santa Monica, California 90401; and Paul L.

16 Hoffman, 723 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California 90291.

17

8. "Matters alleged in the lawsuit" refers to claims for actions of the

18 LAPD or its personnel for violating First, Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights,

19 and related claims, in or surrounding MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007.

20

9. "Released Matters" refers to matters alleged in the lawsuit that are

21 released by this settlement and attendant orders of the Court.

22

10. "Released Person" means the Defendants and their affiliates,

23 subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, and/or assigns, together with past, present

24 and future officials, employees, representatives, attorneys, and/or agents.

25

11. "LAPD" refers to the Los Angeles Police Department.

26

12. The "Class Notice" means the notice in a form substantially similar to

27 that attached to the Preliminary Approval Order as Exhibit B, and such other

28 summary notice to be published in accordance with the terms of this Settlement

3

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 63 of 98

1 Agreement.

2

13. The "Effective Date" means the date upon which a judgment entered

3 by the Court approving the Settlement Agreement becomes final. The Judgment

4 will be deemed final only upon expiration of the time to appeal or, if a Notice of

5 Appeal is filed, upon exhaustion of all appeals and petitions for writs of certiorari.

6

14. An "Opt-Out" is any class member who files a timely request for

7 exclusion pursuant to the terms of this Settlement Agreement.

8

15. The "Proof of Claim Form" means the Proof of Claim and Release

9 Form required to be used to make a claim for payment under this settlement. A

10 copy of the proposed Proof of Claim was attached to the Preliminary Approval

11 Order as the last page of Exhibit B to the Preliminary Approval Order.

16. The "Class Fund" is the amount of money set aside for non12

Represented Individuals who filed timely class claims. It amounts to $250,000 13

inclusive of costs of class administration. 14

17. The "Post Administration Class Fund" is the Class Fund less costs of 15
class administration. 16
18. The "Represented Individuals' Fund" is the amount of money set

17 aside for the _ Represented Individuals. It amounts to $12,600,000 inclusive of

18 attorney's fees, costs, liens and recoveries by the class members who are

19 Represented Individuals.

20

19. The "Class Attorney's Fees" are the attorney's fees Plaintiffs intend to

21 request that the Court award as part of the settlement, which total $3,753,000

22 including litigation costs and medical liens and costs. These are based on a

23 statutory fee award available under both the federal and state claims brought in

24 this case.

25

20. The "Claim Date" is the date by which any class member who is not a

26 Represented Individual, and who wishes to receive payment pursuant to the

27 Settlement Agreement, must file hislher Proof of Claim and Release Form

28 (attached as Exhibit B to the Preliminary Approval Order).

4

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 64 of 98

1

21. The "Bar Date" is the date by which any class member who is not a

2 Represented Individual must file objections to this Settlement Agreement, or

3 request to be excluded from the class (opt-out). The Bar Date is April 27, 2009.

4 III. OBJECTIONS

5

22. There have been

objections to the settlement and/or the Motion

6 for an award of attorneys' fees filed. [Either address the objections or, if none,

7 state, "Accordingly, the Court need not address objections, and the award of

8 attorney's fees and costs is addressed in a separate Order."]

9 IV. OPT OUTS

10

23. There have been __ U opt outs notices filed. Except for these opt

11 outs, all class members are bound by the terms of this Order.

12 V. CLAIMS FILED.

13

24. The claims filing postmark deadline for the Class Fund was on May

15,2009. As of 14

,2009, the Administrator has received

timely

Claim Forms and _late Claim Form(s). The processing of these claims forms

15

has not been completed.

16

25. The Court [will/will not] allow the late claims filed between May 15

17

and

to be considered and paid.

18

VI. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED BECAUSE FAIR,

19 ADEQUATE, AND REASONABLE.

20

26. The settlement of this Lawsuit was not the product of collusion

21 between Plaintiffs and Defendants or their respective counsel, but rather was the

22 result of bona fide and arm's-length negotiation conducted in good faith by the

23 Parties and their counsel, with the assistance of an independent mediator, who is a

24 sitting United States Magistrate Judge.

25

27. The Settlement Agreement and the settlement set forth therein are

26 hereby approved and found to be fair, adequate, reasonable, in the best interest of

27 the Class as a whole, and in satisfaction of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

28 Procedure and due process requirements.

5

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 65 of 98

1 VII. DISTINCTION BETWEEN REPRESENTED INDIVIDUALS AND

2

REMAINING CLASS MEMBERS

3

28. The Court is aware that the parties have settled this case as a hybrid

4 settlement. The MIWON counsel represented both the certified class and_

5 individual class members who alleged they had been injured as a result of the

6 actions of the LAPD on May 1. In addition, the cases listed in ~ 5, supra, represent

7 a combined additional individuals who also alleged they had been injured as a

8 result of the actions of the LAPD on May 1. These are collectively the

9 "Represented Individuals" as defined above. Each of the Represented Individuals

10 is to receive the same amount of compensation as every other Represented

11 Individual with similar injuries, but no additional damages have been awarded

12 based on an individual's role as a class representative. The Court is also aware

that the Represented Individuals are receiving significantly higher amounts than 13

are the Remaining Class Members (defined above). The Court fmds this 14

distinction appropriate under the unique circumstances of this case for the 15

following reasons: 16

A. In the mediation process, the plaintiffs presented evidence that the 17
Represented Individuals were in fact present at the events in question

18 through individualized analysis of witness statement, photographs and

19 the like, which is not the case for the Remaining Class Members.

20
B. In the mediation process, the plaintiffs presented evidence of the

21

particular circumstances of each Represented Individual, and all parties

22

were able to assess damages for those individuals, which is not the case

23

for the Remaining Class Members.

24

C. Plaintiffs presented evidence in the mediation process indicating that

25

most of the Represented Individuals suffered significant physical and

26

psychological injuries.

27

D. It is the assessment of both parties, and the Court concurs, that most of

28

those who suffered serious injuries as a result of the matters alleged in

6

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 66 of 98

1

the lawsuit were included among the Represented Individuals, especially

2

in light of the widespread publicity about the events and the ensuing

3

lawsuits.

4

E. The City's offer to settle the case in the amount it did was driven almost

5

exclusively by its assessment of the Represented Individuals' claims. It

6

was Class Counsel who insisted that the Class Fund be established for

7

those who qualify as Damages Class Members and were not Represented

8

Individuals.

9

F. The Class Fund established in this settlement is designed to compensate

10

Damages Class Members who did not receive serious injuries. If there are

11

a few who did, they have the right to opt out of the settlement. [The fact

12

that only _ did so is an indication that the assessment that most serious

injuries were included among the Represented Individuals was correct.] 13

14 VIII. NOTICE

29. As required by this Court in its Preliminary Approval Order: (a) Class 15
Notices were distributed by the five organizational plaintiffs to inform as many 16
individuals as was practicable of the settlement and the claims process; and (b) 17
Class and Settlement Notice was published in a summary fashion as set forth in 18
the Settlement Agreement and in the Preliminary Approval Order, all as more
19 fully set forth in the Declaration of the Class Administrator, dated _ _ _ _:
20

21

30. The notice given to the Remaining Class Members is hereby

22 determined to be fully in compliance with the requirements of Rule 23 of the

23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process and is found to be the best

24 notice practicable under the circumstances and to constitute due and sufficient

25 notice to all parties entitled thereto.

26

31. Due and adequate notice of the proceedings having been given to the

27 Class and a full opportunity having been offered to the Class to participate in this

28 hearing, it is hereby determined that all Class Members, except those who have

7

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 67 of 98

1 opted out of the settlement are bound by this Final Order of Approval and

2 Settlement. Exhibit 1 contains the list of the - - individuals who opted out of
3 the settlement.

4 IX. CLASS-WIDE PROSPECTIVE RELIEF

5

32. The Court has entered a separate Order addressing class-wide

6 prospective relief and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of that Order for a

7 period of no less than four (4) years. A copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit 2

8 to this Order and incorporated as though fully set forth in this Settlement

9 Agreement.

10 X. DAMAGES SETTLEMENT

11

33. $12,600,000 of the total settlement of$12,850,000 shall go to cover

12 the claims of the Represented Individuals, including statutory attorney's fees, costs

and any outstanding liens. Counsel for the MIWON Represented Individuals and 13

the other Represented Individuals have agreed among themselves as to how much 14

money will be provided to each of the Represented Individuals. Counsel for the 15
MIWON Represented Individuals and the other Represented Individuals have also 16
agreed among themselves how any Class Fund Attorney's fees will be distributed 17
among Counsel. In addition, in the case ofnon-MIWON Represented Individuals,
18 they may have agreements with their counsel regarding percentage division of

19 their settlements. The amount of attorney's fees and costs approved by the Court is

20 addressed in 'iI_ below.

21

34. The Settlement Agreement provides for a total of $12,600,000

22 (whether via direct payment or structured settlement) to be paid to the_

23 represented individuals and a residual class fund of $250,000 (inclusive of costs of

24 class administration). The counsel who are signatories to the Settlement

25 Agreement (Exhibit A to the Preliminary Approval Order) have warranted 1) that

26 they have authority from each represented individual whom they represent

27 individually to settle the cases on the terms set forth herein, 2) that each of their

28 clients is aware of and has authorized the amount each will receive from the

8

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 68 of 98

1 settlement, and 3) that each of their clients are aware of and has approved the

2 attorney's fee arrangement between counsel and client.

3

35. ,-r regarding any structured settlements.

4

36. Within 30 days from the Effective Date of Settlement, all settlement

5 funds shall be deposited into the Litt, Estuar Trust Account, and from there shall

6 be distributed by wire to the Trust Accounts of the counsel in each of the Related

7 Cases as agreed to among the parties, and from each respective trust account shall

8 be distributed to the clients or counsel, as has been agreed to among the parties

9 and counsel, (The MIWON counsel will determine among themselves how to

10 distribute the funds to the Represented Individuals they represent.) The amounts to

11 go to the non-MIWON Attorney Trust Accounts (inclusive of their proportionate

12 share of the Awarded Attorney's Fees) is as follows:

A. Gregory Yates: $525,000 13

B. Ellen Ellison: $40,000 14

C. Susan Pintar: $530,000 15
D. Luis Carrillo: $2,090,000 16
E. Louis Krass: $50,000 17
F. Carl Douglas: $352,000

18 G. Leo Hernandez: $38,000

19 H. Jaime Segall- Guttierrez: $401,000

20

I. Litt, Estuar et al. (for MIWON clients and counsel): $8,864,000

21

37. In addition, within thirty (30) calendar days of the Effective Date for

22 Payment, the Defendants shall deposit or cause to be deposited by wire an amount

23 of same day available funds, into the Class Fund equal to $250,000 less the

24 amount already advanced to the Class Administrator under the terms of the

25 Stipulated Order Granting Preliminary Approval to Class Settlement for

26 distribution to the class members ho filed claims and are not Represented

27 Individuals.

28

38. A class member not listed in Exhibit E to the Preliminary Approval

9

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 69 of 98

1 Order who filed a timely claim form shall be paid $1000, or, in the event that there

2 are more claims than can be paid in that amount from the Post-Administration

3 Class Fund without depleting it before all class claimants are paid, then the Post-

4 Administration Class Fund will be distributed proportionally to each class member

5 who filed a timely claim. [This will be modified to reflect the actual amount when

6 we know it.]

7 XI. HANDLING OF MINORS' CLAIMS FOR REPRESENTED

8

INDIVIDUALS

9

39. Included among the Represented Individuals are minors, some of

10 whose recoveries are $6000 or less and some of whose recoveries exceed $6000.
11 For those minors who receive after attorney's fees and costs $6000 or less,
12 blocked accounts need not be opened, and the money shall be paid to the parents or guardians of the minor for general use for the minor's health and well-being in
13 whatever manner the parent or guardian sees fit. For those minors who receive,
14 after attorney's fees and costs, over $6000, blocked interest bearing bank accounts
15 shall be opened for those who will not tum 16 by the end of this year. For those
16 minors who receive, after attorney's fees and costs, over $6000, their funds shall
17 be maintained in their individual counsel's Client Trust Account so that they can
18 be expeditiously paid to the client at the time of hislher 18th birthday. The names 19
and categories of those minors addressed by this and the next two paragraphs are 20 listed in Exhibit 3 to this Order. A record of each blocked account - which
21 includes the minor's name, date of birth, parent's or guardian's name, and current
22 address; and the name and branch of the bank in which the account is opened and
23 the account number - must be filed with the Court within 90 days from the

24 Effective Date of this Order.

25

40. The Court recognizes that there may be circumstances in which a

26 parent has a need for the funds in a blocked account for the direct and immediate

27 benefit of the child plaintiff, such as for a medical emergency or braces. The Court

28 authorizes the withdrawal of funds from the blocked account for such a purpose

10

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 70 of 98

1 with the written concurrence of the counsel for that minor listed in Exhibit 3 to

2 this Order. The written concurrence shall memorialize the reasons for the

3 withdrawal, and a copy shall be filed with the financial institution where the funds

4 are maintained, which shall keep such record until the minor reaches maturity and

5 withdraws the funds. The maximum allowed number of such withdrawals is two.

6

41. In that regard, the Court authorizes the use of $5000 for minor

7 plaintiff

to pay for braces without further order of court or approval of

8 counsel. 9 XII. HANDLING OF ABSENT REPRESENTED INDIVIDUALS' CLAIMS

10

42. There are Represented Individuals whose present whereabouts are

11 unknown ("Missing Represented Individuals"). Plaintiffs' counsel have ranked

12 Missing Represented Individuals' settlement within the grid system utilized for the

13 Represented Individuals, but are unable to secure the consent of the Missing
Represented Individuals to the settlement. The names of the Missing Represented 14
Individuals, and the amounts of their settlement after attorney's fees and costs, as 15
determined by the Counsel whom they retained, are contained in Exhibit 4. 16
43. The Court fmds that Plaintiffs' counsel made diligent efforts to locate 17
the Missing Represented Individuals, which efforts were unsuccessful. These 18
efforts included calling, mailing and trying to make personal contact. 19
44. Plaintiffs request that the Court authorize that the funds designated for
20
the Missing Represented Individuals set forth in Exhibit 4 be placed in a special
21 trust account because the Court has jurisdiction over, and the authority to bind,
22 any class member who has not opted out, and none of the Missing Represented

23 Individuals has opted out.

24

45. Class members must be adequately represented by Class Counsel and

25 afforded due process in order to be bound by a class settlement or judgment. Thus,

26 in class actions, personal jurisdiction for judgment purposes may be exercised over

27 nonresident class members, even those without minimum contacts with the forum,

28 and without affirmative opt-in consent having been made, so long there has been

11

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 71 of 98

1 the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and an opportunity for class

2 members to exclude themselves from the litigation. Phillips Petroleum Co. v.

3 Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 808, 105 S. Ct. 2965, 86 L. Ed. 2d 628,2 Fed. R. Servo 3d

4 797 (1985). The Court finds that such due process requirements have been met

5 here, and that it accordingly may bind even those individuals who are individual

6 plaintiffs who are now absent if they have not opted out. Accordingly, the Court

7 concludes that Class Counsel's proposal is proper.

8

46. This is especially so because, without the Court approving the

9 settlement for the Missing Represented Individuals, the Missing Represented

10 Individuals, if they are named parties, would be subject to a motion for dismissal

11 with prejudice for failure to prosecute their case, under F.R.Civ.P. Rule 41(b). See,

12 e.g., Henderson V. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986) (in ruling on a

13 motion under Rule 41 (b), the Court considers several factors, including, "(1) the

public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to 14
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 15
favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic 16
sanctions"); Aziz v. Wright, 34 F.3d 587 (8th Cir. 1994) (plaintiff twice appeared 17
for deposition but refused each time to be deposed; case properly dismissed for 18
failure to prosecute after court ordered plaintiff to be deposed and he failed to 19
comply). If they are not named parties, they would be bound by the settlement
20 even though they were receiving no funds.

21

47. The Court finds that it is in the interest of the Missing Represented

22 Individuals, and of the class as a whole, to include the Missing Represented

23 Individuals in the settlement on the terms proposed, and that it has the authority to

24 do so in the context of this class action without the approval of the Missing

25 Represented Individuals. Accordingly, Class counsel shall open special interest

26 bearing trust accounts for each such client. If the client has not claimed the funds

27 by December 31, 2012, then the funds in such account shall be paid to the Central

28 American Resource Center ("CARECEN"), whose mission is to protect and

12

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 72 of 98

1 promote the rights and opportunities of low-income immigrants and their family

2 members, as a cy pres payment, to be used for the purpose of its activities relating

3 to ensuring immigrants' rights.

4

48. The Missing Represented Individuals will be bound by this Order in

5 the same manner as any other class member who has not opted out.

6 XIII. CLASS FUND ATTORNEYS' FEES

7

49. Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees requesting payment

8 of $_ _ _ in attorney's fees and $ _ in costs. The Court approves this request

9 and is entering a separate order addressing it [including addressing the objections

10 thereto].

11

50. The Court is also advised that, pursuant to contract terms between

12 attorney and client, some of the non-MIWON attorneys - but not the MIWON

counsel- may receive a percentage of the client's recovery, as negotiated between 13
attorney and client. Since these agreements are in the non-MIWON cases, they do 14
not require court approval. Nonetheless, in an excess of caution, the Court 15
approves such an arrangement to the same extent that such an arrangement would 16
be permissible in an individual representation case. 17
XIV. CLASS ADMINISTRATOR 18
51. The Court reaffirms the appointment of ____ as Class 19
Administrator (hereby "___"). The Court authorizes the payment, to be made

20 immediately by the Defendants, of $ to c o v e r ' s expenses to date.

21 When and if the class distribution goes forward (i.e., if there is no appeal or there

22 is an appeal and the settlement is approved at the appellate level or abandoned),

23 then

will receive all the funds due to be paid to the Settlement Fund in

24 accord with the provisions of,-r _, supra.

25

52. The Claims Administrator shall preserve all written communications

26 from Class Members in response to the Class at least until December 31, 2012, or

27 pursuant to further order of the Court. All written communications received by the

28 Claims Administrator from Class Members relating to the Settlement Agreement

13

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 73 of 98

1 shall be available at all reasonable times for inspection and copying by Counsel

2 for the Parties.
3 xv. CLASS NOTICE

4

53. The Claims Administrator has served and filed a sworn statement

5 attesting to compliance with the provisions of the Preliminary Approval Order

6 governing Class and Settlement Notice.

7

54. The Court finds that the notice required by the Preliminary Approval

8 Order was the best notice practicable under the circumstances and constituted due

9 and sufficient notice of the Settlement and the Fairness Hearing to all Class

10 Members and other persons affected by and/or entitled to participate in the

11 settlement, in full compliance with the notice requirements of Rule 23 Federal

12 Rules of Civil Procedure and due process.

XVI. GENERAL PROVISIONS 13

55. Claim forms not received or postmarked by

,2009, shall not

14

be paid, although such persons shall nonetheless be bound by this Order. 15

56. All class members except those who timely filed opt-out forms shall 16
be bound by this Order. 17
57. Except as otherwise provided in this Order, each party shall bear its

18 own costs, expenses and attorneys' fees.

19 58. The use of the masculine gender herein is construed to include the

20 feminine and/or the neuter where applicable. The use of the singular herein is to be

21 construed to include the plural where applicable. The use of the plural herein shall

22 be construed to include the singular where applicable.

23

59. Late claims filed after the Bar Date, through the date of this Order,

24 [shaW shall not] be permitted. Any claims filed after the date of this Order shall

25 not be permitted.

26

60. The Court reserves and maintains jurisdiction over this settlement and

27 its provisions, and over the claims administration and distribution of the funds.

28 Disagreements between the parties on any disputes or unresolved aspects of this

14

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 74 of 98

1 Order as it relates to monetary relief shall be subject to mediation before the

2 mediator who has mediated this case to date [Magistrate Judge Woehrle]. If

3 mediation is not successful, the matter shall be brought to this Court for resolution.

4

61. At the conclusion of the Class Distribution, the Class Administrator

5 shall submit a report to the Court summarizing the payments made to the Class.

6 XVII. FINAL RESOLUTION

7

62. The monetary relief provided for in this Order shall compensate for all

8 alleged violations of rights and all claims by the Damages Class Members on

9 matters alleged in the lawsuit under any theory of liability related to the events of

10 May 1, 2007, that come within the Damages Class definition, except as to

11 monetary damages for those class members who opt out.

12

63. The Court hereby dismisses the Lawsuit on the merits, with prejudice,

13 and without further costs, with such dismissal subject only to compliance by the

Parties with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, the Order on 14

the injunctive relief class claims, and this Final Order of Approval and Settlement. 15

64. The Damages and Injunctive Relief Class Members, including the 16
Represented Individuals, and including their agents, attorneys and assigns, are 17
hereby severally and permanently barred and enjoined, to the fullest extent 18
permitted by law, from filing, commencing, instituting, maintaining, prosecuting

19 or participating in a lawsuit or any other proceeding against the Defendants,

20 including the employees, entities, agents, attorneys and insurers of Defendants,

21 involving or based on any of the claims encompassed by the MIWON complaint

22 or the complaints in the related cases covered by this Settlement and Order,

23 including specifically claims on behalf of any class member whose claims are

24 covered by this Settlement and Order.

