Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 1 of 33 Page ID #:1

1 CAROL A. SOBEL SBN 84483 2 COLLEEN M. MULLEN SBN 299059
JUSTINE SCHEEWEIS SBN 305672 3 LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 4 3110 Main Street, Suite 210
Santa Monica, California 90405 5 t. 310 393–3055 f. 310 399-1854 6 e. carolsobel@aol.com
7
8 FERNANDO GAYTAN SBN SBN 224712 SHAYLA R. MYERS SBN 264054
9 LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES 10 7000 S. Broadway 11 Los Angeles, California 90003
t. 213 640-3983 f. 213 640-3988 12 e. smyers@lafla.org 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff CANGRESS

14 (ADDITIONAL COUNSEL ON NEXT PAGE)

15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION

17

18 CARL MITCHELL, MICHAEL ESCOBEDO, SALVADOR ROQUE,

Case No.:

19 JUDY COLEMAN, as individuals; LOS CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT:

20 ANGELES CATHOLIC WORKER,

CANGRESS, as organizations,

42 U.S.C. § 1983: FOURTH, FIFTH,

21

AND FOURTEENTH

22

PLAINTIFFS, AMENDMENTS;

23 v.
24 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal 25 entity; LT. ANDREW MATHIS, SGT.
HAMER and SGT. RICHTER , in their 26 individual and official capacities,

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE I, §§ 7 and 13; CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §52.1; COMMON LAW TORT CLAIMS

27

28

DEFENDANTS.

P1

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 33 Page ID #:2

1 PAUL L. HOFFMAN SBN 071244

2 CATHERINE SWEETSER SBN 271142

SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS &

3

HOFFMAN LLP

4 723 Ocean Front Walk

Venice, California 90291 5 t. 310 396-0731 f. 399-7040

6 e. hoffpaul@aol.com

7 e. catherine.sdshhh@gmail.com

8 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 16 17

18

19 20 21 22 23

24

25 26 27 28

P2

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 3 of 33 Page ID #:3

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

1. This is an action for injunctive relief and damages pursuant to 42

3 U.S.C. § 1983 based upon the continuing violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the

4 Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

5 Jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343 based on 42 U.S.C.

6 §1983 and questions of federal constitutional law. Jurisdiction also exists under

7 the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202. Supplemental

8 jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

9

2. Venue is proper in the Central District in that the events and conduct

10 complained of herein all occurred in the Central District.

11

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

12

3. “[T]he greatest of our evils and the worst of our crimes is poverty.”1

13 Los Angeles has the second largest unhoused population in the nation, but the

14 largest unsheltered community by far. Declaring a “State of Emergency” last Fall,

15 the City Council described this situation as “unprecedented.” The word used in

16 almost every motion and statement by public officials is that Los Angeles has a

17 homelessness “crisis.” According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services

18 Authority (LAHSA) 2015 count, the number of individuals living on the streets of

19 the City in the last two years has increased by approximately 12 percent, as wages

20 stagnated, rents increased dramatically and the affordable housing stock declined

21 in the face of gentrification in formerly low-income neighborhoods across Los

22 Angeles. This translates to almost 5,000 additional individuals, nearly all of

23 whom are living in tents, various makeshift shelters and in their vehicles

24 throughout the city.

25

26

27

28

1 George Bernard Shaw, “Major Barbara.”

P3

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 4 of 33 Page ID #:4

1

4. According to the LAHSA 2015 count, 25,000 of the approximately

2 44,000 homeless persons in Los Angeles County are located in the City of Los

3 Angeles. While the City has made some progress in helping families and

4 veterans to get housed, the same is not true for the remainder of the individual

5 homeless persons. In 2014, the City projected that there was a 72 percent

6 shortfall between available shelter and the demand for it. City officials blame the

7 situation Los Angeles faces now on a combination of “a tremendous lack of

8 emergency shelter” and a “chronic shortage of affordable housing.” They

9 estimate that more than 10,000 units a year must be added to the City’s housing

10 stock for the next five years to meet the need for “very low-low income

11 households.” However, with thousands of people becoming homeless each

12 month, as reported by the Economic Roundtable, even this estimate seems out of

13 touch with the severity of the situation.