25

65. The Named Plaintiffs and each Class Member waive all rights or

26 benefits which he or she now has or in the future may have under the terms of

27 California Civil Code §1542, arising from, alleged in, or pertaining to the matters

28 alleged in the Lawsuit, specifically claims related to the events of May 1, 2007,

15

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 75 of 98

1 that come within the Damages Class definition, except as to monetary damages for

2 those class members who have opted out. Section 1542 reads:

3

"A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not

4

know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the

5

release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or

6

her settlement with the debtor."

7

66. The Defendants, and all of their agents, attorneys and assigns, waive

8 and release any and all claims or rights to pursue, initiate, prosecute, or commence
9 any action or proceeding before any court, administrative agency or other tribunal,
10 or to file any complaint regarding acts or omissions, by the Plaintiffs in any of the
11 cases covered in this Settlement, by any Represented Individuals as defined 12 herein, and by any Class Members, with respect to any matters related to the
matters alleged in the lawsuit complaint, including waiver of the right to file a 13
malicious prosecution action; and further, as it relates to this waiver or Release, 14
expressly waive the provisions of California Civil Code §1542 recited in the 15
previous paragraph. 16
67. Plaintiffs have not relied upon the advice of Class Counsel as to the 17
legal and/or tax consequences of this settlement, the payment of any money by the 18
Defendants or the distribution of the Settlement Funds. 19
68. Neither this Final Order of Approval, the Settlement Agreement, nor 20 any of its terms or the negotiations or papers related thereto shall constitute 21 evidence or an admission by any Defendant that any acts of wrongdoing have been 22 committed, and they shall not be deemed to create any inference that there is any 23 liability therefore. Neither this Final Order of Approval and Settlement, nor the
24 Settlement Agreement, nor any of its terms or the negotiations or papers related
25 thereto shall be offered or received in evidence or used for any purpose
26 whatsoever, in this or any other matter or proceeding in any court, administrative
27 agency, arbitration, or other tribunal, other than as expressly set forth in the
28 Settlement Agreement.

16

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 76 of 98

1

69. Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

2 Court fmds that there is no just reason for delay and therefore directs entry of this

3 Final Order of Approval and Settlement. Inasmuch as this disposes of all claims

4 asserted in the Lawsuit, the Court further directs the Clerk to enter an order of

5 dismissal pursuant to F.R.Civ.P Rule 41 (a)(l)(2).

6
7
8 DATED: _ _ _ _ _ __

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

10

JUDGE

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 77 of 98

1

Exhibit 1

2

Exhibit 2

3

Exhibit 3

4

5

Exhibit 4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Opt Outs Injunctive Relief Agreement and Order Thereon Names of Minor Plaintiffs and Their Counsel and Categories Names Of Missing Represented Individuals, And Amounts Of Their Post-Fee Settlement
18

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 78 of 98
EXHIBITD

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 79 of 98
DRAFT STRUCTURAL RELIEF AGREEMENT
The parties to the above-captioned action have submitted a joint Order for the Court's review and approval, addressing the injunctive relief class certified by the Court in its Order issued on January _, 2008. The court has considered the joint submission and now issues the following Order:
1. Basic Principles:
All persons have the right to march, demonstrate, protest, rally or perform other activities protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. The government may impose reasonable and narrowly tailored restrictions on the time, place, and manner of conducting these activities. However, any limitations or restrictions placed on demonstrations or other First Amendment activities must be justified by the requirements of maintaining public safety, public health, or safe access/egress from the area, and should restrict no more speech than necessary to further these substantial government interests. Officers must not be affected by the content of the opinions being expressed nor by the race, gender, linguistics, national origin, sexual orientation, physical disabilities, appearances, or affiliation of anyone exercising lawful rights.
2. Helicopters:
Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) helicopters assigned to monitor permitted crowd control incidents shall operate the aircraft at reasonable altitudes so as to avoid disruption of First Amendment protected activities. The Incident Commander will coordinate with event organizers to help avoid over flights during keynote speaker presentations. This action is not intended to prevent LAPD helicopters from response to emergent situations requiring immediate police presence during such crowd control events.
3. Marches:
Demonstrators, while participating in lawful assemblages, shall not be prevented from using public sidewalks to join or exit a lawful march or from using any public sidewalk adjacent to a lawful march route. However, while on the sidewalk, marchers will not be allowed to obstruct or unreasonably interfere with pedestrian movement and/or prevent lawfully open businesses from operating when such conduct violates any applicable law. LAPD will consider the practicality of facilitating demonstrations that may temporarily block traffic and LAPD shall include the subject in its Crowd Management training.
4. Motorcycles/Bicycles/Motor Vehicles:
Police motorcycles, bicycles, and motor vehicles may be used for the purpose of observation, visible deterrence, traffic control, transportation and area control during a crowd event. When used at the back of a march, they should maintain a reasonably safe distance behind the marchers. LAPD personnel will not utilize motorcycles, bicycles, or motor vehicles

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 80 of 98
to strike assembled demonstrators/marchers as a method for crowd control or crowd dispersal.
5. Crowd Management Training - Horses: In its crowd management training, the LAPD shall include a subject on the impact of the use of horses on crowd behavior. 6. Use of Less Lethal Weapons: Less-lethal munitions are categorized as projectiles launched or otherwise deployed for the purpose of overcoming resistance, effecting arrest or addressing the threat of serious injury to an officer or suspect with less risk of causing death than the use of a fIrearm.
a. Less-lethal munitions may be deployed on aggressive and/or combative suspects in a crowd control situation, on suspects who are a potential physical threat to themselves or others, or suspects displaying "aggressive" and/or "combative" actions.
b. For the purpose of deployment ofless-Iethal munitions, "aggressive" and/or "combative" actions include ongoing destruction of property that presents a threat to the personal safety of officers or others.
c. Less lethal weapons should not be used on a lawfully dispersing crowd or individual.
d. Less lethal weapons should not be used against a person or a crowd that is retreating unless the person or crowd continues to engage in unlawful activity that is aggressive and/or combative.
e. Where feasible, notice should be given to the crowd before less-lethal weapons are deployed in a crowd control or dispersal situation, and where feasible, it should be given in the language(s) spoken by those assembled.
f. If the LAPD resumes the use of stinger rounds, the LAPD will publish a notice that will require that less-lethal stinger weapons can be used only with the approval of a staff officer (i.e., commander or above) and only in a riotous situation where the use of lethal force would not be reasonable.

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 81 of 98
7. Use of Batons:
Batons should not be used against members of the crowd attempting to disperse, persons unable to move because of the press of the crowd, or persons otherwise posing no imminent threat to the officers or other persons. Batons may be displayed or used in a pushing motion when used as a justified and authorized crowd management technique. The baton may be used to push individuals who intentionally delay dispersal subsequent to a lawful order to disperse. When an individual's behavior is threatening or violent in nature, the baton may be used as an impact device in accordance with Department policy.
8. Public Assemblies:
The Incident Commander and supervisors shall make every effort to ensure that the police mission is accomplished as efficiently as possible, with the highest regard for human dignity and liberty of all persons, with consideration of the cultural and linguistic diversity of the neighborhoods and communities of Los Angeles, and with minimum reliance on the use of physical force. Incident Commanders, prior to declaring an assembly unlawful, will follow the procedures as directed in the LAPD Guidelines for Crowd Management and Crowd Control, Volume 5 of the LAPD Emergency Operations Guide. Before any public assembly is declared to be unlawful, the Incident Commander should evaluate the feasibility of isolating and arresting those responsible for the unlawful conduct, and if it is determined to be feasible, shall take such action.
9. Declaration of Unlawful Assembly:
Crowd dispersal techniques shall not be initiated until after a declaration has been announced as required by California Penal Code Section 409. LAPD personnel will follow the procedures as directed in the LAPD Guidelines for Crowd Management and Crowd Control, Volume 5 of the LAPD Emergency Operations Guide. The following factors shall be considered when issuing a dispersal order:
a. Use of an amplified loudspeaker system to issue the order
b. If feasible, send an officer to the far side of the crowd to tape record the order.
c. If circumstances permit (absence of serious violence), the order shall be made repeatedly over a period of time and, if necessary, from a variety oflocations.
d. The order must include an objectively reasonable period of time to disperse and a clear and safe route to disperse based on the facts and circumstances known at the time.
e. An order to disperse shall be given in a manner reasonably calculated to be heard by the entire crowd under the circumstances. When it is known that members of the crowd do not understand English, an effort should be made,

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 82 of 98
when feasible, to give the order to disperse in both English and the other language(s).
f. The order to disperse shall include a warning that police action may include the use of less lethal munitions, which could cause significant risk of serious injury to those who remain.
10. Crowd Management Training - Shows of Force
In its crowd management training, the LAPD shall include a subject on the impact of shows of force on crowd behavior.
11. LAPD's Policy Regarding Crowd Control:
LAPD's policy regarding crowd control can be found in the Emergency Operations Guide, Volume 5, Chapter 7. All LAPD directives and orders directly related to crowd control and the relevant portions of this agreement shall be included in the Emergency Operations Guide by July 1, 2009. The plaintiffs shall be given an opportunity to provide input and comment on the revisions prior to final approval by the LAPD.
12. Training on Crowd Control Policies:
The LAPD shall require Metropolitan Division to undergo training annually, and every officer at the level of Sergeant I and above to undergo training at minimum intervals of two years, on the Crowd Control and Use of Force policies to be developed pursuant to Paragraph 11 of this document. The Department's existing training, designed and implemented after May 1, 2007, will be reviewed and modified, as necessary, to conform to the policies developed as part of this agreement. The training may be live or bye-module, or both, at the Department's discretion.
13. Retention of Jurisdiction:
The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this judgment and to issue all orders necessary to do so. The Court's jurisdiction shall continue for a period of four years and may be extended-in whole or in part-for an additional period of two years upon proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the activities complained of are due to the Department's failure to substantially comply with the provisions of this order.
Before bringing a motion to enforce this order, plaintiffs shall give defendants notice of an alleged violation and a reasonable opportunity to remedy it. If necessary to permit defendants adequate time to remedy the alleged failure to comply, the parties will submit a joint request to extend the Court's initial period of jurisdiction.

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 83 of 98
EXHIBITE

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 84 of 98

MIWON AND RELATED CASE CLIENTS -ALPHABETICALLY BY LAST NAME

First Name

Last Name

Attorney

1. Martha

Abea

LEHK

2. Roger

Abea

LEHK

3. Odalyz

Abreo

MALDEF

4. Harout

Agayan

Myers, Robert

5. Felipe

Aguilar

Carrillo, Luis

6. Acela

Aguilar

MALDEF

7. Sal

Aguilar

Segall-Gutierrez

8. Roxana

Aguilar

Sobel/Thornton

9. Brandon

Aguilar(minor) Carrillo, Luis

10. Xiomara

Aiuria

Carrillo, Luis

11. Bernardo Ruiz Alcala

LEHK

12. Maria Dolores Alducin

Carrillo, Luis

13. Mario

Alfaro

Myers, Robert

14. Ruth

Allon

MALDEF

15. Lorena

Alvarado

Mann & Cook

(Oidor)

16. Tomasa

Alvarez

Anderson-BarkerlFord

17. Luis

Alvarez

MALDEF

18. Moises

Alvarez

Mann & Cook

19. Ernesto

Arce

Segall-Gutierrez

20. Sofia

Argureta

Douglas, Carl

21. Annabel

Aviles

Myers, Robert

22. Carmela

Aviles

Myers, Robert

23. Eddie

Ayala

Yates

24. Rosa

Ayala

Yates

25. Valerie

Ayala

Yates

26. Josefina

Azuara

Carrillo, Luis

27. Miguel

Balderas

MALDEF

28. Ruth

Balderas

MALDEF

29. Irene

Banchez

Mann & Cook

30. Vincent Gabriel Barrios

Douglas, Carl

31. Yolanda

Bastida

MALDEF

32. Juan Carlos

Bautista, Jr.

Anderson-BarkerlF ord

33. Juan Carlos

Bautista, Sr.

Anderson-BarkerlF ord

34. Jose

Bello

Rodriguez/Garcia-Zelada

35. Conception

BennLopez

MALDEF

36. Sumiko

Braun

Sobel/Thornton

Signed x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x missing x x

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 85 of 98

MIWON AND RELATED CASE CLIENTS -ALPHABETICALLY BY LAST NAME

First Name

Last Name

Attorney

Signed

37. Kevin

Breslin

Myers, Robert

x

38. Ruth

Butler

Yates

x

39. Victor

Caballero

Carrillo, Luis

(minor)

x

40. Spartacous

Cacao

Myers, Robert

x

41. Maria Antonia Caceres

MALDEF

x

42. Alejandro

Cachu

MALDEF

Fernandez

x

43. Maria

Camargo

MALDEF

x

44. Julia Antonia Campos

GonzalezlHerrera

x

45. Jesus

Carrasco

Rodriguez/Garcia-Ze1ada

x

46. Kaileen

Cassedy

Segall-Gutierrez

missing

47. Juan Carlos

Chopin

Carrillo, Luis

x

48. Jerome

SobellThornton

x

Brandon

Christensen

49. Sarah

Coffey

Mann & Cook

x

50. Berta

Comar

Carrillo, Luis

x

51. Judith

Conway

Yates

x

52. Carlos

Cordoso Flores MALDEF

x

53. Annando

Cordova

SDSHH

tnlssmg

54. Omar

Corletto

SDSHH

x

55. Adolfo

Coronado

Mann & Cook

x

56. Javier

Cortez

Segall-Gutierrez

x

57. Sasha

Costanza-

Sobel/Thornton

x

Chock

58. Edward

Cotton

Segall-Gutierrez (now pro se) x

59. Art

Covarrubias

Carrillo, Luis

x

60. Adolfo

Cruz

Carrillo, Luis

x

61. Gloria

Cruz

Carrillo, Luis

x

62. Maria Elena

Cruz

Mann & Cook

x

63. Karla

Cuellar

Rodriguez/Garcia-Zelada

x

64. Mario

Cuellar

Rodriguez/Garcia-Zelada

x

65. Juan

de la Paz

Carrillo, Luis

x

66. Guadalupe

Delgado

LEHK

x

67. Sean

Duenser

SobellThornton

x

68. Jose Reynaldo Elias

Myers, Robert

x

69. David Gabriel Eng

SobellThornton

x

70. Mary

Eng

SobellThornton

x

71. Patricia

Escalona-

Segall-Gutierrez

x

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 86 of 98

MIWON AND RELATED CASE CLIENTS -ALPHABETICALLY BY LAST NAME

First Name

Last Name

Valdez

Attorney

Signed

72. Mario

Escobar

GonzalezlHerrera

73. Gina

Espinosa

Rodriguez/Garcia-Zelada

74. Donald

Evans

Yates

75. Jason

Felix

Mann & Cook

76. Elfego

Fernandez

Rodriguez/Garcia-Zelada

77. Ana

Flamenco

Mann & Cook

78. Jesus Sanchez Flores

Mann & Cook

79. Maria de Jesus Flores

Mann & Cook

80. Jorge

Flores

SDSHH

81. Juan

Flores-Medina Segall-Gutierrez

missing x x x x x x x mlssmg deceased

82. Roberto 83. Guillermo 84. Josefina 85. Antonia 86. Luis 87. Elizabeth 88. Frank

Fofrich Fuentes Funes Galeno Galvez Galvez Garcia

Segall-Gutierrez (now pro se) x

LEHK

x

Carrillo, Luis

x

Rodriguez/Garcia-Zelada

x

Anderson-BarkerlF ord

x

Yates

x

Carrillo, Luis

x

89. Martha

Garcia

MALDEF

x

90. Regina

Garcia

SDSHH

x

91. Jorge

Garcia Luna

Mann & Cook

x

92. Joseph

Gell

Anderson-BarkerlFord

x

93. Fernando

Genchi-Perez MALDEF

x

94. Jose Humberto

GonzalezlHerrera

x

Perez

Godinez

95. Gerardo

Gomez

Mann & Cook

x

96. Hector

Gomez

SDSHH

x

97. Judith

Gomez

Sobel/Thornton

x

98. Maria

Gonzales

Anderson-Barker/F ord

(Reveles)

x

99. Maria

Gonzalez

Anderson-BarkerlF ord

x

100. Apolonio

Gonzalez

Carrillo, Luis

x

101. Sofia

Gonzalez

Carrillo, Luis

x

102. Maria

Mann & Cook

x

Guadelupe

Gonzalez

103. Margarita

Gonzalez

Yates

x

104. Qria

Green

Carrillo, Luis

x

105. Bardomiano

Grijalva

SDSHH

x

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 87 of 98

MIWON AND RELATED CASE CLIENTS -ALPHABETICALLY BY LAST NAME

First Name Garcia

Last Name

Attorney

Signed

106. Maria 107. Juan 108. Byron 109. Noel 110. Miguel 111. Edgar 112. Wayne

Guardado Guerra Guidel Guzman Guzman Guzman Henderson

SDSHH

x

Carrillo, Luis

x

Krass, Lou

x

LEHK

x

Segall-Gutierrez (now pro se) x

Yates

x

Segall-Gutierrez

x

113. Maria Antonia Hernandez

Anderson-BarkerlF ord

x

114. Ema

Hernandez

Yates

x

115. Maria Isabel Hernandez

Mann & Cook

x

Jordan

116. Rose

Herrera

Carrillo, Luis

x

117. Deonisio

Herrera

MALDEF

x

Herrera

Jimenez

118. Sacramento

Hinojosa

Carrillo, Luis

x

119. Gabriel

Huerta

Carrillo, Luis

x

120. Howard

Huerta

Mann & Cook

x

121. Hilda

Huezo

Anderson-BarkerlF ord

x

122. Hilda Franco Huezo

123. Jose

Huezo

124. Luis

Huezo

125. Luz Veronica Hurtado

126. Edgar

Ibarria

127. Julio

Jara

128. Hector

Jimenez

129. Ryan

Johnson

130. Martha

Juarez

131. Abel

Juarez

132.

K.M.

133. Hamid

Khan

134. Britney

Lablanc

135. Braulio

Lezama

136. Jose 137. Antonio 138. Mario
139. Valerie 140. Modesto

Lona Lopez Lopez Lopez Lopez

Anderson-BarkerlFord Anderson-BarkerlFord Anderson-BarkerlF ord MALDEF LEHK Carrillo, Luis Carrillo, Luis Myers, Robert Carrillo, Luis LEHK Segall-Gutierrez SDSHH Yates Carrillo, Luis
Carrillo, Luis Carrillo, Luis GonzalezlHerrera MALDEF Mann & Cook

x x x x x missing x x x x x x x x (Rosa Herrera) x unsigned x x x

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 88 of 98

MIWON AND RELATED CASE CLIENTS -ALPHABETICALLY BY LAST NAME

First Name

Last Name

Attorney

141. Jorge

Lopez

Myers, Robert

142. Enriqueta

Lopez

Pintar, Susan

143. Patricia Dimas Lopez

Pintar, Susan

144. Megan

Maldanado

Segall-Gutierrez

145. Jaime

Maldonado

Mann & Cook

146. Edwin

Marin

Segall-Gutierrez

147. Ruben

Marquez

MALDEF

148. Brianna P.

Marquez

Yates

149. ElenaM.

Marquez

Yates

150. Lorena

Marquez

Yates

151. Vincent

Marquez

Yates

152. Jazmin

Marroquin

Carrillo, Luis

153. Maria Luisa

Martinez

MALDEF

154. Catalina

Martinez

Rodriguez/Garcia-Zelada

155. Jesus Manuel Martinez-

GonzalezllIerrera

Santiago

156. Taroo

Mason

SobellThornton

157. Francisco

Medel

Segall-Gutierrez

158. Berkis

Medina

Douglas, Carl

159. Byron Ivan

Medina

Douglas, Carl

160. Martha

Mejia

LEHK

161. Kevin

Melendez

Carrillo, Luis

(minor)

(Marroquin)

162. Stephanie

Melendez

Carrillo, Luis

(minor)

(Marroquinl

163. Martin

Mena

Segall-Gutierrez

164. Yolanda

Mendoza

Sobel/Thornton

165. Erol

M~ryl

Mann & Cook

166. Andres

Meza

Carrillo, Luis

167. Maria

Meza

MALDEF

168. Juan

Miranda

Douglas, Carl

Vasquez

169. Dinora

Molina

Carrillo, Luis

170. Alejandro

Douglas, Carl

Enriquez

Molina

171. Gloria

Molina

GonzalezllIerrera

172. Jose Abraham Molina

GonzalezllIerrera

Signed x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x
x
x x x x x x
x x
x x

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 89 of 98

MIWON AND RELATED CASE CLIENTS -ALPHABETICALLY BY LAST NAME

First Name

Last Name

Attorney

Signed

173. Jose Manuel

Molina

GonzalezlHerrera

x

174. Abel

Montesdeoca MALDEF

x

175. Judith

Mora

MALDEF

x

176. Enrique

LEHK

x

"Ricky"

Morales

177. Joshua

Murcia

MALDEF

x

178. Nicholas

Napolitano

Sobelffhomton

x

179. Marta

Naranio

SDSHH

x

180. Dagoberto

Natareno

Mann & Cook

x

181. Esther

Navarrete-Plata GonzalezlHerrera

x

182. Jose

Navarro

MALDEF

x

183. Andrew

Newton

Ellison, Ellen

x

184. Mario

Noriega

Carrillo, Luis

x

185. Doris

Ochoa

Mann & Cook

x

186. Angel

Mann & Cook

x

Geovanni

Oidor

187. Elizabeth

Oidor

Mann & Cook

x

188. Geovanni

Oidor

Mann & Cook

x

189. Jose

Oidor

Mann & Cook

x

190. Lorena

Oidor

Mann & Cook

x

191. Irma

Oqueli

Carrillo, Luis

x

192. Victor Manuel Ordaz

Yates

x

193. Francisco

GonzalezlHerrera

x

"Frank"

Ordonez

194. Juan

Orozco

LEHK

x

195. Saira

Orozco Escobar GonzalezlHerrera

x

196. Leopoldo

Ortiz

LEHK

x

197.