14

5. At the first meeting of the newly-formed City Council Homelessness

15 and Poverty Committee last year, Councilmember Bonin began his introductory

16 statement by conceding that the City failed to do what it needed to do after the

17 2007 settlement in Jones v. City of Los Angeles. 444 F.3d 1118 (2006), vacatur

18 approved per settlement, 505 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2007). The Jones settlement

19 suspended nighttime enforcement of LAMC § 41.18(d), the ban on sitting, lying,

20 or sleeping on the sidewalk, consistent with the decision of the Ninth Circuit

21 Court of Appeals. The nighttime enforcement ban remains in effect until an

22 additional 1,250 units of housing are created for chronically homeless persons,

23 half of which must be on Skid Row and the immediate surrounding downtown

24 area. Almost a decade later, the City has not met this obligation. In fact, if the

25 low-income housing units lost on Skid Row since 2007 are added into the

26 calculus, few, if any, units have been added toward the Jones requirement.

27

6. In September 2015, City officials held a press conference, describing

28 a state of emergency regarding homelessness and promising comprehensive

P4

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 5 of 33 Page ID #:5

1 proposals to address this dire situation. A motion introduced in the City Council 2 on September 22, 2015, characterized the situation as “a moral, humanitarian and 3 public health crisis.” The City promised to commit at least $100 million annually 4 for housing and other services. More recently, the City announced its long-term 5 plan to address this critical situation.

6

7. But the promise has proved to be an empty one because, at the same

7 time that City officials concede the desperate need for these programs, they claim

8 that there is no money to fund them. Elected officials now talk about putting a

9 bond measure on the ballot next November that, if passed by the necessary two-

10 thirds majority, might provide some funds in a few years. The Mayor has

11 publicly discounted the bond measure in favor of a $75 tax on each document

12 filed with the City government for commercial developments. Mayor Garcetti

13 projects this proposal would produce $30 to $40 million dollars annually, far less

14 than the promised $100 million annually calculated as necessary to implement

15 these critical programs. But, even if this proposal is adopted, it would take

16 several years to generate the projected funds. There is no immediate source of

17 funding for the City that will alter the homelessness crisis soon. In the meantime,

18 the City has begun a renewed vigorous and cruel enforcement of so-called

19 “quality of life” offenses against the homeless, charging many with misdemeanor

20 offenses, jailing them for these quality of life offenses, and seizing and destroying

21 their property.

22

8. The need to respond to the increasing numbers of unsheltered

23 individuals in Los Angeles is hardly new and neither is the approach of

24 criminalizing - rather than housing - people who are homeless. Over the past 25

25 years, the City’s primarily response has been to invest in approaches that address

26 the visible presence of homeless people, without actually reducing the number of

27 residents on the street each night. These approaches include criminalizing

28

P5

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 6 of 33 Page ID #:6

1 homelessness and the destruction of homeless people’s property. These practices

2 have been repeatedly challenged and struck down by the Court.

3

9. In 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined nighttime

4 enforcement of Los Angeles Municipal Code (“LAMC”) § 41.18(d), making it a

5 crime to lie, sit or sleep on a public sidewalk any time of day or night anywhere

6 in the City. The Court held that the law, as enforced, violated the Eighth

7 Amendment. Jones, 444 F.3d at 1138. In 2014, the Court struck down as

8 unconstitutionally vague LAMC § 85.02, which made it a crime for a person to

9 park or stand a vehicle on any public property in the City if the person “lived” in

10 the vehicle “day to day, overnight or otherwise.” Desertrain v. City of Los

11 Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2014).

12

10. In 2003, the City was also successfully sued to enjoin a sweeping

13 “stop and frisk” policy instituted immediately after Chief Bratton began his tenure

14 in Los Angeles and now-Chief Beck was the new Captain III at Central Station.

15 See Fitzgerald v. City of Los Angeles, CV 03-01876 DDP; 485 F.Supp.2d 1137

16 (C.D. Cal. 2007). The policy, dubbed "Operation Enough," was to locate

17 probation and/or parole violators or absconders but, in fact, swept up black males

18 on Skid Row without reasonable suspicion. Over the course of six years of

19 litigation, the district court enjoined the practice twice before a final settlement

20 was reached in 2009, requiring the LAPD to provide ongoing training on Fourth

21 Amendment requirements to all patrol officers at Central Station.

22

11. In addition to criminalizing homelessness with laws and actions the

23 Court has held to be unconstitutional, the City has also embarked on an

24 unconstitutional campaign to seize homeless people’s property and to remove

25 homeless individuals from the public sidewalks. The City has persisted with this

26 approach despite repeatedly being rebuked by the courts. The City was

27 successfully sued three times to stop the unlawful seizure of the personal property

28 of homeless individuals on Skid Row. See Bennion v. City of Los Angeles, LASC

P6

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 7 of 33 Page ID #:7

1 Case C637718 (1987); Justin v. City of Los Angeles, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

2 17881; CV-00-12352 LGB (CD Cal. 2000); Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 797 F.