P.R.

Segall-Gutierrez (now pro se) x

198. Jesus

Pacheco Lua MALDEF

x

199. Cesar Antonio Palma

Rodriguez/Garcia-Zelada

x

200. Brian

Panjoj

MALDEF

x

201. Joel

Paredes

Carrillo, Luis

x

202. Crystal

Paredes (minor) Carrillo, Luis

x

203. Sanjukta

Paul

Sobelffhomton

x

204. Romualdo

Pedro

GonzalezlHerrera

x

205. Lynda

Pedro

MALDEF

x

206. Rokee

Pedro

MALDEF

x

207. Sinnai

Pedro

MALDEF

x

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 90 of 98

MIWON AND RELATED CASE CLIENTS -ALPHABETICALLY BY LAST NAME

First Name

Last Name

Attorney

Signed

208. Carlos

Perez

Mann & Cook

x

209. Alfonso

Gonzalez/Herrera

x

Arnoldo

Pernillo

210. Luis Lombera Ponce

Hernandez, Leo

x

211. Juan

Portillo

Myers, Robert

x

212. Jazmin

Posada (minor) Carrillo, Luis

x

213. Leticia

Ramires

MALDEF

x

214. Marla

Ramirez

GonzalezlHerrera

lllissmg

215. Isabel "Kery" Ramirez

SobellThornton

x

216. Geneva

Reese

Segall-Gutierrez (now pro se) x

217. Summer

Reese

Segall-Gutierrez (now pro se) x

218. Marco

Reveles

Anderson-BarkerlFord

x

219. Roberto

Reveles, Jr.

Anderson-BarkerlFord

x

220. Roberto

Reveles, Sr.

Anderson-BarkerlFord

x

221. Luis Eduardo Rey

MALDEF

x

222. Erefelina

Douglas, Carl

x

Bonilla

Reyes

223. Carlos Martinez Reyes

LEHK

x

224. Wilson

Reyes

Mann & Cook

x

225. Pedro

Reyes

Segall-Gutierrez (now pro se) x

226. Leticia

Rivas

Myers, Robert

x

227. Santos

Rivas

Myers, Robert

x

228. Neil

Rivas

SobellThornton

x

229. Juan

Rivera

Rodriguez/Garcia-Zelada

x

230. Flor

Rodriguez

Anderson-BarkerlFord

x

231. Elena

Douglas, Carl

x

Guadalupe

Rodriguez

232. Santos Alicia

GonzalezlHerrera

Public

guardian

Rodriguez

signing

233. Jesus

Rodriguez

LEHK

x

234. Rosa Elena

Rodriguez

MALDEF

x

235. Felipe Venegas Rodriguez

SDSHH

x

236.

Rodriguez

MALDEF

x

Bryan

Aguilar

237. Jaime A.

Rojas

Mann & Cook

x

238. Camilo

Romero

Mann & Cook

x

239. Frank

Romero

Sobel/Thornton

x

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 91 of 98

MIWON AND RELATED CASE CLIENTS -ALPHABETICALLY BY LAST NAME

First Name

Last Name

Attorney

Signed

240. Mary

Romo

Myers, Robert

x

241. Brandon

Roque Aguilar MALDEF

x

242. Stephanie

Roque Aguilar MALDEF

x

243. Jeremy

Rothe-Kushel SDSHH

x

244. Ines

Rueda

MALDEF

x

245. Fidel

Ruiz

MALDEF

x

246. Cruz

Saenz

Yates

x

247. Amparo

Salinas

MALDEF

x

248. Marlen

MALDEF

x

Biridiana

Sanchez

249. Irene

Sanchez

Segall-Gutierrez

x

250. Paulino

Sanchez

MALDEF

x

Mariano

Ramirez

251. Rosa Isela

Sanchez

MALDEF

x

Sanchez

252. Jonas

Sandoval

MALDEF

x

253. Salvador

Santa Maria

MALDEF

x

254. George

Santiago

MALDEF

x

255. Aloha

Santiago

Yates

x

256. Eyland

Santiago

Yates

x

257. Mary

Santiago

Yates

x

258. Okalani

Santiago

Yates

x

259. Luis

Santos

Myers, Robert

x

260. Alejandro

Saucedo

Anderson-BarkerlFord

x

261. Brian

Smith

SDSHH

x

262. Jennifer

Snow

Sobel/Thornton

x

263. Elizabeth

Sunwoo

SDSHH

x

264. Maria Ester

Tejada

Rodriguez/Garcia-Zelada

x

265. Oscar

Tipaz

Mann & Cook

x

266. Jose

Torres

MALDEF

x

267. Reyna Isabel Torres

MALDEF

x

268. Tania

Torres

Segall-Gutierrez (now pro se) x

269. Leticia

Trejo

LEHK

x

270. Isis

Vallejo

MALDEF

x

271. Araceli

Vargas

MALDEF

x

272. Karla

Vargas

MALDEF

x

273. Ivan

Vargas

Yates

x

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 92 of 98

MIWON AND RELATED CASE CLIENTS -ALPHABETICALLY BY LAST NAME

First Name

Last Name

Attorney

274. Miguel

Vargas-

Mann & Cook

Solorzano

275. Jose Luis

Vasquez

Carrillo, Luis

276. Rosa

Vasquez

Carrillo, Luis

277. Magdeleno

Vasquez

Segall-Gutierrez

278. Arturo

Velasquez

Mann & Cook

279. Veronica

Velez

SobeVThornton

280. Herbert

Ventura

Carrillo, Luis

281. Cindy

Viallardes

Douglas, Carl

282. Nancy

Viallardes

Douglas, Carl

283. Theresa

Viallardes

Douglas, Carl

284. Leonor

Vidal

Segall-Gutierrez

285. Jorge

Villacorta

GonzalezlHerrera

286. Miguel

Villanueva

Anderson-BarkerlFord

287. Reynaldo

Villarica

SobeVThornton

288. Bert

Voorhees

SobeVThornton

289. Mary

Waldegiorgis Ellison, Ellen

290. Julia

Wallace

Mann & Cook

291. Everett

Walls

SDSHH

292. Henry

Walton

Anderson-BarkerlFord

293. Sharee

Warner

Yates

294. Carlos

Wong

Carrillo, Luis

295. Raymund

Young

Yates

296. Nellely

Zarate

Mann & Cook

297. Ricardo

Zelada

Rodriguez/Garcia-Zelada

Signed
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 93 of 98
EXHIBITF

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 94 of 98

Exhibit F: MIWON MINORS
Minors under 16 receiving $6,000 or less

Name G.M. LV. O.A. Brandon R-A. BryanR-A. S.R-A. L. p. R. p. S.P. A.G.O. E.O. L.a. N.Z.

Category 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2

Birth year 1991 1994 1997 1994 2005 1992 1997 2001 1994 2006 1995 2001 1992

Attorney Gonzalez-Herrera MALDEF MALDEF MALDEF MALDEF MALDEF MALDEF MALDEF MALDEF Mann & Cook Mann & Cook Mann & Cook Mann & Cook

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 95 of 98
EXHIBITG

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 96 of 98

EXHIBIT G: Minors under 16 receiving more than $6,000

I Name
J.H.
J. C. B.
B.P. M.B. V.L. K. V. R. B. O.T. J. F.

I I I I Category Birth year

Attorney

3

1995

Anderson-

BarkerlFord

4

2002

Anderson-

BarkerlFord

3

2003

MALDEF

3

1995

MALDEF

3

2000

MALDEF

4

1996

MALDEF

4

1993

MALDEF

3

1998

Mann & Cook

3

2002

Mann & Cook

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 97 of 98
EXHIBITH

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 86 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 98 of 98

Exhibit H. Minors receiving above $6000 who will be at least 16 in 2009

I Name
M.A.
H.H.
G.O.

I I I Category Birth year

Attorney

I

3

1993

Mann & Cook

3

1991

Anderson-Barker

4

1992

Mann & Cook

 
 Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 1 of 24

1 BARRETT S. LITT, SBN 45527 E: blitt@littlaw.com
2 LITT, ESTUAR, HARRISON & KITSON, LLP
3 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1880
Los Angeles, California 90017 4 T: (213) 386-3114; F: (213) 380-4585

5 CAROL A. SOBEL, SBN 84483

6

E: carolsobel@aol.com LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL

7

429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550 Santa Monica, California 90401

8 T: (310) 393-3055; F: (310) 393-3605

9

ROBERT MANN, SBN 48293 DONALD W. COOK, SBN 116666

10 E: doncook@earthlink.net 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2900

11 Los Angeles, California 90010

T: (213) 252-9444; F: (213) 252-0091

12

ROBERT M. MYERS, SBN 66957

13 E: rmmyers@ix.netcom.com

NEWMAN.AARONSON.VANAMAN

14 14001 Ventura Boulevard

Sherman Oaks, California 91423 15 T: (818) 990-7722; F: (818) 501-1306

16

PAUL L. HOFFMAN, SBN 71244 BENJAMIN SCHONBRUN, SBN 118323 JAMES DeSIMONE, SBN 119668 E: hoffpaul@aol.com SCHONBRUN, DE SIMONE, et al. 723 Ocean Front Walk Venice, California 90291 T: (310) 396-0731; F: (310) 399-7040
CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER SBN 175764 E: cablaw@hotmail.com 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, California 90010 T: (213) 381-3246; F: (213) 252-0091

17

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT 21 WORKERS ORGANIZING

Case No.: CV 07-3072 AHM (FMMx) [Hon. A. Howard Matz]

22 NETWORK, et al.,

FINAL ORDER OF APPROVAL OF

23

Plaintiffs,

24 vs.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,

25

Defendants.

26

CLASS SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENT

DATE:

June 22, 2009

TIME:

10:00 A.M.

COURTROOM: 14

27

28

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 2 of 24

1

ADDITIONAL CLASS COUNSEL

2 NANCY RAMIREZ, SBN 152629

3

GLADYS LIMON, SBN 228773 KRISTINA M. CAMPBELL, SBN

4 248738 E: kcampbell@maldef.org

5 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL

DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL

6 FUND 634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor

7 Los Angeles, California 90014

T: (213) 629-2512; F: (213) 629-0266 8

9

CHRIS FORD, SBN 239376 LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS FORD

10

E: cfordlaw@earthlink.net 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2900

11

Los Angeles, California 90010 T: (213) 487-8000; F: (213) 487-8001

12 ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, SBN 51443
13 E: antoniohr@arodriguezlaw.com
LAW OFFICE OF ANTONIO H. 14 RODRIGUEZ
5429 East Beverly Boulevard 15 Los Angeles, California 90022
16 T: (323) 869-9909; F: (323) 869-9911

17

18

JORGE GONZALEZ, SBN 100799 E: jggorgeous@aol.com A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2485 Huntington Drive, Suite 238 San Marino, California 91108 T: (626) 683-3922; F: (626) 683-3944
OLU ORANGE, SBN 213653 E:o.orange@orangelawoffices.com ORANGE LAW OFFICES 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, California 90010 T: (213) 736-9900; F: (775) 416-9221
ADALILA GARCIA, SBN 216281 E: adalila76@yahoo.com LAW OFFICE OF ADALILA ZELADA-GARCIA 1475 Echo Park Avenue Los Angeles, California 90026 T: (213) 250-5500; F: (213) 250-2846
REBECCA F. THORNTON SBN 231128 E: rebecca@humanrightsesq.com LAW OFFICE OF REBECCA F. THORNTON 429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550 Santa Monica, California 90401 T: (310) 393-3055; F: (310) 393-3605

19

LUZ E. HERRERA

E: attorney@luzherrera.com

20

LAW OFFICE OF LUZ E. HERRERA

1216 East Compton Boulevard

21

Compton, California 90221

22

T: (310) 635-8181; F: (310) 638-4644

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 3 of 24

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 I. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1
3 II. DEFINITIONS................................................................................................1 4
III. OBJECTIONS ................................................................................................5 5 6 IV. OPT OUTS ......................................................................................................5
7 V. CLAIMS FILED. ............................................................................................6

8 VI. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED BECAUSE FAIR,

9

ADEQUATE, AND REASONABLE. ...........................................................6

10 VII. DISTINCTION BETWEEN REPRESENTED INDIVIDUALS AND UNREPRESENTED CLASS MEMBERS ...................................................7
11 12 VIII. CLASS NOTICE………………………………………………………….. 8 13 IX. CLASS-WIDE PROSPECTIVE RELIEF ..................................................9

14 X. DAMAGES SETTLEMENT………………………….. ………………... 9

15 XI. HANDLING OF MINORS’ CLAIMS FOR REPRESENTED INDIVIDUALS .............................................................................................12
16

17

XII. HANDLING OF ABSENT REPRESENTED INDIVIDUALS’ CLAIMS ........................................................................................................................ 13

18 XIII.CLASS FUND ATTORNEYS’ FEES .........................................................16
19

20 XIV.CLASS ADMINISTRATOR ........................................................................16

21 XV. GENERAL PROVISIONS ..........................................................................17

22 XVI. FINAL RESOLUTION................................................................................18

23

24

25

26

27

28

i

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 4 of 24

1 I. INTRODUCTION

2

This lawsuit having come before this Court for a hearing, pursuant to this

3 Court's Preliminary Approval Order dated March 14, 2009 (the "Preliminary

4 Approval Order”) to consider and determine the matters set forth in the

5 Preliminary Approval Order; and due notice of said hearing having been published

6 and given; and all persons that made timely objections to the proposed settlement

7 set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and described in the Class Notice, having

8 been given an opportunity to present such objections to the Court; and the Court

9 having considered the matter, including all papers filed in connection therewith,

10 and the oral presentations of counsel at said hearing; and good cause appearing,

11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

12 II. DEFINITIONS

13

1. Each term and phrase used in this Final Order of Approval of Class

Settlement and Consent Judgment (the “Consent Judgment”) shall have the same 14

definition and meaning as in the Settlement Agreement, as follows. 15
2. “Administrator” means the claims administrator, Gilardi & Co., LLC, 16
as agreed upon by the parties and appointed by the Court to administer the claims 17
process, to pay class claims, and to handle any other tasks appropriate to

18 completing the claims process.

19 3. A “Damages Class Member” means any class member meeting the

20 following definition (as set forth in the Class Certification Order of January 8,

21 2008): “Those persons who were present on May 1, 2007 in the geographic area

22 bounded by 6th Street (on the north), Alvarado Street (on the east), 7th Street (on

23 the south), and Park View Street (on the west), or the immediately adjacent areas,

24 including from 6th Street west to Lafayette Park, at any point between the hours of

25 5:00 and 7:00 p.m., who did not engage in any conduct justifying Defendants'

26 dispersal order or the use of force, and who were subjected to the LAPD's use of

27 force, dispersal order or other unlawful police activity arising from the police

28 response to the immigration march and rally.”

1

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 5 of 24

1

4. A “Structural Relief Class Member” means any class member meeting

2 the following definition (as set forth in the Class Certification Order of January 8,

3 2008):

4

“Those who in the past have engaged in or who in the future may

5

engage in peaceful demonstrations or protest in the City of Los Angeles and

6

who, at the time they engage in such peaceful demonstrations or protest, were

7

or are:

8

“(a) The following organizations: Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers

9

Organizing Network, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los

10

Angeles, Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance, Institute for Popular

11

Education of Southern California, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers

12

Center (“Plaintiff Associations”);

13

“(b) Officers, representatives, or members of Plaintiff Associations;

“(c) Persons who attend or participate in Plaintiff Associations' events, 14

including but not limited to their rallies; 15
“(d) Organizations that advocate, organize, or both advocate and 16
organize on behalf of the rights of individuals and associations to engage in 17
speech, assembly, and expression within the scope of the First Amendment of

18 the United States Constitution.

19 “(e) Persons who participate in public assemblies organized by the

20

organizations described in paragraph (d).”

21

5. A “Represented Individual” is an individual class member who has

22 been represented individually and as a class member in either the above-captioned

23 MIWON case, or in any of the following Related Cases:

24 RELATED CASES

NUMBER

PLAINTFF’S ATTORNEY

25 Santiago v. City of Los Angeles 2:07 CV-02966 Gregory Yates

26

Brandon Aguilar v. City of Los 2:07 CV-04131 Luis Carrillo Angeles

27 Newton v. City of Los Angeles 2:07 CV-04455 Ellen Ellison

28 Lopez v. City of Los Angeles

2:07 CV-05555 Susan Pintar

2

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 6 of 24

1 RELATED CASES
2 Ajuria v. City of Los Angeles Gudiel v. City of Los Angeles
3 Reyes v. City of Los Angeles
4 Sal Aguilar v. City of Los Angeles
5 Ponce v. City of Los Angeles

NUMBER

PLAINTFF’S ATTORNEY

2:07 CV-08433 Luis Carrillo

2:08 CV-01370 Louis Krass

2:08 CV-02225 Carl Douglas

2:08 CV-02301 Jaime Segall-Gutierrez

2:08 CV-02710 Leo Hernandez

6

7

The names of, and counsel for, the Represented Individuals are set forth in

8 Exhibit E to the Preliminary Approval Order.

9

The term “Represented Individuals” in the plural refers collectively to all the

10 Represented Individuals in the MIWON and above listed cases.

11

6. An “Unrepresented Class Member” is a class member not currently

12 represented by any of the counsel in MIWON or the Related Cases, i.e., a class

member who is not a “Represented Individual” as defined in Paragraph 5. 13
7. “Class Counsel” means Barrett S. Litt, Litt, Estuar, Harrison & 14
Kitson, 1055 Wilshire Blvd., #1880, Los Angeles CA. 90017; Carol A. Sobel, 429 15
Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550, Santa Monica, California 90401; and Paul L. 16
Hoffman, 723 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California 90291. 17
8. “Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit” refers to claims for relief and

18 allegations in the MIWON Complaint dated May 9, 2007, as well as claims for

19 relief and allegations in the operative complaints filed in the Related Cases, all of

20 which are based upon actions of the LAPD or its personnel for allegedly violating

21 First or Fourth Amendment rights, as well as other federal and state-law rights, in

22 or surrounding MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007.

23

9. “Released Persons” means the Defendants and their affiliates,

24 subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, and/or assigns, together with past, present

25 and future officials, employees, representatives, attorneys, and/or agents.

26

10. “LAPD” refers to the Los Angeles Police Department.

27

11. “Class Notice” means the notice in a form substantially similar to that

28 attached to the Preliminary Approval Order as Exhibit B.

3

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 7 of 24

1

12. “Effective Date” means the date upon which this Consent Judgment

2 becomes final. Unless the Court entertains the one objection to the settlement that

3 was filed, see Paragraph 21, infra, then the Consent Judgment becomes final at the

4 time of its entry. If the Court entertains and overrules the objection, then the

5 Consent Judgment will be deemed final only upon expiration of the time for the

6 objector to appeal or, if a Notice of Appeal is filed, upon exhaustion of all the

7 objector’s appeals and petitions for writs of certiorari.

8

13. An “Opt-Out” is any Unrepresented Class Member who files with the

9 Administrator a timely request for exclusion from the Settlement Agreement.

10

14. “Proof of Claim Form” means the Proof of Claim and Release Form

11 that Unrepresented Class Members must use to make a claim for payment from the

12 Post Administration Class Fund, as that term is defined in Paragraph 16, infra. A

copy of the proposed Proof of Claim Form is attached to the Preliminary Approval 13

Order as the last page of Exhibit B thereto. 14
15. The “Class Fund” is the monetary fund set aside for Unrepresented 15
Class Members who filed timely class claims. The Class Fund amounts to 16
$250,000 inclusive of all costs of class administration. 17
16. The “Post Administration Class Fund” is the Class Fund less costs of

18 class administration.

19

17. The “Represented Individuals’ Fund” encompasses all funds owed to

20 the Represented Individuals under the Settlement Agreement. The Represented

21 Individuals’ Fund amounts to $12,550,000, inclusive of all attorneys’ fees,

22 medical liens and costs. The amount of $12,600,000 referenced in the Settlement

23 Agreement has been reduced by agreement of the parties in light of Plaintiff

24 Antonio Lopez’ decision to withdraw from the settlement.

25

18. The “Class Attorneys’ Fees” are the attorneys’ fees the MIWON

26 Plaintiffs have moved the Court to award Class Counsel and the MIWON counsel

27 team in the total amount $3,753,000, inclusive of all MIWON-related litigation

28 costs, medical liens and medical costs. Class Attorneys’ Fees encompass some

4

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 8 of 24

1 additional sums allocated to non-MIWON counsel, sums agreed to between

2 MIWON counsel and non-MIWON counsel and in turn individually addressed

3 between non-MIWON counsel and their clients. These fees are all based on both a

4 statutory and class fund fee award available on both the federal and state claims

5 brought in this case. Class Attorneys’ Fees do not in any way increase the total

6 settlement amount owed by the City, or impose any payment obligation on any

7 other Defendant or Released Person.

8

19. The “Claim Cut-Off Date” of May 27, 2009, is the date by which any

9 Unrepresented Class Member who wishes to receive payment from the Post

10 Administration Class Fund was required to file his/her Proof of Claim Form.

11

20. The “Bar Date,” which is April 27, 2009, is the date by which any

12 class member was required to file objections, if any, to the Settlement Agreement,

or any class member was required to request exclusion from the settlement. A 13

Represented Individual was required to request exclusion from the settlement by 14
either failing to provide his/her counsel with a signed authorization or by 15
providing written notice to the Court and parties of his/her intent to exclude 16
himself or herself, in either case no later than the Bar Date. 17
III. OBJECTIONS
18 21. There has been one objection to the settlement, and no separate

19 objection to the Motion for an award of attorneys’ fees. The one filed objection is

20 attached as Exhibit 1 hereto. It provides no information whatsoever as to the

21 ground for the objection; instead, it merely objects to the settlement, stating,

22 “Objection to settlement in MIWON” etc., and nothing more. Accordingly, the

23 Court concludes that the objection must be overruled as there is no substance

24 provided permitting the Court to assess its merits. The Court finds the settlement,

25 based on all available evidence, to be fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best

26 interests of the class.

27 IV. OPT OUTS

28

22. There have been no opt-out notices filed by Unrepresented Class

5

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 9 of 24

1 Members. Among the Represented Individuals, one – Antonio Lopez, represented

2 by Luis Carrillo – has withdrawn from the settlement. The parties negotiated how

3 that affects the settlement and agreed that Mr. Lopez would not be part of the

4 settlement and would be treated as an Opt-Out. In consideration of the fact that the

5 City will now have to litigate with Mr. Lopez, the Represented Individuals’ Fund

6 originally set at $12,600,000 was reduced by $50,000. Except for Mr. Lopez, all

7 class members, including all Represented Individuals, are bound by the terms of

8 this Consent Judgment and the settlement in this case.

9 V. CLAIMS FILED.

10

23. The claims filing postmark deadline for the Class Fund was on May

11 27, 2009. As of June 11, 2009, the Administrator has received 1324 timely Proof

12 of Claim Forms and 46 late Proof of Claim Forms. The processing of Proof of
Claims Forms has not been completed. 13
24. Proof of Claim Forms received or postmarked by May 27, 2009, shall 14
be paid. The Court will not allow late claims to be considered and paid. 15
VI. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED BECAUSE FAIR, 16
ADEQUATE, AND REASONABLE. 17
25. The settlement of this lawsuit was not the product of collusion 18
between Plaintiffs and Defendants or their respective counsel, but rather was the 19 result of bona fide and arm’s-length negotiation conducted in good faith by the
20 parties and their counsel, with the assistance of an independent mediator, who is a

21 sitting United States Magistrate Judge.

22

26. The Settlement Agreement and the settlement set forth therein are

23 hereby approved and found to be fair, adequate, reasonable, in the best interest of

24 the Class as a whole, and in satisfaction of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

25 Procedure and due process requirements. The Court previously certified an

26 injunctive relief class and damages class after a contested motion, and re-affirms

27 that certification.

28

6

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 10 of 24

1 VII. DISTINCTION BETWEEN REPRESENTED INDIVIDUALS AND

2

UNREPRESENTED CLASS MEMBERS

3

27. The Court is aware that the parties have settled this case as a hybrid

4 settlement. The MIWON counsel represented both the certified class and 192

5 individual class members who alleged they had been injured as a result of the

6 actions of the LAPD on May 1, 2007. In addition, the cases listed in Paragraph 5,

7 supra, represent a combined additional 105 individuals who also alleged they had

8 been injured as a result of the actions of the LAPD on May 1, 2007. These are

9 collectively the “Represented Individuals” as defined above. Each of the

10 Represented Individuals is to receive the same amount of compensation as every

11 other Represented Individual with similar injuries, but no additional damages have

12 been awarded based on an individual’s role as a class representative. The Court is

13 also aware that the Represented Individuals are receiving significantly higher

amounts than are the Unrepresented Class Members. The Court finds this 14

distinction appropriate under the unique circumstances of this case for the 15
following reasons: 16
A. In the mediation process, the plaintiffs presented evidence that the 17
Represented Individuals were in fact present at the events in question

18 through individualized analysis of witness statement, photographs and

19 the like, which is not the case for the Unrepresented Class Members.

20

B. In the mediation process, the plaintiffs presented evidence of the

21

particular circumstances of each Represented Individual, and all parties

22

were able to assess damages for those individuals, which is not the case

23

for the Unrepresented Class Members.

24

C. Plaintiffs presented evidence in the mediation process indicating that

25

most of the Represented Individuals suffered significant physical and

26

psychological injuries.

27

D. It is the assessment of the parties, and the Court concurs, that most of

28

those who suffered serious injuries as a result of the Matters Alleged in

7

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 11 of 24

1

the Lawsuit were included among the Represented Individuals, especially

2

in light of the widespread publicity about the events and the ensuing

3

lawsuits.

4

E. The City’s offer to settle the case in the amount it did was driven almost

5

exclusively by its assessment of the Represented Individuals’ claims. It

6

was Class Counsel who insisted that the Class Fund be established for

7

those who qualify as Damages Class Members and were not Represented

8

Individuals.

9

F. The Class Fund established in this settlement is designed to compensate

10

Damages Class Members who did not receive serious injuries. If there are

11

a few who did, they had the right to opt out of the settlement. The fact

12

that there were no Opt-Outs and only one general objection (by an

13

individual who provided no information establishing that she qualified as

a class member) confirms that the Represented Individuals included all, 14

or virtually all, those with the more serious generally. 15
VIII. CLASS NOTICE 16
28. As required by this Court in its Preliminary Approval Order: (a) Class 17
Notices were distributed by five Plaintiff Associations to inform as many

18 individuals as was practicable of the settlement and the claims process; and (b)

19 Class Notice was published in a summary fashion as set forth in the Settlement

20 Agreement and in the Preliminary Approval Order. See Declaration of the Claims

21 Administrator, and Supporting Declarations Re Outreach. The evidence provided

22 to the Court of the outreach efforts reflects an exceptionally successful outreach,

23 including email, hand-outs, and other distribution efforts by the organizations that

24 comprise MIWON. See Declaration of Carol Sobel summarizing outreach effort.

25 In light of the fact that no individual names and addresses of attendees of the May

26 1, 2007, activities exist, this effort was both impressive and successful. Between

27 the Represented Individuals and the class members filing timely claims,

28 approximately 25% of those present at the protest have come forward. This is an

8

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 12 of 24

1 excellent result given returns in comparable cases. See Declaration of Barrett S.

2 Litt regarding claims returns in other cases.

3

29. The notice given to the Unrepresented Class Members is hereby

4 determined to be fully in compliance with the notice requirements of Rule 23 of

5 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process and is found to be the best

6 notice practicable under the circumstances and to constitute due and sufficient

7 notice to all parties entitled thereto.

8

30. Due and adequate notice of the proceedings having been given, and a

9 full opportunity having been offered to class members to participate in this

10 hearing, it is hereby determined that all class members, except Antonio Lopez (a

11 Represented Individual, who is the sole Opt-Out), are bound by this Consent

12 Judgment.
13 IX. CLASS-WIDE PROSPECTIVE RELIEF 31. The Court has entered a separate Structural Relief Order addressing
14 class-wide prospective relief and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of that
15 order for a period of no less than four (4) years. A copy of this Structural Relief
16 order is attached as Exhibit 2 to this Consent Judgment and incorporated as though
17 fully set forth herein.
18 X. DAMAGES SETTLEMENT
19 32. $12,550,000 of the total settlement of $12,800,000 shall go to cover
20 the claims of the Represented Individuals, including statutory attorneys’ fees, costs
21 and any outstanding liens. Counsel for the MIWON Represented Individuals and

22 counsel for the other Represented Individuals have agreed among themselves as to

23 how much money will be provided to each of the Represented Individuals.

24 Counsel for the MIWON Represented Individuals and counsel for the other

25 Represented Individuals have also agreed among themselves how any Class

26 Attorney’s Fees will be distributed among counsel. In addition, in the case of non-

27 MIWON Represented Individuals, they may have agreements with their counsel

28 regarding percentage division of their settlements. The amount of attorneys’ fees

9

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 13 of 24

1 and costs approved by the Court is addressed in Paragraph 49 below.

2

33. The Settlement Agreement provides for a total of $12,600,000 (now

3 reduced to $12,550,000 as a result of Mr. Lopez’s withdrawal), whether via direct

4 payment or structured settlement, to be paid to the 297 (now 296 as a result of Mr.

5 Lopez’s withdrawal) Represented Individuals and a residual Class Fund of

6 $250,000 (inclusive of costs of class administration). The Plaintiffs’ counsel who

7 are signatories to the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit A to the Preliminary

8 Approval Order) have warranted 1) that they have authority from each

9 Represented Individual whom they represent individually to settle the cases on the

10 terms set forth herein, 2) that each of their clients is aware of and has authorized

11 the amount each will receive from the settlement, and 3) that each of their clients

12 are aware of and has approved the attorneys’ fee arrangement between counsel and

13 client.

34. There will be one structured settlement for one of the MIWON clients, 14

Luis Galvez, the particulars of which are currently being worked out. For that 15
structured settlement to occur, the final structured settlement papers must be 16
signed by all relevant parties before the payment of the settlement funds to the 17
various attorney client trust accounts, as set forth in Paragraph 35. In the event the

18 Galvez structured settlement occurs, the cost of that structure shall be deducted

19 from the amount of funds to be paid to the Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson Client

20 Trust Account as set forth in Paragraph 35.

21

35. Payment of the total $12,800,000 settlement amount shall be the

22 obligation of the City and no other Defendant or person. The City intends to use

23 the proceeds from one or more Judgment Obligation Bonds (hereafter the

24 “Judgment Bond”) to fund this Consent Judgment. The City will deposit the funds

25 required under the Settlement Agreement and Consent Judgment forthwith after it

26 receives the proceeds of the sale of the Judgment Bond, the purpose of such sale

27 being to fund the instant settlement. The parties will use their best efforts to

28 facilitate receipt of such funds within 120 days of the Effective Date. If, after six

10

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 14 of 24

1 months from the Effective Date, the Judgment Bond has not been sold, the City

2 will provide a report to the Court and Class Counsel regarding how it plans to fund

3 the settlement. The failure or inability of the City to sell the Judgment Bond shall

4 not be cause for the City to rescind the Settlement Agreement. The Consent

5 Judgment is a final non-appealable judgment, collectible under the same legal

6 standard as any final judgment in federal court that has not been appealed.

7 Forthwith after the settlement funds are collected from the sale of the judgment

8 bond, or otherwise pursuant to further order of court, all settlement funds shall be

9 deposited into the Litt, Estuar, Harrison & Kitson Client Trust Account, and from

10 there shall be distributed by wire to the trust accounts of the counsel in each of the

11 Related Cases as agreed to among the parties, and from each respective trust

12 account shall be distributed to the clients or counsel, as has been agreed to among

13 the parties and counsel. (The MIWON counsel will determine among themselves

how to distribute the funds to the Represented Individuals they represent.) The 14

amounts to go to the MIWON and non-MIWON client trust accounts (inclusive of 15

their proportionate share of the awarded attorney’s fees) is as follows: 16

A. Gregory Yates: $525,000

17 B. Ellen Ellison: $40,000

18 C. Susan Pintar: $530,000

19 D. Luis Carrillo: $2,040,000 (having been reduced by $50,000 to

20

account for Antonio Lopez’s withdrawal from the settlement)

21

E. Louis Krass1: $50,000

22

F. Carl Douglas: $352,000

23

G. Leo Hernandez: $38,000

24

25

26

27 1 If Mr. Krass, or any other non-MIWON counsel, is properly replaced on the

28

record by new counsel, then the funds shall be paid to the trust account of whoever is the current counsel of record.

11

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 15 of 24

1

H. Jaime Segall-Gutierrez: $241,000. At an earlier stage in the

2

case, Mr. Segall-Gutierrez represented the following

3

individuals: Summer Reese, for herself and as guardian for her

4

minor child Patrick Reese; Geneva Reese; Ed Cotton; Pedro

5

Reyes; Tania Torres; Miguel Guzman; and Nadia Khan. Those

6

individuals are no longer represented by Mr. Segall-Gutierrez,

7

and they will be paid directly from the Litt, Estuar, et al. Client

8

Trust Account their portion of the settlement.

9

I. Litt, Estuar, et al. (for MIWON clients and counsel, and

10

inclusive of the $200,000 Post Administration Class Fund):

11

$8,934,000.

12

36. Each class member not listed in Exhibit E to the Preliminary Approval

13 Order who filed a timely, valid claim form shall be paid his or her proportional

share of the Post Administration Class Fund. If all the claims timely filed were 14

paid, there would be $200,000 divided by 1324 claim forms, or slightly above 15
$150 per claimant. 16
XI. HANDLING OF MINORS’ CLAIMS FOR REPRESENTED 17
INDIVIDUALS

18 37. Included among the Represented Individuals are minors, some of

19 whose settlements are $6000 or less and some of whose settlements exceed $6000.

20 For those minors who receive, exclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs, settlements

21 of $6000 or less, blocked accounts need not be opened, and the money shall be

22 paid to the parents or guardian ad litem of the minor for general use for the

23 minor’s health and well-being in whatever manner the parent or guardian sees fit.

24 For those minors who receive, exclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs, settlements

25 over $6000, blocked interest bearing bank accounts shall be opened for those who

26 will not reach the age of 16 by December 31, 2009. For those minors who will

27 reach the age of 16 by December 31, 2009, and who receive, exclusive of

28 attorneys’ fees and costs, settlements over $6000, their funds shall be maintained

12

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 16 of 24

1 in their individual counsel’s client trust account so that they can be expeditiously 2 paid to the client at the time of his/her 18th birthday. The names and categories of

3 minors addressed by this and the next two paragraphs are listed in Exhibit 3 to this

4 Consent Judgment. A record of each blocked account – which includes the

5 minor’s name, date of birth, parent’s or guardian’s name, and current address; and

6 the name and branch of the bank in which the account is opened and the account

7 number – must be filed with the Court within 90 days from the initial payment of

8 funds into the Litt, Estuar, et al. Client Trust Account.

9

38. The Court recognizes that there may be circumstances in which a

10 parent or other guardian has a need for the funds in a blocked account for the

11 direct and immediate benefit of the minor plaintiff, such as for a medical

12 emergency or braces. The Court authorizes the withdrawal of funds from the

13 blocked account for such a purpose with the written concurrence of the counsel for

that minor listed in Exhibit 3 to this Consent Judgment. The written concurrence 14

shall memorialize the reasons for the withdrawal, and a copy shall be filed with 15
the financial institution where the funds are maintained, which shall keep such 16
record until the minor reaches maturity and withdraws the funds. The maximum 17
allowed number of such withdrawals is two.
18 39. In that regard, the Court authorizes the use of $5000 for minor

19 plaintiff NZ (whose GAL is Maria Guadalupe Gonzales) to pay for orthodonture

20 without further order of Court or approval of counsel.

21 XII. HANDLING OF ABSENT REPRESENTED INDIVIDUALS’ CLAIMS

22

40. There are Represented Individuals whose present whereabouts are

23 unknown (“Missing Represented Individuals”). Plaintiffs’ counsel have ranked

24 Missing Represented Individuals’ settlement within the grid system utilized for the

25 Represented Individuals, but are unable to secure the consent of the Missing

26 Represented Individuals to the settlement. The names of the Missing Represented

27 Individuals, the amounts of their settlement after attorneys’ fees and costs, as

28 determined by the counsel whom they retained, and the names of their counsel, are

13

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 17 of 24

1 contained in Exhibit 4.

2

41. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel made diligent efforts to locate

3 the Missing Represented Individuals, which efforts were unsuccessful. These

4 efforts included calling, mailing and trying to make personal contact. See

5 Declarations of Carol Sobel, Jorge Gonzalez, Colleen Flynn, Do Kim and Luis

6 Carrillo in Support of Exhibit 4 Re Missing Clients.

7

42. Plaintiffs request that the Court authorize that the funds designated for

8 the Missing Represented Individuals set forth in Exhibit 4 be placed in a special

9 trust account because the Court has jurisdiction over, and the authority to bind,

10 any class member who has not opted out, and none of the Missing Represented

11 Individuals has opted out.

12

43. Class members must be adequately represented by Class Counsel and

13 afforded due process in order to be bound by a class settlement or judgment. Thus,

in class actions, personal jurisdiction for judgment purposes may be exercised over 14

nonresident class members, even those without minimum contacts with the forum, 15
and without affirmative opt-in consent having been made, so long as there has 16
been the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and an opportunity for 17
class members to exclude themselves from the litigation. Phillips Petroleum Co. v.

18 Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 808 (1985). The Court finds that such due process

19 requirements have been met here, and that it accordingly may bind even those

20 individuals who are individual plaintiffs who are now absent if they have not

21 opted out. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Class Counsel’s proposal is

22 proper.

23

44. This is especially so because, without the Court approving the

24 settlement for the Missing Represented Individuals, the Missing Represented

25 Individuals, if they are named parties, would be subject to a motion for dismissal

26 with prejudice for failure to prosecute their case, under F.R.Civ.P. Rule 41(b). See,

27 e.g., Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986) (in ruling on a

28 motion under Rule 41(b), the Court considers several factors, including, “(1) the

14

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 18 of 24

1 public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to

2 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy

3 favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic

4 sanctions”); Aziz v. Wright, 34 F.3d 587 (8th Cir. 1994) (plaintiff twice appeared

5 for deposition but refused each time to be deposed; case properly dismissed for

6 failure to prosecute after court ordered plaintiff to be deposed and he failed to

7 comply). If they were not named parties, they would be bound by the settlement

8 even though they were receiving no funds.

9

45. The Court finds that it is in the interest of the Missing Represented

10 Individuals, and of the class as a whole, to include the Missing Represented

11 Individuals in the settlement on the terms proposed, and that it has the authority to

12 do so in the context of this class action without the approval of the Missing
13 Represented Individuals. Accordingly, Class Counsel shall open special interest bearing trust accounts for each such client. If any Missing Represented Individual
14 has not claimed his/her funds by December 31, 2012, then the funds in the account
15 for such individual shall revert to the City. Counsel for any Missing Represented
16 Individual who opens a trust account pursuant to this paragraph shall, at the time
17 the trust account is opened, provide the financial institution holding the funds
18 written notice of the City’s reversionary right and all instructions necessary to
19 facilitate such reversion on January 2, 2013. Counsel for any Missing Represented
20 Individual shall also give the City written notice, addressed to Cory Brente of the
21 Los Angeles City Attorney’s Police Litigations Section, of the financial

22 institution(s) in which any such account has been opened so that the City may take

23 steps to exercise its reversionary rights at the appropriate time. It shall then be the

24 responsibility of the City to initiate the reversionary process and contact any

25 holders of the trust accounts necessary to accomplish the reversion, with which

26 process all Plaintiffs’ counsel shall cooperate. Despite the provisions of this

27 paragraph or any other paragraph herein, between January 1, 2013, and December

28 31, 2018, each Missing Represented Individual shall retain the right to receive

15

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 19 of 24

1 from the City (and no other person) the amount of net principal and accrued

2 interest, if any, that was in the trust account at the time the City received funds

3 from it; provided, however, that said Missing Individual shall not be entitled to

4 receive interest accrued after December 31, 2012, if any. The names, settlement

5 amounts, and counsel for the Missing Represented Individuals are provided in

6 Exhibit 4.

7

46. The Missing Represented Individuals will be bound by this Consent

8 Judgment in the same manner as any other class member who has not opted out.

9 XIII. CLASS FUND ATTORNEYS’ FEES

10

47. Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees requesting payment

11 of $3,753,000 in attorneys’ fees including litigation costs and medical liens and

12 costs. The Court approves this request and is entering a separate order addressing
13 it. 48. The Court is also advised that, pursuant to contract terms between
14 attorney and client, some of the non-MIWON attorneys – but not the MIWON
15 counsel – may receive a percentage of the client’s recovery, as negotiated between
16 attorney and client. Since these agreements are in the non-MIWON cases, they do
17 not require court approval.
18 XIV. CLASS ADMINISTRATOR
19 49. The Court reaffirms the appointment of Gilardi & Co., LLC as
20 Administrator. The Court authorizes the payment, to be made immediately from
21 the Litt, Estuar, et al. Client Trust Account, of $30,617.80 to cover the

22 Administrator’s expenses to date. The Class Administrator estimates an additional

23 $11,315 or possibly more to complete the claims administration (excluding

24 particular efforts that may be requested by the City at its expense), for which the

25 Court authorizes payment upon completion. When and if the class distribution

26 goes forward (i.e., if there is no appeal or there is an appeal and the settlement is

27 approved at the appellate level or abandoned), then Gilardi & Co. LLC will

28 receive an additional $200,000 to distribute to class members as part of the class

16

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 20 of 24

1 fund.