3 Supp. 2d 1005 (CD Cal. 2011); aff’d, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2013). It has also

4 been sued twice to challenge the same practices in the Venice area.

5

12. In the most recent Court case, Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, in 2011,

6 after the City was caught seizing and destroying homeless people’s shopping carts

7 and belongings, the U.S. District Court granted an injunction against the City of

8 Los Angeles, prohibiting it from seizing property that is not abandoned, evidence

9 of a crime or creates a public hazard, and from destroying that property without

10 first storing for 90 days for someone to be able to claim it. The Ninth Circuit

11 upheld the injunction. 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2013).

12

13. The City’s practices towards people who are homeless have been

13 condemned by the Courts. In affirming the rights of the plaintiffs in Lavan the

14 Ninth Circuit underscored that the “simple rule [i.e. notice and an opportunity to

15 be heard by an impartial tribunal] holds whether the property in question is an

16 Escalade or a [tent], a Cadillac or a cart.” Id. at 1032.

17

14. Even as these laws have been struck down and the approaches

18 rebuked, the City continues its criminalization of homelessness. A report issued

19 in 2015 by the City’s Chief Administrative Officer, analyzed the resources spent

20 by the City to respond to the homeless in the prior year. The report identified

21 between $87 and $100 million spent indirectly by the City on responses to

22 homelessness. Ninety percent of that money was spent by the LAPD to enforce

23 laws against homelessness such as LAMC Section 41.18(d).

24

15. The City has continued to allocate nearly the bulk of its current

25 resources directed to addressing homelessness to target homeless communities as

26 criminals. In the Skid Row area alone, the City employs two Special Details, the

27 East Side Detail and the Safer Cities Initiative, which has now been rebranded

28 RESET. The primary mission of the East Side Detail is to enforce these laws

P7

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 8 of 33 Page ID #:8

1 against homelessness in the Central Division. Through RESET, the LAPD

2 deploys 50 uniformed officers, six sergeants and a lieutenant to suppress crime in

3 the area.

4

16. The City’s approach is even more indefensible when viewed against

5 the directives issued by the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

6 (“USICH”), composed of nineteen federal cabinet and agency heads to organize

7 federal efforts to end homelessness. The most recent USICH report, “Ending

8 Homelessness for People Living in Encampments,” is directly on point and

9 counter to the criminalization approach taken by Los Angeles to homeless

10 individuals forced to live on the streets in large part because of the government’s

11 failures over decades.

12

17. Specifically, the USICH underscored that “forced dispersal” of

13 homeless encampments is inappropriate and undermines the goal of providing

14 services to homeless individuals. While the USICH underscored the importance

15 of “intensive and persistent outreach and engagement,” the City of Los Angeles

16 implemented “intensive and persistent” citations, arrests, and destruction of

17 personal property, putting an already vulnerable community at extreme peril.

18

19

PARTIES

20 PLAINTIFFS

21 Carl Mitchell

22

18. Plaintiff CARL MITCHELL has been living on Skid Row for the

23 past several years. Prior to that time, he lived in various facilities with supportive

24 services. Mr. MITCHELL lived in a sober living facility for several years, until

25 the building was sold and the facility closed. After that, Mr. MITCHELL moved

26 to another supportive facility but was forced to move when the building was shut

27 down because of bed bug infestations. At that time, Mr. MITCHELL came to

28

P8

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 9 of 33 Page ID #:9

1 Skid Row, where he has been since. Mr. MITCHELL is almost 62 years old and

2 suffers from several health problems.

3

19. On December 15, 2015, Plaintiff MITCHELL was approached by a

4 supervisor in the LAPD and asked if a specific cart belonged to him. Mr.

5 MITCHELL responded that his carts were the two Hippie Kitchen carts and that

6 the third cart, located on his other side, was not his. Despite his repeated

7 insistence that the third cart did not belong to him, he was arrested and charged

8 with a misdemeanor for possession of a stolen shopping cart. Mr. MITCHELL

9 was handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car. He watched as the officer

10 directed that the property in all three carts – his two Hippie Kitchen carts and the

11 third cart – be dumped out and then thrown in the back of a truck. Mr.

12 MITCHELL’s property was not segregated from the property in the purportedly

13 illegal shopping cart that belonged to another person. Although Mr. MI asked

14 that the officer give him his backpack, with his medications, medical appointment

15 papers and other personal items, his request was rejected.