2

50. The Administrator shall preserve all written communications from

3 class members at least until December 31, 2012, or pursuant to further order of the

4 Court. All written communications received by the Administrator from class

5 members relating to the settlement shall be available at all reasonable times for

6 inspection and copying by counsel for the parties.

7

51. In addition to the Administrator, work to distribute the Class Notices

8 was performed by the Plaintiff Organizations, each of which has filed a

9 declaration attesting to their outreach efforts. The Court authorizes payment of up

10 to $20,000, at $40 per hour, for these efforts by Plaintiff Organizations.

11

52. Based on the foregoing figures, the Court is aware that the cost of

12 administration will exceed the original estimate of $50,000. MIWON counsel has
13 advised the Court that they have succeeded in reducing some of the liens for their clients, and that they estimate that the total savings will be somewhere between
14 $50,000 and $100,000. These lien funds are part of the total $3,753,000 requested
15 by MIWON counsel. MIWON counsel have further advised the Court that, under
16 their arrangements with their clients, each client is to receive a specified amount,
17 and counsel assumed responsibility for the liens. Since the amount to be paid to
18 MIWON counsel is less than their lodestar, the Court approves that any sums
19 saved by the reduction of liens shall be deemed fees to the MIWON counsel,
20 except that from that reduction, MIWON counsel shall pay the additional class
21 administrative costs so that the funds available for distribution to Unrepresented

22 Class Members remains $200,000.

23 XV. GENERAL PROVISIONS

24

53. All class members except those who timely filed opt-out forms shall

25 be bound by this Consent Judgment.

26

54. Except as otherwise provided in this Consent Judgment, each party

27 shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.

28

55. The use of the masculine gender herein is construed to include the

17

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 21 of 24

1 feminine and/or the neuter where applicable. The use of the singular herein is to be

2 construed to include the plural where applicable. The use of the plural herein shall

3 be construed to include the singular where applicable.

4

56. The Court reserves and maintains jurisdiction over this settlement, this

5 Consent Judgment and its provisions, and over the claims administration and

6 distribution of the funds. Disagreements between or among parties over aspects of

7 this Consent Judgment as it relates to monetary relief shall be subject to mediation

8 before United States Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle, the mediator who has

9 mediated this case to date. If mediation is not successful, the matter shall be

10 brought to this Court for resolution.

11

57. At the conclusion of the distribution of the Post Administration Class

12 Fund, the Administrator shall submit a report to the Court summarizing the
13 payments made to the Unrepresented Class Members.
XVI. FINAL RESOLUTION 14
58. The monetary relief provided for in this Consent Judgment shall 15
compensate for all alleged violations of rights and all claims by the Damages 16
Class Members on Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit under any theory of liability 17
related to the events of May 1, 2007, that come within the Damages Class 18
definition, except as to monetary damages for those class members who opt out. 19
59. The Court hereby dismisses the lawsuit on the merits, with prejudice,
20 and without further costs, with such dismissal subject only to compliance by the
21 parties with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, the Structural

22 Relief Order, and this Consent Judgment.

23

60. With the exception of Antonio Lopez, all Damages Class Members

24 and Structural Relief Class Members, including all the Represented Individuals

25 and the Unrepresented Class Members, as well as any and all of their agents,

26 attorneys and assigns, are hereby severally and permanently barred and enjoined,

27 to the fullest extent permitted by law, from filing, commencing, instituting,

28 maintaining, prosecuting or participating in a lawsuit or any other proceeding

18

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 22 of 24

1 against any of the Defendants or other Released Person, involving or in any way

2 arising from any of the Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit, including specifically

3 claims of any class member whose claims are dismissed by this Consent

4 Judgment.

5

61. The Represented Individuals and Unrepresented Class Members

6 waive all rights or benefits which they now have or in the future may have under

7 the terms of California Civil Code §1542, arising from, alleged in, or pertaining to

8 the Matters Alleged in the Lawsuit, specifically claims related to the events of

9 May 1, 2007, that come within the Damages Class Member definition, except as to

10 monetary damages for those class members who have opted out. Section 1542

11 reads:

12

“A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not

13

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 materially affected his or 14

her settlement with the debtor.” 15
62. The Defendants, and all of their agents, attorneys and assigns, waive 16
and release any and all claims or rights to pursue, initiate, prosecute, or commence 17
any action or proceeding before any court, administrative agency or other tribunal,

18 or to file any complaint regarding acts or omissions, by the Plaintiffs in any of the

19 cases covered in the settlement herein, by any Represented Individuals as defined

20 herein, and by any Unrepresented Class Members, with respect to any Matters

21 Alleged in the Lawsuit, including waiver of the right to file a malicious

22 prosecution action; and further, as it relates to this waiver, expressly waive the

23 provisions of California Civil Code §1542 recited in the previous paragraph.

24

63. Plaintiffs have not relied upon the advice of Class Counsel as to the

25 legal and/or tax consequences of this settlement, the payment of any money by the

26 Defendants or the distribution of any settlement funds.

27

64. Neither this Consent Judgment, the Settlement Agreement, nor any of

28 its terms or the negotiations or papers related thereto shall constitute evidence or

19

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 23 of 24

1 an admission by any Defendant or other Released Person that any acts of

2 wrongdoing have been committed, and they shall not be deemed to create any

3 inference that there is any liability therefore. Neither this Consent Judgment, nor

4 the Settlement Agreement, nor any of its terms or the negotiations or papers

5 related thereto shall be offered or received in evidence or used for any purpose

6 whatsoever, in this or any other matter or proceeding in any court, administrative

7 agency, arbitration, or other tribunal, except insofar as the parties seeks to enforce

8 the terms of this Consent Judgment or the underlying Settlement Agreement.

9

65. Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

10 Court finds that there is no just reason for delay and therefore directs entry of this

11 Consent Judgment. Inasmuch as this disposes of all claims asserted in the lawsuit,

12 the Court further directs the Clerk to enter an order of dismissal, with prejudice, 13 pursuant to F.R.Civ.P Rule 41(a)(1)(2).

14

15 DATED: __________________
16
17
18

A. HOWARD MATZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19

20

21 22 23

24

25 26 27

28

20

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 107 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 24 of 24

1

Exhibit 1

2

Exhibit 2

3

Exhibit 3

4

5

Exhibit 4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Objection to Settlement Structural Relief Agreement and Order Thereon Names of Minor Plaintiffs and Their Counsel and Categories Names Of Missing Represented Individuals, And Amounts Of Their Post-Fee Settlement
21

 
 Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 111 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 1 of 15

1 BARRETT S. LITT, SBN 45527 E: blitt@littlaw.com
2 LITT, ESTUAR, HARRISON &
KITSON, LLP 3 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1880 4 Los Angeles, California 90017
T: (213) 386-3114; F: (213) 380-4585 5
CAROL A. SOBEL, SBN 84483 6 E: carolsobel@aoI.com
7 LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550
8 Santa Monica, California 90401 T: (310) 393-3055; F: (310) 393-3605
9
10 PAUL L. HOFFMAN, SBN 71244 BENJAMIN SCHONBRUN, SBN
11 118323 JAMES DeSIMONE, SBN 119668
12 E: hoffpaul@aoI.com SCHONBRUN, DE SIMONE, et aI.
13 723 Ocean Front Walk 14 Venice, California 90291
T: (310) 396-0731; F: (310) 399-7040
15 On Behalf of all MIWON Counsel
16
17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFO
20

21

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT. WORKERS ORGANIZING

22 NETWORK, et aI.

[Honorable A. Howard atz]

23 Plaintiffs, 24 vs. 25 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et aI.,

26

Defendants.

ORDER AWARDING CLASS COUNSEL FEES AND COSTS

DATE:

June 22, 2009

TIME:

10:00 A.M.

COURTROOM: 14

27

28
1

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 111 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 2 of 15

1 I. INTRODUCTION

2

This case is a class action on behalf of those whose First and Fourth

3 Amendment rights were alleged to have been violated at the May 1, 2007, protest

4 rally at MacArthur Park. The case was settled on terms spelled out in the

5 Preliminary Approval Order and documents attached thereto, and those terms will

6 not be repeated here.

7

As a result of the lawsuit, a Consent Judgment will be entered embodying

8 the terms of the settlement. Included in these terms is an order entered by the Court

9 requiring certain guidelines and actions by the LAPD and the City of Los Angeles

loin its future handling of rallies, demonstrations and marches. Thus, this case

11 definitively altered practices that had been an issue within the LAPD for many

12 years.

13

This case settled for a total monetary award of$12,850,000, after extensive

14 mediation efforts, to be divided among 297 individual class members represented

15 individually by various MIWON or other counsel, and a residual class fund. From

16 this, the Court was to be requested to award $3,455,000 plus $258,000 in medical

17 liens and litigation costs, for a total of$3,713,000, to MIWON Counsel (as well as

18 to approve the arrangement under which the non-MIWON counsel received

19 approximately $500,000 in statutory fees negotiated between them and MIWON

20 Counsel, as part of the division of the settlement.)

21

Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys' fees seeking the foregoing agreed to

22 fees and costs, based on both a class fund theory and a lodestar theory. For the

23 reasons stated below, the Court awards Plaintiffs' counsel $3,713,000 in attorneys'

24 fees and costs.

25

Defendants did not object to, or challenge, Class Counsel's request for fees

26 and costs.

27

28
2

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 111 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 3 of 15

1 II. THE STANDARDS FOR AWARDING CLASS FUND ATTORNEYS'

2

FEES.

3

It is well settled in the Ninth Circuit that, "[i]n a common fund case, the

4 district court has discretion to apply either the lodestar method or the percentage-

5 of-the-fund method in calculating a fee award." Fischel v. Equitable Life 6 Assurance Soc'y a/the Us., 307 F.3d 997, 1006 (9th Cir.2002). "Reasonableness

7 is the goal." Id. at 1007.

8

The Court will analyze the requested fees under both the percentage of the

fund and the lodestar tests.
9

10 III. THE REQUESTED FEE IS REASONABLE UNDER THE PERCENTAGE OF THE FUND TEST.

11

Although not mandated by the Ninth Circuit, courts often consider the

12 following factors when determining the benchmark percentage to be applied: (1)

13 the result obtained for the class; (2) the effort expended by counsel; (3) counsel's

14 experience; (4) counsel's skill; (5) the complexity of the issues; (6) the risks of

15 non-payment assumed by counsel; (7) the reaction of the class; and (8) comparison

16 with counsel's loadstar. See, e.g., In re Heritage Bond Litigation, 2005 WL

17 1594403 at 18; In re Quintus Sec. Litig., 148 F.Supp.2d 967,973-74

18 (N.D.Cal.200 1). The Court will address each factor below.

19

In this case, the Court finds that most of the factors enunciated above exists

20 in this case.

21

A. THE COMPLEXITY OF THE ISSUES, COUNSEL'S SKILL AND

22

EXPERIENCE, AND THE EFFORTINVOLVED.

23

Congress recognized the complexity of civil rights cases when the civil

24 rights attorneys' fee statute (42 U.S.C. §1988) was passed in 1976. The legislative

25 history states, "It is intended that the amount of fees awarded under S. 2278 (42

26 U.S.C. §1988) be governed by the same standards which prevail in other types of

27 equally complex federal litigation, such as antitrust cases and not be reduced

28
3

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 111 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 4 of 15

1 because the rights involved may be nonpecuniary in nature." S.Rep.No. 94-1011,

2 1976 U.S.Code Congo & Admin.News at 5913.

3

While the legal issues in this case are not particularly novel, the factual

4 issues were complex, and management of the process required a high level of skill

5 and effort. Because this was a hybrid individual and class case, Plaintiffs' counsel

6 and their staffs represented nearly 300 individuals. Defendants insisted that, in

7 order to settle the case, they needed independent verification (video, photos, third

8 party witnesses, medical reports) for the vast majority of the Represented

9 Individuals, even though the case was a class action.

10

Counsel litigated this case aggressively. The work performed included: 1)

11 extensive investigation of the underlying circumstances, including interviewing
12 each of the approximately 300 Represented Individuals at length, and many
13 witnesses as well; 2) reviewing LAPD reports and investigations, as well as
14 hundreds of hours of videos to locate photos of Represented Individuals; 3)
15 preparation of the complaint; 4) the Rule 26 conference and report; 5) obtaining the 16 medical records for the Represented Individuals; 6) preparing mediation write-ups 17 regarding the specifics of each Represented Individual, and then preparing a 18 mediation package with photographic and video evidence to support each of the 19 300 individual claims of presence in the park, and injury; 7) filing the class
20 certification motion and related papers; 8) engaging counsel for all the Represented
21 Individuals in a common process of valuing cases, after MIWON Counsel 22 established and refined a system for assessing the cases, as a result of which all 23 counsel in all case agreed to the approach; 9) preparing lengthy mediation papers; 24 10) attending six mediation sessions; 11) working out a series of individual 25 problem cases, with the participation of Class Counsel, the individual counsel 26 representing the client, and Judge Woehrle; and 12) preparing and negotiating the
settlement documents with the defendants. 27

28
4

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 111 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 5 of 15

1

Class Counsel have represented that the monetary terms of the settlement

2 represent, to their knowledge, the largest total settlement in the country for a

3 demonstration case, and the largest average per person damages recovery in any

4 mass demonstration case to date. In addition, the settlement encompasses

5 comprehensive structural relief.

6

The appointed MIWON Class Counsel - Barry Litt, Carol Sobel and Paul

7 Hoffman - are highly skilled civil rights and civil rights class action litigators.

8 Each has outstanding reputations as exceptional civil right attorneys.

9

B. THERISKSOFNON-PAYMENTASSUMEDBYCOUNSEL

10

While there may not have been a great risk of lack of proof of liability in the

11 case, , there was substantial risk that the cost of litigating it could outstrip the

12 damages in the case, particularly if the Class were not certified. Those risks

13 included: 1) a potentially very difficult discovery process, requiring thousands of

14 additional hours for the case; 2) a requirement (asserted by the City at the class

15 certification hearing) that Plaintiffs prove lack of probable cause on an individual

16 basis; 3) in the current economic climate, the risks of non or delayed payment are

17 substantial (a form of which has occurred in that payment is delayed until sale of a

18 judgment bond to fund the settlement).

19

Other risks included class certification, settling the case expeditiously,

20 managing the factual complexities ofthe case effectively, receiving an adequate

21 fee award commensurate with the work involved, the disproportionate

22 responsibility of the MIWON counsel to carry the case.

23

While risk is normally tied to the right to receive a multiplier above the

24 ordinary hourly rate to compensate for contingent risk, in this case, the opposite is

25 true, i.e., counsel seek an award that actually represents a discount from lodestar,

26 as is discussed in the lodestar section.

27

28
5

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 111 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 6 of 15

1

C. THE RESULT OBTAINED FOR THE CLASS AND THE CLASS' REACTION.

2

As discussed, this settlement represents the largest financial settlement of a

3 demonstration case Class Counsel know of, with a residual class fund. In addition,

4 in the past, the LAPD had privately agreed to changes, but had not implemented

5 those agreements. The current settlement incorporates a Consent Judgment under

6 which the City and the LAPD agree to a series of policies and procedures, as well

7 as the continued jurisdiction of the Court to enforce the Consent Judgment as part

8 of the Court's order approving the final settlement.

9

There was only one objection to the settlement itself or to the award of

10 attorney's fees, and there were no opt-outs. This is a highly favorable reaction by

11 the class to the settlement. Compare, e.g., Hughes v. Microsoft Corp., 2001 WL

12 34089697,8 (W.D.Wash. 2001) (court found that the "class members

13 overwhelmingly support[ed] the settlement" where there were over 37,000 notices

14 sent out, 2,745 class members participated in the settlement, "only nine objections

15 were submitted", and there were 86 timely opt-outs and over 20 additional

16 defective or untimely opt-outs; "these indicia of the approval of the class of the

17 terms of the settlement support a finding of fairness under Rule 23"), citing Hanlon

18 v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1027 (9th Cir.1998) (despite vigorous objections

19 and appeal by objectors, "fact that the overwhelming majority of the class willingly

20 approved the offer and stayed in the class presents at least some objective positive

21 commentary as to its fairness"; court did not abuse its discretion in approving

22 settlement); Marshall v. Holiday Magic, Inc., 550 F.2d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir.1977)

23 (approximately 1% of 31 ,000 class members opted out; "the fact that the

24 overwhelming majority of the class willingly approved the offer and stayed in the

25 class presents at least some objective positive commentary as to its fairness").

26

D. THIRTY-ONE PERCENT Is A REASONABLE CLASS FUND AWARD IN

THIS CASE.

27

28
6

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 111 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 7 of 15

1

Where the percentage of the fund award is employed, the Ninth Circuit has

2 "established 25% of the common fund as the 'benchmark' award for attorney

3 fees." E.g., Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1376 (9th Cir.1993).

4 Although 25% is the benchmark, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a variety of

5 factors may lead to an upward adjustment of the percentage. E.g., In re Pac. Enter. 6 Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373,379 (9th Cir.1995) (district court "may adjust the

7 benchmark when special circumstances indicate a higher or lower percentage

8 would be indicated"). The percentage amount can be adjusted upward or

9 downward, or replaced by a lodestar calculation, to account for any unusual

10 circumstances involved in the case, which, for example, would indicate that the

11 percentage recovery would be either too small or too large in light of the hours

12 devoted to the case. Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d

13 1301,1311 (9th Cir.1990). When making an adjustment, the district court should

14 identify "how it arrives at the figure ultimately awarded." Paul, Johnson, Alston & 15 Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268,272 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Six Mexican Workers,

16 supra.

17

Nationally, the average percentage of the fund award in class actions is

18 approximately one-third. The Federal Judicial Center published a report in 1996,

19 entitled "Empirical Study of Class Actions in Four Federal District Courts: Final

20 Report to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules" ("FJC Report"). The study is

21 based on 407 class action lawsuits that either settled or went to verdict in the two 22 year period from July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1994, in four federal district

23 courts: the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia); the Southern District of

24 Florida (Miami), the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago); and the Northern

25 District of California (San Francisco). (FJC Report, pp. 3-4, 7-8.) The Empirical

26 Study found that "the fee-recovery rate infrequently exceeded the traditional 33.3% 27 contingency fee rate. Median rates ranged from 27% to 30%. Most fee awards in

28
7

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 111 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 8 of 15

1 the study were between 20% and 40% of gross monetary settlement." (Id. at pp.

2 68-69; citation and footnote omitted.). The Report concluded that "attorneys' fees

3 were generally in the traditional range of approximately one-third of the total

4 settlement." (Id. at p. 90.)

5

Another study, cited by Silber and Goodrich, Common Funds and Common

6 Problems: Fee Objections and Class Counsel's Response, 17 RevLitig 525, 534

7 (1998), was done by National Economic Research Associates, an economics

8 consulting firm, in 1994. It found that attorneys' fees in class actions averaged

9 approximately 32% of the recovery, regardless of the case size, and averaged

10 34.74% when the fees and expenses were added together. Silber and Goodrich,

11 supra at 545-546. Silber and Goodrich conclude with the observation that a 33%

12 fee award is both reasonable, and in line with the general market for contingent fee

13 work. Id. at 546-549. This is the general percentage that they recommend. See also 14 In re Rite Aid Corp. Securities Litigation, 396 F.3d 294,303 (3rd Cir. 2005), citing

15 three studies (" [0]ne study of securities class action settlements over $10 million ...

16 found an average percentage fee recovery of 31 %; a second study by the Federal

17 Judicial Center of all class actions resolved or settled over a four-year period ...

18 found a median percentage recovery range of27-30%; and a third study of class

19 action settlements between $100 million and $200 million ... found recoveries in

20 the 25-30% range were 'fairly standard."') (citations omitted).

21

In this case, based on a fee of$3,955,000 (the requested MIWON statutory

22 fees plus the non-MIWON statutory fees), Plaintiffs would receive, as a percentage

23 of the fund, a 31 % award. This is well within the reasonable range of percentage of

24 the fund awards, just at what most studies and commentators have characterized as

25 the median nationally.

26

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that many cases result in a higher

27 percentage than the benchmark. See, e.g., Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F3d

28
8

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 111 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 9 of 15

1 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming a 28% award, resulting in a multiplier for

2 Plaintiffs' counsel of3.65, based on 1) an exceptional result, 2) litigation risk, 3)

3 benefits generated beyond the cash settlement, 4) the 28% figure was at or below

4 market rate, and 5) the lengthy time period of the litigation and foregoing other

5 work). Most, ifnot all of these factors are present here, but the biggest difference

6 is that there is no multiplier above lodestar, but a discount, a factor favoring an

7 upward adjustment.

8

In addition, because there was a statutory attorney's fee available, it was an

9 independent factor in the settlement negotiations and significantly increased the

10 recovery. The settlement agreement, ~24, states that "Plaintiffs' potential claim for

11 statutory attorney's fees was a substantial factor in arriving upon the final

12 settlement amount of$12,850,000" and that "the statutory attorney's fee claim

13 materially and substantially increased the final settlement amount from what it

14 otherwise would have been." In such a situation, and where the lodestar exceeds

15 the benchmark percentage of the fund amount, it is appropriate to consider the

16 lodestar in determining a reasonable upward adjustment of a percentage fee award.

17 Various factors support this conclusion, including that 1) the amount requested was

18 factored in by Class Counsel in determining the reasonableness of the settlement; 19 2) the MIWON Plaintiffs agreed to post-fee amounts, i.e., the amount they would 20 actually receive, and the award requested here does not affect any of those 21 amounts; and 3) the MIWON Counsel- in contrast to the non-MIWON counsel22 waived their right to any percentage of the recovery beyond what the Court

23 awarded with any of their individual clients.

24 IV. THE REQUESTED FEE IS REASONABLE UNDER THE LODESTAR TEST.
25 A. LODESTAR STANDARDS.
26 Lodestar is defined generally as the number of hours reasonably expended
27 on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 28
9

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 111 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 10 of 15

1 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). Where a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his or her

2 attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee. See Hensley, supra, 461 U.S. at

3 435. Full compensation normally encompasses all hours reasonably expended on

4 the litigation. Id.

5

In Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886,895, n.ll (1984), the United States

6 Supreme Court explained that '''reasonable fees' ... are to be calculated according

7 to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community." The Court should pay

8 "close attention" to "the fees charged by 'lawyers of reasonably comparable skill,

9 experience and reputation.' " Davis v. City and County a/San Francisco, 976 F.2d 10 1536, 1545-1546 (9th Cir. 1992). Subsequently, in City a/Riverside v. Rivera, 477

11 U.S. 561, 575-576 (1986), the Supreme Court elaborated that rates for civil rights

12 litigation should be based on the market for complex federal litigation, citing

13 Congress intent in enacting Section 1988 that it "intended that the amount of fees

14 awarded under [§1988] [sic] be governed by the same standards which prevail in

15 other types of equally complex Federal litigation, such as antitrust cases."

16

B. THE REQUESTED RATES ARE REASONABLE

17

Exhibit "J" to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees is a summary chart of

18 the number of hours expended by each person being billed as well as detail of time

19 billed. For the attorneys involved, the chart includes their year of law school

20 graduation. The chart below provides, in order of hours worked, the graduation

21 year, hourly rate, hours and totals for the six MIWON attorneys who were most 22 active in the litigation (which represents over 50% of the total bill).

23 IN~-A-M-E------------+G-R-A--D-U-A-T-E-D---~H-O-U-R--S-~R-A--T-E---r~T-O-T-A-L----~I

Carol Sobel

1978

867.3 $710

$624,456.00

24 Barry Litt

1969

668.1 $800

$534,480.00

25 IR~o-b-e-rt-M~~ye-r-s -----+--19-7-5--------~-52-2-.1---~-$-71-0----r-$-3~62-,-85-9-.5-0-~I

Cynthia Anderson- 1994

497.2 $490

$236,170.00

26 Barker

27 IR~_eb_e_c_c_a _T_h_or_n_to_n___~_20_0_1_________~4_6_5._3___~$4_2_5____~$~ 18~ 1,4_6_7_.0_0__~I

28
10

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 111 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 11 of 15

1 NAME
2 Paul Hoffman
3

GRADUATED HOURS RATE

1976

307.3 $750

TOTAL
$230,475.00 $2,169,907.50

4

The rates used here are reasonable and are supported by abundant evidence

5 demonstrating that attorneys of lesser years handling complex litigation have

6 comparable or higher billing rates, and that several courts have awarded

7 comparable rates to these and other counsel. The Court finds that the rates

8 requested by the MIWON counsel are reasonable.

9

C. THE HOURS EXPENDED ARE REASONABLE

10

While the hours expended by MIWON Counsel are substantial, they are not

11 unexpected in light of the character of the case. MIWON Counsel represented

12 nearly 200 individuals, and there was a total of 297 Represented Individuals,

13 including those represented by non-MIWON counsel. MIWON counsel took the

14 lead on all fronts of the case.

15

MIWON Counsel assigned each attorney or law firm a group of clients for

16 which they were responsible. The interaction with that client throughout the case,

17 the documentation, client assessment, medical workups where needed, and written

18 summary were the responsibility of that attorney. A handful of full client meetings

were held, in which all the MIWON clients and Counsel were invited to 19
participate. In those meetings, there were presentations on general questions 20
applicable to all clients (e.g., how a class action works, mediation plans, and the 21
like), discussions of the progress of the case and the Police Department 22
investigation of complaints, with a time set at the end of each meeting for the 23
larger group of clients to break into the smaller assigned groups to meet with the
24
individual attorneys assigned to each group of clients. This was a reasonable means 25
of communication with clients, and an effective means of investing them in the 26

27

28
11

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 111 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 12 of 15

1 case as a whole - a necessity for a case that, at best would take two to three years

2 and, if it did not settle, far longer.

3

MIWON Counsel worked with the non-MIWON counsel to agree to a

4 common approach to settlement, reviewed the write-up for each non-MIWON

5 Plaintiff, recommending changes, conforming its format, evaluating the individual

6 rating and damages for that individual, and then meeting with each of the non-

7 MIWON counsel so as to ensure uniformity. This occurred with the non-MIWON

8 counsel after the same process had been completed for the MIWON counsel. In

9 addition, MIWON Counsel prepared all the pleadings and early discovery, all the

10 negotiations with the City and Judge Woehrle (in some of which some of the non-

11 MIWON counsel participated), all of the negotiations to reach the structural relief

12 agreement, and the vast majority of the review of the demonstration documentation

13 to locate participants and respond in concrete form to the City's requirement that

14 Plaintiffs provide some form of verification of their presence in MacArthur Park at

15 the date and time of the police action..

16

In order to ensure uniformity of each case assessment - essential if a

17 settlement were to be reached - MIWON Counsel established a committee of

18 several MIWON Counsel responsible to evaluate every case uniformly - both

19 those represented by MIWON and non-MIWON counsel. They developed a

20 uniform scoring system; reviewed each Plaintiff, hislher facts, documentation and

21 medical records; and scored the Plaintiff.

22

MIWON counsel met with the non-MIWON counsel primarily responsible

23 for the particular client, and used the same methodology used for the MIWON

24 clients to come to an agreement about the valuation of their clients' claims. They

25 reviewed all the documents for the non-MIWON as well as the MIWON clients.

26 Further, MIWON Counsel participated directly in meeting with reluctant clients of

27 other counsel - generally in conjunction with Judge Woehrle - to work out ways of

28
12

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 111 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 13 of 15

1 resolving this issue so that it would not stymie the settlement process. Dozens of

2 hours were spent by MIWON Counsel in just this effort.

3

All settlement documents were prepared by MIWON Counsel and the City.

4

It was generally acknowledged by all counsel that the MIWON Counsel

5 were the driving force in resolving the settlement. MIWON Counsel ultimately

6 negotiated with each set of non-MIWON attorneys the recovery, including

7 statutory fees, that would be assigned each attorney and hislher clients.

8

Analyzed on a per client basis, with approximately 300 clients - since the

9 MIWON Counsel were effectively co-representing the non-MIWON clients - and

10 9600 hours, it means that 32 hours were expended per client. The mean recovery

11 was over $25,000. Attorney's fees of $4,000,000 prorated (including the statutory

12 fees paid to non-MIWON counsel) prorated among 297 clients comes to slightly

13 more than $13,000 per client. This is reasonable for a case that involved litigation,

14 informal discovery, extensive mediation, and a class process.

15

Accordingly, the Court finds that the hours expended in this case were

16 reasonable. The Court also notes that the actual hours being compensated, based on

17 the approved hourly rates, amounts to a 13%-14% discount from lodestar (the

18 difference between a $4,000,000 lodestar based on the approved rates and hours

19 and factoring in a modest amount of further work) and the $3,455,000 requested as

20 MIWON fees.

21

Accordingly, whether using the lodestar or the percentage of the fund

22 method, the fee requested is reasonable.

23 V. ALLOCATION OF LIEN REDUCTIONS.

24

The Court has been advised that MIWON counsel has successfully

25 negotiated some liens and expects to reduce the size of the MIWON liens

26 somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000. These lien funds are part of the total

27 $3,753,000 requested by MWION counsel. MIWON counsel have further advised

28
13

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 111 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 14 of 15

1 the Court that, under their arrangements with their clients, each client is to receive

2 a specified amount, and counsel assumed responsibility for the liens. The Court has

3 also been advised by MIWON counsel that, probably as a result of the larger than

4 expected Unrepresented Class Member claims, there is a bill of$30,617.80 to

5 cover the Class Administrator's billing to date, and the Class Administrator

6 estimates an additional $11,315 and possibly more to complete the claims

7 administration (excluding particular efforts that may be requested by the City at its

8 expense). This bill is greater than had originally been expected. Originally,

9 $50,000 in class administrative costs was anticipated, including payment of

10 $20,000 to Plaintiff organizations for outreach to Unrepresented Class Members.

11 Based on the currently anticipated Class Administrator bills, the costs of class

12 administration will be approximately $12,000 more than anticipated.

13

In light of the fact that the amount to be paid to MIWQN counsel is less than

14 their lodestar, the Court approves that any sums saved by the reduction of liens

15 shall be deemed fees to the MIWON counsel. However, from that reduction,

16 MIWON counsel shall pay the additional class administrative costs so that the

17 funds available for distribution to Unrepresented Class Members remains 18 $200,000. 19 VI. THE REQUESTED COSTS ARE REASONABLE.

20

Plaintiffs seek an award of$258,000 in costs, most of which are for med·
ft.-.IWOtJ

21 liens yet to be paid. To the extent they are not, MIVvTOUN Counsel submitted an

22 itemization of costs, which the Court finds reasonable. Accordingly, those costs are

23 awarded as well.

24 25 DATED:

26

27

28
14

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 111 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 15 of 15

1

2
Submitted by:

3 LITT, ESTUAR, HARRISON & KITSON, LLP 4 LAW OFFICES OF CAROL SOBEL

5

6

7 By: lsi Barrett S. Litt_ _ __

BARRETT S. LITT

8

Attorneys for Plaintiff Class

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
15

 
 Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 112 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 1 of 7 Ca 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 109 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 1 of 7

1 BARRETT S. LITT, SBN 45527 E: blitt@littlaw.com
2 LITT, ESTUAR, HARRISON & KITSON, LLP
3 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1880 4 Los Angeles, California 90017
T: (213) 386-3114; F: (213) 380-4585 5 6 CAROL A. SOBEL, SBN 84483
E: carolsobel@aol.com 7 LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550 8 Santa Monica, California 90401
T: (310) 393-3055; F: (310) 393-3605 9
10 PAUL L. HOFFMAN, SBN 71244 BENJAMIN SCHONBRUN, SBN
11 118323 JAMES DeSIMONE, SBN 119668
12 E: hoffpaul@aol.com SCHONBRUN, DE SIMONE, et al.
13 723 Ocean Front Walk 14 Venice, California 90291
T: (310) 396-0731; F: (310) 399-7040
15 On Behalf of all MIWON Counsel
16
17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

~ 242009 . -.------~~~..£J_

18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20

21

MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING

22 NETWORK, et al.

Case No.: CV 07-3072 AHM (FMMx) [Honorable A. Howard Matz]

23 Plaintiffs,

STRUCTURAL RELIEF ORDER

24 vs.
25 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et aI., 26
Defendants. 27

DATE:

June 22, 2009

TIME:

10:00 A.M.

COURTROOM: 14

28
1

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 112 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 2 of 7 Ca 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 109 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 2 of 7

1

The parties to the above-captioned action have submitted this joint Order for

2 the Court's review and approval, addressing the injunctive relief class certified by

3 the Court in its Order issued on January 8, 2008. The court has considered the

4 joint submission and now issues the following Order:

5

1. Basic Principles:

6

All persons have the right to march, demonstrate, protest, rally or perform

7 other activities protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

8 and the California Constitution. The government may impose reasonable and

9 narrowly tailored restrictions on the time, place, and manner of conducting these

10 activities. However, any limitations or restrictions placed on demonstrations or

11 other First Amendment activities must be justified by the requirements of

12 maintaining public safety, public health, or safe access/egress from the area, and

13 should restrict no more speech than necessary to further these substantial

14 government interests. Officers must not be affected by the content of the opinions

15 being expressed nor by the race, gender, linguistics, national origin, sexual

16 orientation, physical disabilities, appearances, or affiliation of anyone exercising

17 lawful rights.

18

2. Helicopters:

19

Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) helicopters assigned to monitor

20 permitted crowd control incidents shall operate the aircraft at reasonable altitudes

21 so as to avoid disruption of First Amendment protected activities. The Incident

22 Commander will coordinate with event organizers to help avoid over flights during

23 keynote speaker presentations. This action is not intended to prevent LAPD

24 helicopters from response to emergency situations requiring immediate police

25 presence during such crowd control events.

26
27 28
2

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 112 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 3 of 7 Ca 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 109 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 3 of 7

1

3. Marches:

2

Demonstrators, while participating in lawful assemblages, shall not be

3 prevented from using public sidewalks to join or exit a lawful march or from using

4 any public sidewalk adjacent to a lawful march route. However, while on the

5 sidewalk, marchers will not be allowed to obstruct or unreasonably interfere with

6 pedestrian movement and/or prevent lawfully open businesses from operating

7 when such conduct violates any applicable law. LAPD will consider the

8 practicality of facilitating demonstrations that may temporarily block traffic and

9 LAPD shall include the subject in its Crowd Management training.

10

4. Motorcycles/Bicycles/Motor Vehicles:

11

Police motorcycles, bicycles, and motor vehicles may be used for the

12 purpose of observation, visible deterrence, traffic control, transportation and area

13 control during a crowd event. When used at the back of a march, they should

14 maintain a reasonably safe distance behind the marchers. LAPD personnel will not

15 utilize motorcycles, bicycles, or motor vehicles to strike assembled

16 demonstrators/marchers as a method for crowd control or crowd dispersal.

17

5. Crowd Management Training - Horses:

18

In its crowd management training, the LAPD shall include a subject on the

19 impact of the use of horses on crowd behavior.

20

6. Use of Less Lethal Weapons:

21

Less-lethal munitions are categorized as projectiles launched or otherwise

22 deployed for the purpose of overcoming resistance, effecting arrest or addressing

23 the threat of serious injury to an officer or suspect with less risk of causing death

24 than the use of a firearm.

25

a. Less-lethal munitions may be deployed on aggressive and/or

26

combative suspects in a crowd control situation, on suspects who

27

28 3

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 112 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 4 of 7 Ca 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 109 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 4 of 7

1

are a potential physical threat to themselves or others, or suspects

2

displaying "aggressive" and/or "combative" actions.

3

b. For the purpose of deployment ofless-Iethal munitions,

4

"aggressive" and/or "combative" actions include ongoing

5

destruction of property that presents a threat to the personal safety

6

of officers or others.

7

c. Less lethal weapons should not be used on a lawfully dispersing

8

crowd or individual.

9

d. Less lethal weapons should not be used against a person or a crowd

10

that is retreating unless the person or crowd continues to engage in

11

unlawful activity that is aggressive and/or combative.

12

e. Where feasible, notice should be given to the crowd before less-

13

lethal weapons are deployed in a crowd control or dispersal

14

situation, and where feasible, it should be given in the language(s)

15

spoken by those assembled.

16

f. If the LAPD resumes the use of stinger rounds, the LAPD will

17

publish a notice that will require that less-lethal stinger weapons

18

can be used only with the approval of a staff officer (i.e.,

19

commander or above) and only in a riotous situation where the use

20

of lethal force would not be reasonable.

21

7. Use of Batons:

22

Batons should not be used against members of the crowd attempting to

23 disperse, persons unable to move because of the press of the crowd, or persons

24 otherwise posing no imminent threat to the officers or other persons. Batons may

25 be displayed or used in a pushing motion when used as a justified and authorized

crowd management technique. The baton may be used to push individuals who 26
intentionally delay dispersal subsequent to a lawful order to disperse. When an 27

28
4

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 112 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 5 of 7 Ca 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 109 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 5 of 7

1 individual's behavior is threatening or violent in nature, the baton may be used as

2 an impact device in accordance with Department policy.

3

8. Public Assemblies:

4

The Incident Commander and supervisors shall make every effort to ensure

5 that the police mission is accomplished as efficiently as possible, with the highest

6 regard for human dignity and liberty of all persons, with consideration of the

7 cultural and linguistic diversity of the neighborhoods and communities of Los

8 Angeles, and with minimum reliance on the use ofphysical force. Incident

9 Commanders, prior to declaring an assembly unlawful, will follow the procedures

10 as directed in the LAPD Guidelines for Crowd Management and Crowd Control,

11 Volume 5 of the LAPD Emergency Operations Guide. Before any public assembly

12 is declared to be unlawful, the Incident Commander should evaluate the feasibility

13 of isolating and arresting those responsible for the unlawful conduct, and if it is

14 determined to be feasible, shall take such action.

15

9. Declaration of Unlawful Assembly:

16

Crowd dispersal techniques shall not be initiated until after a declaration has

17 been announced as required by California Penal Code Section 409. LAPD

18 personnel will follow the procedures as directed in the LAPD Guidelines for

19 Crowd Management and Crowd Control, Volume 5 of the LAPD Emergency

20 Operations Guide. The following factors shall be considered when issuing a

21 dispersal order:

22

a. Use of an amplified loudspeaker system to issue the order.

23

b. If feasible, send an officer to the far side of the crowd to tape record

24

the order.

25

c. If circumstances permit (absence of serious violence), the order

26

shall be made repeatedly over a period of time and, if necessary,

27

from a variety of locations.

28
5

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 112 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 6 of 7 Ca 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 109 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 6 of 7

1

d. The order must include an objectively reasonable period of time to

2

disperse and a clear and safe route to disperse based on the facts

3

and circumstances known at the time.

4

e. An order to disperse shall be given in a manner reasonably

5

calculated to be heard by the entire crowd under the circumstances.

6

When it is known that members of the crowd do not understand

7

English, an effort should be made, when feasible, to give the order

8

to disperse in both English and the other language(s).

9

f. The order to disperse shall include a warning that police action may

10

include the use of less lethal munitions, which could cause

11

significant risk of serious injury to those who remain.

12

10. Crowd Management Training - Shows of Force

13

In its crowd management training, the LAPD shall include a subject on the

14 impact of shows of force on crowd behavior.

15

11. LAPD's Policy Regarding Crowd Control:

16

LAPD's policy regarding crowd control can be found in the Emergency

17 Operations Guide, Volume 5, Chapter 7. All LAPD directives and orders directly

18 related to crowd control and the relevant portions of this agreement shall be

19 included in the Emergency Operations Guide by July 1,2009. The plaintiffs shall

20 be given an opportunity to provide input and comment on the revisions prior to

21 final approval by the LAPD.

22

12. Training on Crowd Control Policies:

23

The LAPD shall require Metropolitan Division to undergo training annually,

24 and every officer at the level of Sergeant I and above to undergo training at

25 minimum intervals of two years, on the Crowd Control and Use of Force policies

26 to be developed pursuant to Paragraph 11 of this document. The Department's

27 existing training, designed and implemented after May 1,2007, will be reviewed

28
6

Case 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 112 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 7 of 7 Ca 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM Document 109 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 7 of 7

1 and modified, as necessary, to conform to the policies developed as part of this

2 agreement. The training may be live or bye-module, or both, at the Department's

3 discretion.

4

13. Retention of Jurisdiction:

5

The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this judgment and to

6 issue all orders necessary to do so. The Court's jurisdiction shall continue for a

7 period of four years and may be extended-in whole or in part-for an additional

8 period of two years upon proof by a preponderance ofthe evidence that the

9 activities complained of are due to the Department's failure to substantially comply

10 with the provisions of this order.

11

Before bringing a motion to enforce this order, plaintiffs shall give

12 defendants notice of an alleged violation and a reasonable opportunity to remedy it.