16

20. Mr. MITCHELL had not been arrested for any offense in a decade

17 when this incident occurred. Although he committed no crime in the first place,

18 his purported “crime” should have been charged as an infraction for a violation of

19 LAMC § 41.45(c) (“Illegal Possession of a Shopping Cart”). Even if charged as a

20 misdemeanor, because Mr. MITCHELL had his identification, he should not have

21 been taken into custody, pursuant to Volume 4, Section 216.66 of the Los

22 Angeles Police Department Manual. Had this occurred, Mr. MITCHELL would

23 not have had his property taken, and he would not have been taken into custody,

24 charged with a misdemeanor, booked and held for about 18 hours at the

25 Metropolitan Detention Center before being released in the middle of the night.

26

21. On the night Mr. MITCHELL was released by the jail, the

27 temperature in Downtown Los Angeles was 40 degrees. That night, he slept in

28 the cold with only a single blanket he found on the sidewalk as cover. When he

P9

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 10 of 33 Page ID #:10

1 was released, he was not given any receipt or inventory for the property seized at 2 the time of his arrest. The only property receipt he received listed his shoelaces, a 3 belt and one or two other items that were on his person when he was arrested. He 4 was given no notice of where or how his backpack and other property could be 5 reclaimed. Despite his best efforts, he has been unable to obtain any of his 6 property that was not destroyed. Mr. MITCHELL had to go to JWCH, also 7 known as Healthcare for the Homeless of Los Angeles, where he is a patient, to 8 replace his medication. After all of this, Mr. MITCHELL’s charges were rejected 9 by the City Attorney, and he was not charged with a crime.
10

11 Michael Escobedo

12

22. Plaintiff MICHAEL ESCOBEDO had his tent taken and destroyed

13 around Christmas Eve 2015. Mr. ESCOBEDO has severe vision problems that

14 have left him legally blind, uses a white cane to navigate passage on the streets

15 and sidewalks and has the assistance of a support dog he has trained to guide him.

16 In the past, he tried to secure housing in a downtown Residential Hotel, only to be

17 told that they could not accommodate individuals with his disability or with

18 service animals. For the same reasons, Mr. ESCOBEDO cannot access the

19 shelters on Skid Row. Because his support dog is not a licensed guide dog, he

20 cannot bring her into a shelter.

21

23. On the morning that his property was taken, Mr. ESCOBEDO was

22 not informed of any notice that a clean-up of the area was schedule. Mr.

23 ESCOBEDO left his property in the care of his neighbor while he went to get

24 coffee at about 7 a.m. When he returned a short time later, he observed that the

25 area of the sidewalk where he kept his property had been taped off with yellow

26 tape and public employees were removing property. Mr. ESCOBEDO was given

27 a few minutes to take some of his possessions out of his tent, but not the tent. He

28 observed the tent dumped into the back of a garbage truck by City employees.

P10

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 11 of 33 Page ID #:11

1 After his tent was seized and destroyed, Mr. ESCOBEDO was forced to sleep 2 with only a tarp for protection for several months until he could replace the tent. 3 The tarp was insufficient to protect him from the cold, rain and wind, and he was 4 unable to get more than a few hours sleep each night. Without the tent, his 5 personal property, including all of his clothes were soaked and became mildewed.

6 Salvador Roque

7

24. Plaintiff SALVADOR ROQUE is an unsheltered resident of Skid

8 Row. He has only been homeless for a few months, following personal events

9 that caused him to suffer severe depression, for which he takes prescription

10 medications. On the morning of February 23, 2016, he was sweeping the

11 sidewalk area where he sleeps at night when an LAPD patrol car drove by. The

12 officers in the vehicle used the loudspeaker system to announce that everyone on

13 the block had to take down their tents. Before Mr. Roque could comply with the

14 order, the officers asked him for identification, ran a wants and warrants check,

15 and found an outstanding charge of a Failure to Appear on a prior infraction.

16

25. Mr. ROQUE was handcuffed, arrested and placed in a patrol car. As

17 he was in the back of the vehicle, he observed LAPD officers use yellow tape to

18 surround his property. On information and belief, none of the property was

19 booked by the LAPD when Mr. ROQUE was arrested and held on $750 bail. He

20 was released the following day. At the time of his release, he was not given a

21 receipt for any of his property. He has attempted to find his property at several

22 locations, as advised by the LAPD, all to no avail to date.

23

26. For the last three weeks, he has stayed with a friend in a Residential

24 Hotel a few nights a week. Most nights, he stays awake all night and sleeps

25 during the day. As a result of being exposed to the cold and dampness all night,

26 he developed a cough, congestion in his chest and a sore throat.