13 If necessary to permit defendants adequate time to remedy the alleged failure to

14 comply, the parties will submit a joint request to extend the Court's initial period

15 of jurisdiction.

18

19
20 Submitted by:
LITT, ESTUAR, HARRISON & KITSON, LLP 21 LAW OFFICES OF CAROL SOBEL
22

23

24 By: /s/ Barrett S. Litt- - - - -

25

BARRETT S. LITT Attorneys for Plaintiff Class

26

27

28
7

T JUDGE

 
 Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 1 of 48
(FFMx), CLOSED, DISCOVERY, LEADDS, RELATED−G
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07−cv−03072−AHM−FFM

Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network et al v. City of Los Angeles et al Assigned to: Judge A. Howard Matz Referred to: Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm Lead case: 2:07−cv−02966−AHM−FMO Member case: (View Member Case) Related Cases: 2:07−cv−04131−AHM−FMO
2:07−cv−08433−AHM−FMO Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/09/2007 Date Terminated: 06/24/2009 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network an unincorporated association

represented by Annabella Gonzalves Mexican American Liegal Defense and Educational Fund 634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles , CA 90014 213−629−2512 TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Antonio H Rodriguez Antonio H Rodriguez Law Offices 5429 East Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles , CA 90022 323−869−9909 Fax: 323−869−9911 Email: antoniohr@arodriguezlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barrett S Litt Litt Estuar Harrison and Kitson LLP 1055 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1880 Los Angeles , CA 90017 213−386−3114 Fax: 213−380−4585 Email: jwhite@littlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin Schonbrun Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris &Hoffman 723 Ocean Front Walk, Ste 100 Venice , CA 90291−3270 310−396−0731 Fax: 310−399−7040 Email: schonbrun.ben@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel Carol A Sobel Law Offices 429 Santa Monica Blvd Suite 550 Santa Monica , CA 90401

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 2 of 48
310−393−3055 Fax: 310−393−3605 Email: carolsobel@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Brandt Ford Christopher Ford Law Offices 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2900 Los Angeles , CA 90010 213−487−8000 Email: cfordlaw@earthlink.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia M Anderson−Barker Cynthia M Anderson−Barker Law Offices 3435 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 2900 Los Angeles , CA 90010 213−381−3246 Email: cablaw@hotmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Ann Valenzuela Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund 634 South Spring Street 11th Floor Los Angeles , CA 90014 213−629−2512 Fax: 213−629−0266 Email: cvalenzuela@maldef.org TERMINATED: 10/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald W Cook Mann and Cook Law Office ATTORNEY HAS NOT CONSENTED TO ELECTRONIC SERVICE 3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2900 Los Angeles , CA 90010 213−252−9444 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 634 South Spring Street 11th Floor Los Angeles , CA 90014 213−629−2512 Fax: 213−629−0266 Email: glimon@maldef.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guillermo Suarez M Bufete Juridico Law Offices 5441 East Beverly Boulevard, Suite D Los Angeles , CA 90022 323−722−6100 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 3 of 48
Jorge Gonzalez Jorge Gonzalez Law Offices 2485 Huntington Drive Suite 238 San Marino , CA 91108 626−683−3922 Fax: 626−683−3944 Email: jggorgeous@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristina Michelle Campbell MALDEF 634 South Spring Street 11th Floor Los Angeles , CA 90014 213−629−2512 Email: kcampbell@maldef.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy A Ramirez Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 634 South Spring Street 11th Floor Los Angeles , CA 90014 213−629−2512 Fax: 213−629−0266 Email: nramirez@maldef.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Olu K Orange Orange Law Offices 3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2900 Los Angeles , CA 90010 213−736−9900 Fax: 213−406−1250 Email: oluorange@att.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris and Hoffman 723 Ocean Front Walk, Suite 100 Venice , CA 90291−3270 310−360−7136 Email: hoffpaul@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca F Thornton Rebecca F Thornton Law Office 429 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 550 Santa Monica , CA 90401 310−393−3055 Fax: 866−499−5162 Email: rebecca@humanrightsesq.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Frederick Mann Mann and Cook Attorneys at Law 3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2900

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 4 of 48

Los Angeles , CA 90010 213−252−9444 Fax: 213−252−0091 Email: manncook@earthlink.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Myers Newman Aaronson &Vanaman 14001 Ventura Blvd Sherman Oaks , CA 91423 818−990−7722 Email: rmmyers@ix.netcom.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samatha Koerner 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900 Los Angeles , CA 90010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V James De Simone Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris &Hoffman 723 Ocean Front Walk, Ste 100 Venice , CA 90291−3270 310−396−0731 Fax: 310−399−7040 Email: vjdesimone@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles as injunctive relief plaintiffs only

represented by Annabella Gonzalves (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Antonio H Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin Schonbrun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Brandt Ford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 5 of 48
Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Ann Valenzuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald W Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guillermo Suarez M Bufete Juridico Law Offices 5441 East Beverly Boulevard Number D Los Angeles , CA 90022 323−722−6100 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy A Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Olu K Orange (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca F Thornton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert M Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 6 of 48

Samatha Koerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V James De Simone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance as injunctive relief plaintiffs only

represented by Annabella Gonzalves (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Antonio H Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin Schonbrun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Brandt Ford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynthia Ann Valenzuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald W Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gladys Limon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guillermo Suarez M

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 7 of 48

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy A Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Olu K Orange (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca F Thornton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samatha Koerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V James De Simone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
IDESPCA as injunctive relief plaintiffs only

represented by Annabella Gonzalves (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Antonio H Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 8 of 48
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Schonbrun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Brandt Ford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Ann Valenzuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald W Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guillermo Suarez M (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy A Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Olu K Orange (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca F Thornton (See above for address)

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 9 of 48

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samatha Koerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V James De Simone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Pilipino Workers Center as injunctive relief plaintiffs only

represented by Annabella Gonzalves (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Antonio H Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin Schonbrun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Brandt Ford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynthia Ann Valenzuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 10 of 48

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald W Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gladys Limon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guillermo Suarez M (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy A Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Olu K Orange (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca F Thornton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samatha Koerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V James De Simone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

represented by

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 11 of 48

Garment Workers Center as injunctive relief plaintiffs only

Annabella Gonzalves (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Antonio H Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin Schonbrun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Brandt Ford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynthia Ann Valenzuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald W Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gladys Limon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guillermo Suarez M (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy A Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 12 of 48

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Olu K Orange (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca F Thornton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samatha Koerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V James De Simone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kevin Breslin individually, and as class representatives

represented by Annabella Gonzalves (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Antonio H Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin Schonbrun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 13 of 48
Christopher Brandt Ford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Ann Valenzuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald W Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guillermo Suarez M (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy A Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Olu K Orange (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca F Thornton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert M Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 14 of 48

Plaintiff
Mario Cuellar individually, and as class representatives

Samatha Koerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V James De Simone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Annabella Gonzalves (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Antonio H Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Schonbrun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Brandt Ford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Ann Valenzuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald W Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 15 of 48

Guillermo Suarez M (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy A Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Olu K Orange (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca F Thornton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samatha Koerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V James De Simone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
David Gabriel Eng individually, and as class representatives

represented by Annabella Gonzalves (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Antonio H Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barrett S Litt (See above for address)

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 16 of 48
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Schonbrun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Brandt Ford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Ann Valenzuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald W Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guillermo Suarez M (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy A Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Olu K Orange (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca F Thornton

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 17 of 48

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samatha Koerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V James De Simone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Luis Galvez individually, and as class representatives

represented by Annabella Gonzalves (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Antonio H Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin Schonbrun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Brandt Ford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynthia Ann Valenzuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2007

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 18 of 48
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald W Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guillermo Suarez M (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy A Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Olu K Orange (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca F Thornton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert M Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samatha Koerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V James De Simone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 19 of 48

Gerardo Gomez individually, and as class representatives

represented by Annabella Gonzalves (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Antonio H Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin Schonbrun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Brandt Ford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynthia Ann Valenzuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald W Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gladys Limon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guillermo Suarez M (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy A Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 20 of 48

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Olu K Orange (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca F Thornton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samatha Koerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V James De Simone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jorge Lopez individually, and as class representatives

represented by Annabella Gonzalves (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Antonio H Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin Schonbrun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 21 of 48
Christopher Brandt Ford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Ann Valenzuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald W Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guillermo Suarez M (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy A Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Olu K Orange (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca F Thornton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert M Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 22 of 48

Plaintiff
Jaime Maldonado individually, and as class representatives

Samatha Koerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V James De Simone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Annabella Gonzalves (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Antonio H Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Schonbrun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Brandt Ford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Ann Valenzuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald W Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 23 of 48

Guillermo Suarez M (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy A Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Olu K Orange (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca F Thornton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samatha Koerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V James De Simone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Leopold Ortiz individually, and as class representatives

represented by Annabella Gonzalves (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Antonio H Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barrett S Litt (See above for address)

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 24 of 48
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Schonbrun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Brandt Ford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Ann Valenzuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald W Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guillermo Suarez M (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy A Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Olu K Orange (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca F Thornton

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 25 of 48

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samatha Koerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V James De Simone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Romuardo Pedro individually, and as class representatives

represented by Annabella Gonzalves (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Antonio H Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin Schonbrun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Brandt Ford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynthia Ann Valenzuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2007

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 26 of 48
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald W Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guillermo Suarez M (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy A Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Olu K Orange (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca F Thornton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert M Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samatha Koerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V James De Simone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 27 of 48

Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel individually, and as class representatives

represented by Annabella Gonzalves (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Antonio H Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin Schonbrun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Brandt Ford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynthia Ann Valenzuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald W Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gladys Limon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guillermo Suarez M (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy A Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 28 of 48

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Olu K Orange (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca F Thornton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samatha Koerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V James De Simone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Esther Navarrette Plata individually, and as class representatives

represented by Annabella Gonzalves (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Antonio H Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin Schonbrun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 29 of 48
Christopher Brandt Ford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Ann Valenzuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald W Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guillermo Suarez M (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy A Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Olu K Orange (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca F Thornton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert M Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 30 of 48

Plaintiff
Maria Ester Tejada individually, and as class representatives

Samatha Koerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V James De Simone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Annabella Gonzalves (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Antonio H Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Schonbrun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Brandt Ford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Ann Valenzuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald W Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 31 of 48
Guillermo Suarez M (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy A Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Olu K Orange (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca F Thornton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert M Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samatha Koerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V James De Simone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
City of Los Angeles a Municipal Corporation

represented by Geoffrey R Plowden Los Angeles City Attorney's Office City Hall E 200 N Main Street 6th Fl Los Angeles , CA 90012 213−978−7034 Fax: 213−978−8785 Email: geoffrey.plowden@lacity.org TERMINATED: 09/23/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 32 of 48

Defendant William Bratton in their official
Defendant William Bratton individual capacities
Defendant Cayler Carter in their official
Defendant Cayler Carter individual capacities Defendant Louis Gray in their official
Defendant Louis Gray individual capacities Defendant

Todd Hayward Los Angeles City Attorney's Office 200 North Main Street 6th Floor Los Angeles , CA 90012 213−978−6958 Fax: 213−978−8785 Email: todd.hayward@lacity.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey R Plowden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/23/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Hayward (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey R Plowden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/23/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Hayward (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Ferguson Ferguson Praet &Sherman 1631 E 18th St Santa Ana , CA 92705−7101 714−953−5300 Fax: 714−953−1143 Email: peterferg@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Ferguson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 33 of 48 DOES 1 through 10

Date Filed 05/09/2007
05/09/2007
05/09/2007
05/09/2007 05/09/2007 05/09/2007 05/09/2007 05/09/2007 05/09/2007 05/14/2007
05/23/2007

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Defendants City of Los Angeles, William Bratton(in their official), William Bratton(individual capacities), Cayler Carter(in their official), Cayler Carter(individual capacities), Louis Gray(in their official), Louis Gray(individual capacities), DOES 1 through 10. (Filing fee $ 350 PAID.) Jury Demanded. , filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center.(et) (Entered: 05/22/2007)

20 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery) 1 as to City of Los Angeles, William Bratton(in their official), William Bratton(individual capacities), Cayler Carter(in their official), Cayler Carter(individual capacities), Louis Gray(in their official), Louis Gray(individual capacities), DOES 1 through 10. (et) (Entered: 05/22/2007)

2 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (et) (Entered: 05/22/2007)

FAX number for Attorney Carol A Sobel is 310−393−3605. (et) (Entered: 05/22/2007)

FAX number for Attorney Annabella Gonzalves, Cynthia Ann Valenzuela is 213−629−0266. (et) (Entered: 05/22/2007)

FAX number for Attorney Antonio H Rodriguez is 323−869−9911. (et) (Entered: 05/22/2007)

FAX number for Attorney Rebecca F Thornton is 310−393−3605. (et) (Entered: 05/22/2007)

FAX number for Attorney Olu K Orange is 775−416−9221. (et) (Entered: 05/22/2007)

FAX number for Attorney Christopher Brandt Ford is 213−487−8001. (et) (Entered: 05/22/2007)

6 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. Related Case(s): CV 01−6877 FMC (CWx), CV 01−7046 FMC (CWx), CV 00−11769 GAF (RCx) (rn) (Entered: 06/08/2007)

PREPARED ORDER RE TRANSFER Pursuant to General Order 224 (Related Case) by Clerk; related to CV 07−2966 AHM (FMOx). (rn, ) (Entered: 05/23/2007)

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 34 of 48

05/25/2007 05/25/2007 05/30/2007
05/31/2007 06/04/2007 06/04/2007 06/04/2007 06/04/2007

3 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 224 −Related Case− filed. Related Case No: CV 07−2966 AHM (FMOx). Case transfered from Judge Gary A. Feess and Jeffrey W. Johnson to Judge A. Howard Matz and Fernando M. Olguin for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge CV 07−3072 AHM (FMOx).Signed by Judge A. Howard Matz (rn, ) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
Cases associated with Lead Case CV 07−2966 AHM (FMOx) (rn, ) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants City of Los Angeles, William Bratton(in their official), William Bratton(individual capacities), Cayler Carter(in their official), Cayler Carter(individual capacities), Louis Gray(in their official), Louis Gray(individual capacities), DOES 1 through 10 amending Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 ,filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center (yc) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
4 INITIAL ORDER FOLLOWING FILING OF COMPLAINT ASSIGNED TO JUDGE MATZ by Judge A. Howard Matz to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive determination.(ca ) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
7 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed upon City of Los Angeles served on 6/1/2007, answer due 6/21/2007. The Summons and FIRST AMENDED Complaint were served by personally delivering copies service, by Federal statute, upon Maria Rico, City Clerk, by Maria Vazcarre. Due Dilligence declaration NOT attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (yc) (Entered: 06/13/2007)
PROOF OF SERVICE Executed UPON CHIEF William Bratton(in their official) served on 6/1/2007, answer due 6/21/2007. The Summons and first amended Complaint were served by Substitued, by leaving copies: service, by Federal statute, upon Pat Tayler, Clerk. Due Dilligence declaration NOT attached. Original Summons NOT returned. Papers were also mailed on 6/1/2007. (yc) (Entered: 06/13/2007)
PROOF OF SERVICE Executed upon Cmdr. Cayler Carter(in their official) served on 6/1/2007, answer due 6/21/2007. The Summons and first amended Complaint were served by Substituted, by leaving copies : service, by FEDERAL statute, upon Pat Taylor, Clerk as directed by front desk officers. Due Dilligence declaration NOT attached. Original Summons NOT returned. Paper were also mailed on 6/1/2007. (yc) (Entered: 06/13/2007)
PROOF OF SERVICE Executed upon Cmdr Louis Gray(in their official) served on 6/1/2007, answer due 6/21/2007. The Summons and first amended Complaint were served by Substiuted, By leaving copies service, by Federal statute, upon Pat Taylo, Clerk. Due Dilligence declaration NOT attached. Original Summons NOT returned. Paper were mailed also on 6/1/2007. (yc) (Entered: 06/13/2007)

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 35 of 48

06/15/2007 06/21/2007 06/21/2007 06/26/2007
08/03/2007 08/06/2007 08/10/2007 08/21/2007
08/22/2007
09/06/2007

11 NOTICE of serving initial order following filing of complaint assigned to Judge Matz filed by Plaintiffs. (ib) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
9 ANSWER to first Amended Complaint,,, 5 with JURY DEMAND filed by defendants City of Los Angeles, William Bratton(in their official).(yc) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
10 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, William Bratton. (yc) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
8 ORDER RETURNING CASE FOR REASSIGNMENT UPON RECUSAL by Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin. ORDER case returned to the Clerk for random reassignment discovery pursuant to General Order 224, Section 3.2. Case randomly reassigned from Judge Fernando M. Olguin to Judge Frederick F. Mumm for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge CV 07−3072−AHM(FFMx).(tami) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
13 CERTIFICATION of Interested Parties filed by Defendants Cayler Carter, Louis Gray. (yc) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
12 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge A. Howard Matz, ORDERING answer to complaint submitted by Defendants Cayler Carter, Louis Gray received on 8/3/2007 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: amended complaint on docket.(yc) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
14 ANSWER to first Amended Complaint,,, 5 filed by defendants Cayler Carter(in their official).(yc) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
16 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Consolidate Class Certification Hearings in related cases CV07−3072 and CV07−3026 filed by plaintiffs Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. Lodged Proposed Order.(smo) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
15 STIPULATION TO SET FILING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND ORDER by Judge A. Howard Matz : Motion for class certification shall be filed by 9/6/07; opposition to be filed by 9/20/07; reply brief to be filed by 10/4/07; and the hearing on the motion shall be on October 15, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. Because the Court denied the class certification motion filed by counsel for plaintiff in Baker v. Bratton, No. CV07−3026−AHM, the companion ex parte application filed in this case is moot, and is denied solely on that basis.(smo) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
17 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Class Certification filed by plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. Motion set for hearing on 10/15/2007 at 10:00 AM before Judge A. Howard Matz. Lodged Proposed Order. (jp) (Entered: 09/10/2007)

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 36 of 48

09/06/2007 09/06/2007 09/18/2007 09/21/2007
09/25/2007 09/25/2007
10/03/2007 10/04/2007

18 MEMORANDUM OF LAW, DECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITS in Support of MOTION for Class Certification 17 filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (jp) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
19 DECLARATION of BARRETT S. LITT in support of MOTION for Class Certification 17 filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (jp) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
20 STIPULATION FOR MODIFICATION OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTOIN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; ORDER by Judge A. Howard Matz that Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs MOTION for Class Certification 17 shall be filed and served by personal service on the Law Offices of Carol Sobel and Barrett S. Litt on 9/24/2007. (jp) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
21 PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION to Defendants EXPARTE APPLICATION for Another Extension of Time to Oppose Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion 17 filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (jp) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND WILLIAM BRATTON'S EXPARTE APPLICATION for Another Extension of Time to Oppose Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion 17 ; Declaration of Geoffrey Plowden; Order. (jp) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
22 DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND WILLIAM BRATTON'S EXPARTE APPLICATION for Another Extension of Time to Oppose Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion; Declaration of Geoffrey Plowden; ORDER by Judge A. Howard Matz: Good cause having been shown, defendants EXPARTE APPLICATION for additional Time to respond to Plaintiffs Class Certification Motion is GRANTED. Defendants Opposition is now due to be filed and hand served by 10/3/2007; Plaintiffs Reply, if any, shall be filed and served via regular service methods by 10/12/2007. The hearing on plaintiffs class certification 17 is CONTINUED from 10/15/2007 to 10/29/2007 (see document for further details). (jp) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
23 OPPOSITION to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification re: MOTION to Certify Class 17 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (mb) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
24 NOTICE OF JOINDER TO DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND WILLIAM BRATTONS'S OPPOSITION TO PLAITIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed by

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 37 of 48

10/12/2007 10/12/2007
10/15/2007
10/15/2007 10/15/2007
10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/29/2007
11/05/2007

Defendant Cayler Carter,Louis Gray (mb) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
25 REPLY to Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs MOTION for Class Certification 17 filed by Plaintiffs. (jp) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
26 DECLARATION OF COUNSEL AND REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE in support of Plaintiffs MOTION for Class Certification 17 filed by plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (jp) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
28 NOTICE of Change of Counsel by Nancy A Ramirez attorney for Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center, changing address to Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, 634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90014. Filed by plaintiffs (ak) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
FAX number for Attorney Nancy A Ramirez is 213−629−0266. (ak) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
29 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Gladys Limon on behalf of Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center (ak) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
FAX number for Attorney Gladys Limon is 213−629−0266. (ak) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
39 NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney Kristina Michelle Campbell on behalf of Plaintiff Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network. Filed by plaintiff Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network (bb) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
27 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge A. Howard Matz : Court will allow plaintiffs to file supplemental materials by not later than November 5, 2007 and the defendants may respond by not later than November 9, 2007.Court would also find it helpful if defendants were to file a status report on the current status of the pending state court actions.Pending the submission of supplemental materials, the Court takes plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification UNDER SUBMISSION.Court Reporter: Cindy Nirenberg. (smo) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
30 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM Regarding Class Certification 17 filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 38 of 48

11/05/2007
11/05/2007
11/08/2007
11/08/2007 11/09/2007 11/09/2007 11/15/2007 11/15/2007 12/03/2007 12/14/2007

Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (jp) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
31 DECLARATION of BARRETT S. LITT in support of Plaintiffs Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Class Certification 17 filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (jp) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
32 DECLARATION of CAROL A. SOBEL in support of Plaintiffs Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Class Certification 17 filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (jp) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
33 PETITION to Withdraw Annabelle Gonzalvez as Counsel filed by plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (jp) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
34 PETITION to Withdraw Cynthia Valenzuela as Counsel filed by plaintiffs. (jp) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
35 STATUS REPORT Regarding Related Litigation; Declaration of Geoffrey Plowden filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, William Bratton. (jp) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
36 RESPONSE to Plaintiffs Supplemental Memorandum 30 filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, William Bratton. (jp) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
37 ORDER by Judge A. Howard Matz GRANTING PETITION to Withdraw as counsel of record by Cynthia A. Valenzuela 34 . (jp) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
38 ORDER by Judge A. Howard Matz GRANTING PETITION to Withdraw as counsel of record by Amabelle Gonzalvez 33 . Attorney Annabella Gonzalves terminated. (jp) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
42 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information: changing e−mail to kcampbell@maldef.org. for attorney Kristina Campbell. Filed by plaintiff Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network (cbr) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
40 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge A. Howard Matz : This is one of several civil rights actions arising from the Los Angeles Police Departments (LAPD) forceful dispersal of the May 1, 2007 immigration rally at MacArthur Park. In this order the Court will only rule on the Plaintiffs

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 39 of 48

01/08/2008
02/13/2008 02/14/2008
02/14/2008 02/14/2008
02/19/2008 02/21/2008

motion for class certification 17 . Court GRANTS that motion (see document for details.) (smo) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
41 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS before Judge A. Howard Matz: The Court, having considered the memoranda, delcarations and exhibits filed by Plaintiffs and Defendants in support of and in opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certifiation, and having heard oral argument by both parties on 10/29/2007, grants the motion for the reasons fully elaborated in the Court's Civil Minutes 40 is attached 1 and incorporated herein by this reference. This Order specifically makes the findings required by FRCP 23 (see document for further details). (jp) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
43 STATUS REPORT (UPDATED) filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
44 STATUS REPORT AND PROPOSED REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
45 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following deficiency was found: No proposed order submitted as separate attachment RE Status Report 44 (se) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
46 REQUEST for Order for Status Conference filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center.Request set for hearing on 3/3/2008 at 01:30 PM before Judge A. Howard Matz. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
47 ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE by Judge A. Howard Matz: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a joint status and scheduling conference be set for March 3, 2008 at 1:30 P.M., to coincide with the status conference already set in the case of Lopez v. City of Los Angeles, 07−cv−05555 AHM. See document for details. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 2/25/2008.,Scheduling Conference set for 3/3/2008 01:30 PM before Judge A. Howard Matz. (smo) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
48 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER RE ELECTRONIC FILING by Judge A. Howard Matz: Effective January 1, 2008, electronic filing has been mandatory for all new and pending civil cases. All documents which are required to be filed in an electronic format pursuant to General Order No. 08−02 must be filed electronically no later than midnight on the date due, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Documents filed late may be stricken by the Court. The Court will not accept documents which were filed electronically. Courtesy Paper Copies. Unless otherwise ordered, courtesy paper copies of all electronically filed documents must be delivered to the courtesy box outside chambers no later than 12:00 noon the following business day. The courtesy paper copies must comply with Local Rule 11−3,

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 40 of 48

02/25/2008 02/28/2008 03/03/2008
04/10/2008 04/29/2008 05/07/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/13/2008
05/13/2008

i.e., blue backed, font size, page numbering, tabbed exhibits, etc., unless otherwise directed. The courtesy paper copy must be prominently labeled COURTESY COPY on the face page (see document for further details). (jp) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
49 NOTICE Rule 26 Status Report filed by plaintiff Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
50 NOTICE Rule 26 Report filed by plaintiff Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network. Scanned Signature Page (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
51 MINUTES OF Status Conference/Scheduling Conference held before Judge A. Howard Matz : Court and counsel confer on the status of the various actions and the proposed case management strategies. Court wants a universal stipulation and order regarding any stay in all cases.Court is also advised that the City of Los Angeles will be seeking outside counsel to take over these cases. Any new counsel will be obligated to honor any previously signed stipulations.Court Reporter: Cindy Nirenberg. (smo) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
52 MINUTES OF Status Conference re: Settlement: Settlement planning conference held. Court and counsel confer regarding procedure and scheduling of coordinated settlement process. A further planning conference is scheduled for May 14, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. Substantive settlement conferences are scheduled for July 22, July 24, August 15 and August 18, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. (dt) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
53 Joint STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by defendants City of Los Angeles, William Bratton(in their official). (Attachments: # 1)(Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
54 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Frederick F. Mumm : re: Stipulation for Protective Order 53 ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER: Although the Court is willing to enter an appropriate protective order in accordance with the parties' stipulation, the proposed stipulated protective order is rejected for the following reasons: (see attached). (jm) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
55 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by defendants City of Los Angeles, William Bratton(individual capacities). (Attachments: # 1)(Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
56 Joint STIPULATION to Stay Case pending settlement discussions filed by plaintiff Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declarations in Support of Joint Stipulation# 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order re Joint Stipulation)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
57 ORDER by Judge A. Howard Matz, re Joint Stipulation to Stay Discovery Pending Early Settlement Discussions 56 signed by all counsel in nine of the 11 cases presently pending in federal court, as well as declarations from Plaintiffs counsel in each of those cases, informing the Court that the requirement advisement to the plaintiffs has been made. The Court is also aware that the parties have been proceeding diligently and have met with Magistrate Judge Woerhle and set dates for mediation sessions in July and August, 2008. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to approve the Joint Stipulation to Stay Discovery Pending Early Settlement Discussions. (jp) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
59 REVISED STIPULATION RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER; DECLARATION OF SERGEANT GREGORY VALENTI IN

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 41 of 48

05/14/2008
05/14/2008 07/07/2008 07/22/2008 07/24/2008 08/21/2008 08/27/2008 09/23/2008

SUPPORT THEREOF AND ORDER by Judge Frederick F. Mumm. (jm) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
58 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS before Judge A. Howard Matz: The Court−approved "Joint Stipulation to Stay Discovery Pending Early Settlement 56 , 57 Discussions" in Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network v. City of Los Angeles (CV 07−3072) (MIWON) also applies to the following cases: Aguilar v. City of Los Angeles (CV 07−4131), consolidated with Ajuria v. City of Los Angeles (CV 07−8433); Newton v. City of Los Angeles (CV 07−4455); Lopez v. City of Los Angeles (CV 07−5555); Gudiel v. City of Los Angeles (CV 08−1370); Reyes v. City of Los Angeles (CV 08−2225); Aguilar v. City of Los Angeles (CV 08−2301). The Court VACATES the Rule26(f) scheduling conferences for the last three casesin that list, Gudiel, Reyes, and Aguilar. The docket shall reflect that Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Networkv. City of Los Angeles (CV 07−3072) is the lead case. Although MIWON is the lead case, the Court reminds counsel that these cases are separate cases for filing purposes, other than Mr. Carrillos consolidated cases. Therefore, documents must be electronically filed in each case. (jp) Modified on 5/14/2008 (jp). (Entered: 05/14/2008)
60 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Judge Carla Woehrle : Further settlement planning conference held. Court and counsel confer regarding schedule and related issues. A further telephonic planning conference is set for July 7, 2008, at 3:00 p.m. Counsel for plaintiffs will arrange the conference call. Substantive settlement conferences are now scheduled for July 22,July 24, August 18, and August 21, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. (dt) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
61 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: Telephonic planning conference held. Substantive settlement conferences are now scheduled for July 22, July 24, August 21, and August 27, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. (dt) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
62 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: Continued conference is scheduled for July 24, 2008. (dt) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
63 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: Continued conference is scheduled for August 21, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. (dt) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
64 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: Continued conference is scheduled for August 27, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. (dt) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
65 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: A further confence with plaintiff's counsel is scheduled for October 6, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. A continued joint settlement conference is scheduled for October 31, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. (dt) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
66 REQUEST to Continue Plaintiffs' Conference from 10/06/2008 to 10/08/2008 filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. Request set for hearing on 10/8/2008 at 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 09/23/2008)

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 42 of 48

09/24/2008 09/24/2008 10/09/2008 10/31/2008 11/15/2008
11/21/2008 12/16/2008 01/08/2009

67 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Todd Hayward counsel for Defendants City of Los Angeles, William Bratton. Adding TODD HAYWARD as attorney as counsel of record for CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND WILLIAM BRATTON for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by DEFENDANT DEFENDANT (Hayward, Todd) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
68 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle, GRANTING REQUEST to Continue Plaintiffs' Conference 66 . Settlement Conference set for 10/9/2008 at 9:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. (ca) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
69 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: A continued joint settlement conference remains schduled for October 31, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. (dt) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
70 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: Settlement conference held. Parties are to confer further. A telephonic conference regarding settlement status is set for November 21, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel for Plaintiffs to place conference call to the court. Court Smart: n/a. (pcl) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
71 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS AMENDED ORDER RE ELECTRONIC FILING before Judge A. Howard Matz: Effective January 1, 2008, electronic filing has been mandatory for most new and pending civil cases in the USDC, Central District of California. Self−represented litigants and attorneys who take appropriate steps to opt out of the system need not comply with the following requirements. All documents which are required to be filed in an electronic format pursuant to General Order No. 08−03 must be filed electronically no later than midnight on the date due, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Documents filed late may be stricken by the Court. The Court will not accept documents which were filed electronically, but which otherwise fail to comply with filing requirements. (See document for further details). Unles s otherwise ordered, chambers paper copies of all electronically filed documents must be delivered to the courtesy box outside chambers no later than 12:00 noon the following business day. The chambers paper copies must comply with Local Rule 11−3, i.e., blue backed, font size, page numbering, tabbed exhibits, etc., unless otherwise directed. IF A DOCUMENT CONTAINS EXHIBITS THAT ARE NOT TABBED, THE COURT MAY DECLINE TO READ THE EXHIBITS. The chambers paper copy must be prominently labeled"CHAMBERS COPY" on the face page. (jp) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
72 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: Telephonic confrence held. Parties are to confer further. A continued telephonic conference regarding settlement status is set for Decmber 16, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. Counsel for Plaintiff to place conference call to the court. (dt) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
73 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: Parties are to confer further. A continued conference regarding settlement status is set for January 8, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. (dt) (Entered: 12/29/2008)
74 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: Parties are to confer further. A continued telephonic conference regarding settlement status is set for January 20,2009, at 2:00 p.m. Counsel for Plaintiffs to place conference call to the court. (dt) (Entered: 01/09/2009)

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 43 of 48

01/20/2009 01/23/2009 02/10/2009 02/11/2009 03/06/2009 03/12/2009
03/13/2009 03/13/2009 03/14/2009

75 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference re: Settlement Status held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: Telephonic conference held. Parties are to confer further. The Court will schedule further proceedings related to settlement as required. Tape #: n/a. (pcl) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
76 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge A. Howard Matz. At the parties request, the Court sets a status conference for February 13, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. The stipulation, along with its attachments, must be filed by not later than February 12, 2009 with courtesy copies delivered to chambers by noon. (kbr) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
77 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge A. Howard Matz re Minutes of In Chambers Order 76 : Status Conference set for 2/13/2009, and time advanced to 10:30 AM before Judge A. Howard Matz. (se) (Entered: 02/10/2009)
78 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS before Judge A. Howard Matz: At the parties' request, the Court the Status Conference from 2/13/2009 to 3/6/2009 at 4:00 PM. (jp) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
79 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge A. Howard Matz: Status Conference 78 continued to 3/16/2009 at 03:00 PM before Judge A. Howard Matz. (se) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
81 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Correct The Record re Settlement Agreement,, 80 Exhibits F, G and H filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit F, # 2 Exhibit G, # 3 Exhibit H, # 4 Declaration Litt Declaration re Ex Parte, # 5 Proposed Order Re Ex Parte)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
82 ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO REMOVE ERRONEOUSLY FILED EXHIBITS F−H TO THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER by Judge A. Howard Matz. The Settlement Agreement filed on March 12, 2009 80 shall be SEALED. Plaintiffs shall file a Corrected Settlement Agreement (not under seal) with the corrected Exhibits F through H. (kbr) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
85 MINUTES OF Status Conference held before Judge A. Howard Matz: Status conference held. Also present is the Hon. Carla Woehrle, Magistrate Judge. Court and counsel confer over the proposed order for preliminary approval of class action settlement filed by the parties and the draft Class and Settlement Notice.Court Reporter: Cindy Nirenberg. (se) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
83 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT With Corrected Exhibits F, G and H filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit B to Settlement Agreement, # 3 Exhibit C to Settlement Agreement, # 4 Exhibit D to

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 44 of 48

03/16/2009
03/19/2009
04/09/2009 04/20/2009 04/20/2009 04/20/2009

Settlement Agreement, # 5 Exhibit E to Settlement Agreement, # 6 Exhibit F (CORRECTED) to Settlement Agreement, # 7 Exhibit G (CORRECTED) to Settlement Agreement, # 8 Exhibit H (CORRECTED) to Settlement Agreement)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 03/14/2009)
84 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT As Amended filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redlined Preliminary Approval, # 2 Exhibit Amended Settlement Agreement, # 3 Exhibit Redlined Settlement Agreement, # 4 Exhibit Amended Notice and Claim Form, # 5 Exhibit Redlined Notice and Claim Form, # 6 Exhibit Amended Final Approval, # 7 Exhibit Redlined Final Approval)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
86 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER by Judge A. Howard Matz (see document for further details). Publication of summary notice as provided in the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit A): to begin by the week of 3/30/2009; Filing of Plaintiffs Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees and Costs must be filed by 4/20/2009; Filing of class members' Objections to any aspect of the Settlement (including Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Settlement of Attorneys' Fees and Costs): Must be filed by 4/27/2009; Deadline to opt−out: Must be postmarked or received by 4/27/2009; Deadline for filing class claims: Must be postmarked or received by 5/27/2009; Opposition or Reply to Objections (including to objections to award of attorneys' fees and costs): Must be filed by 6/8/2009; Proposed Final Order of Approval of Settlement: Must be filed by 6/15/2009; and Fairness Hearing: 6/22/2009. (jp) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
87 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge A. Howard Matz: On the Courts own motion, the Court sets a final approval of class actionsettlement hearing date of June 22, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. (se) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
88 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
89 NOTICE Notice of Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
90 DECLARATION of Barrett Litt In Support Of EX PARTE APPLICATION to Correct The Record re Settlement Agreement,, 80 Exhibits F, G and H EX PARTE

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 45 of 48

04/21/2009 04/21/2009 04/21/2009 04/21/2009

APPLICATION to Correct The Record re Settlement Agreement,, 80 Exhibits F, G and H EX PARTE APPLICATION to Correct The Record re Settlement Agreement,, 80 Exhibits F, G and H 81 This Declaration is in Support of the Memorandum re Attorneys' Fees and Costs. There was no option for the correct link. filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (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)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
91 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. Motion set for hearing on 6/22/2009 at 10:00 AM before Judge A. Howard Matz. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
92 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. correcting Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 88 , Notice (Other), Notice (Other) 89 (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
93 DECLARATION of Carol A. Sobel In Support Of MOTION for Attorney Fees 91 filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (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)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
94 DECLARATION of Barrett S. Litt In Support Of MOTION for Attorney Fees 91 filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (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)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 04/21/2009)

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 46 of 48

04/21/2009 04/21/2009 04/22/2009
04/23/2009 04/23/2009 06/03/2009
06/03/2009
06/15/2009

95 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re MOTION for Attorney Fees 91 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
96 STATEMENT of OF NON−OPPOSITION RE: MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES MOTION for Attorney Fees 91 filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, William Bratton. (Hayward, Todd) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
97 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center of Exhibits "J" and "K" to Declaration of Barrett S. Litt. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
98 EXHIBIT "J" to Declaration of Barrett S. Litt 94 filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (jp) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
99 EXHIBIT "K" to Declaration of Barrett S. Litt 94 Filed filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (jp) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
100 APPLICATION to Dismiss Defendants Hillman, McDonald and Egan of City of Los Angeles filed by Plaintiffs Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
101 ORDER by Judge A. Howard Matz, re REQUEST for Dismissal of Defendants Michael Hillman, Tom McDonald and John Egan 100 . In accordance with Paragraph 31 of the Settlement Agreement in this action (Exhibit A to the Preliminary Approval Order), after receipt of the Releases of Michael Hillman, Tom McDonald and John Egan as required by the Settlement Agreement, and subject to the rights of reinstatement of the action against the dismissed defendants contained in the Settlement Agreement, that defendants Michael Hillman, Tom McDonald andJohn Egan be dismissed from this action. (jp) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
102 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT for Final Approval filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 47 of 48

06/15/2009 06/15/2009 06/15/2009 06/16/2009 06/22/2009
06/23/2009

Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
103 DECLARATION of Barrett S. Litt re Settlement Agreement,, 102 In Support of Final Settlement Approval filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
104 DECLARATION of Ryanne Cozzi of Gilardi &Co. re Settlement Agreement,, 102 In Support of Final Settlement Approval filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit In Support)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
105 NOTICE OF LODGING filed of Second Proposed Fee Order re Settlement Agreement,, 102 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
106 EXHIBIT Revised Exhibit E to MOTION for Attorney Fees 91 Ex E to Final Approval Order filed by Plaintiff Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
114 MINUTES: Proceedings: (1) FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT HEARING (2) IN CV 07−3072−AHM (FFMx): Motion for Attorney Fees 91 (non−evidentiary) before Judge A. Howard Matz: For reasons stated on the record and subject tocertain modifications, the Court grants the final approval of the class action settlement. Plaintiffs to submit a revised order. The attorney fees motion in CV 2007−03072−AHM (FFMx), MULTI−ETHNIC IMMIGRANT WORKERS ORGANIZING NETWORK, et al. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al. was granted. The Court grants plaintiffs oral motion to dismiss defendants Michael Hillman, Jim McDonnell, and John Egan in CV 2007−04131−AHM (FMOx), BRANDON AGUILAR, et al. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al. and CV 2007−08433−AHM (FMOx), XIOMARA AJURIA, et al. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al. only. Court Reporter: Cindy Nirenberg. (jp) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
107 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Final Approval Post Hearing filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3−Revised

Case: 2:07-cv-03072-AHM-FFM As of: 10/08/2009 08:13 AM PDT 48 of 48

06/23/2009 06/23/2009 06/23/2009 06/24/2009
06/24/2009 06/24/2009

Replacement for Original Submission)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
108 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Fee Approval Post Hearing filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
109 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Re Structured Relief filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center, Defendant Louis Gray. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
110 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Breslin, Mario Cuellar, David Gabriel Eng, Luis Galvez, Gerardo Gomez, Jorge Lopez, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, Jaime Maldonado, Leopold Ortiz, Romuardo Pedro, Jeremy Rothe−Kuschel, Multi−Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network, Esther Navarrette Plata, Maria Ester Tejada, Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance, IDESPCA, Pilipino Workers Center, Garment Workers Center. correcting Settlement Agreement, 108 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Correction to Post Hearing Fee Approval)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
111 ORDER AWARDING CLASS COUNSEL FEES AND COSTS by Judge A. Howard Matz. Court finds that the hours expended in this case were reasonable. The Court also notes that the actual hours being compensated, based on the approved hourly rates, amounts to a 13%−14% discount from lodestar (the difference between a $4,000,000 lodestar based on the approved rates and hours and factoring in a modest amount of further work) and the $3,455,000 requested as MIWON fees. Plaintiffs seek an award of$258,000 in costs, most of which are for medial liens yet to be paid. To the extent they are not, MIWON Counsel submitted an itemization of costs, which the Court finds reasonable. Accordingly, those costs are awarded as well. (jp) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
112 STRUCTURAL RELIEF ORDER by Judge A. Howard Matz (see attached Order for futher information). (jp) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
113 FINAL ORDER OF APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT JUDGMENT by Judge A. Howard Matz: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDICATED AND DECREED that Each term and phrase used in this Final Order of Approval of Class Settltement and Consent Judgment shall have the same definition and meaning as in the Settlement Agreement (see attached Order for further details). Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the FRCP, the Court finds that there is no just reason for dealy and therefore directs entry of ths Consent Judgment. Inasmuch as this disposes of all claims asserted in the lawsuit, the court further directs the Clerk to enter an order of dismissal, with prejudice pursuant to FRCP, Rule 41(a)(1)(2). (Made JS−6. Case Terminated.) (jp) (Entered: 07/02/2009)