27

27. As Plaintiff ROQUE was being arrested and his property was being

28 seized, the LAPD also took the opportunity to seize the property of his neighbor,

P11

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 12 of 33 Page ID #:12

1 Ernesto Aguirre, who was not at the scene; he was receiving medical care at the

2 JWCH Healthcare for the Homeless clinic.

3

28. Defendant City’s employees and agents knew that the property next

4 to Mr. ROQUE’s property did not belong to Mr. ROQUE, yet they seized them

5 without prior notice. Several individuals attempted to intervene and told the

6 police that the property owner was nearby at Homeless Healthcare for a medical

7 appointment. The City’s employees and agents continued to throw away the

8 majority of the property, while one of the bystanders ran to retrieve Mr. Aguirre.

9

29. City employees threw away most of the property of Plaintiff

10 ROQUE and Mr. Aguirre, and as to the few items that were not thrown away,

11 including all of Mr. Aguirre’s medications, they were commingled with the

12 property of Plaintiff ROQUE.

13

30. While all of the City’s employees and agents were still on site, Mr.

14 Aguirre, who was in medical distress but had been told what was going on with

15 his property, returned to the scene to retrieve his property, He told the officer in

16 charge at the scene, Sgt. Richter, that he needed his belongings. One of the

17 individuals who had gone to get him also told the LAPD officers that Mr. Aguirre

18 needed his medications, which were now in a bag with Mr. ROQUE’s property.

19 Sgt. Richter ignored these entreaties, grabbed the bag with the commingled

20 property and put it in the back of the LAPD truck, which then drove off. During

21 all of this time, Mr. Aguirre was collapsed on the sidewalk, his pleas ignored by

22 Sgt. Richter, who was standing right in front of him. Only after the property was

23 removed did Sgt. Richter call an ambulance to take Mr. Aguirre to the hospital for

24 emergency treatment.

25

31. Since his release from custody the following day, Mr. ROQUE has

26 tried multiple times to reclaim his property, including as recently as the date of

27 the filing of this action. Each time, he has been told by the LAPD that he has to

28 go to a different location, or talk to a different person, to see if someone knows

P12

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 13 of 33 Page ID #:13

1 where his property is stored. All of these efforts are to no avail. Mr. ROQUE 2 lost everything, including medications, blankets, money and important personal 3 documents, including papers he needed for his medical conditions and his efforts 4 to obtain Social Security disability benefits. Neither Mr. ROQUE nor Mr. 5 Aguirre received any documents inventorying the property that was taken or 6 giving them notice that the property could be reclaimed. Mr. ROQUE’s property 7 was seized attendant to an arrest; Mr. Aguirre’s property was seized without any 8 prior notice and without cause.
9

10 Judy Coleman

11

32. Plaintiff JUDY COLEMAN is a disabled person who is homeless

12 and lives on Towne Avenue. She suffers from multiple conditions, including

13 severe arthritis in her hips and knees, diabetes, high blood pressure and

14 respiratory problems. Her health conditions require her to take medication, use

15 medical equipment and test her blood sugar levels regularly. On February 12,

16 2016, she was awakened at approximately 4:00 a.m. by an announcement over a

17 loud speaker on an LAPD vehicle. The announcement was that everyone had to

18 be packed and off the street by 6:00 a.m. because of a clean-up that was going to

19 occur. The announcement included a warning that anyone who did not comply

20 would be subject to arrest. Plaintiff COLEMAN complied fully with the order,

21 moving all of her property around the corner to Fifth Street.

22

33. Soon thereafter, LAPD Lieutenant Mathis approached her about a

23 silver shopping cart about five to six feet away from Ms. COLEMAN. She told

24 Lt. Mathis that the cart did not belong to her and that she did not know whose it

25 was. Lt. Mathis responded by insisting that the silver cart was hers now and that

26 she had too much property. He then placed her under arrest for possession of a

27 stolen shopping cart. Although possession of a stolen shopping cart is an

28 infraction under the Los Angeles Municipal Code, in order to be able to arrest

P13

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 14 of 33 Page ID #:14

1 her, officers charged Ms. COLEMAN with violating a provision of the California

2 Business and Professions Code, a nearly identical state law that allows the

3 violation to be charged as a misdemeanor and therefore, result in arrest.

4

34. While Ms. COLEMAN was being arrested, she asked to grab her

5 medication and to allow her to use her walker. The officers refused both requests.

6

35. Ms. COLEMAN was held in custody for two days, and was finally

7 released on Sunday, February 14, 2016. When she was released, she had no

8 medications or other equipment needed for her medical conditions, even though

9 the LAPD was aware of her medical situation and she was provided some

10 treatments while in custody. She was given a property receipt that listed only

11 that “multiple” bags were stored at the off-site property storage facility. Because

12 she was released on Sunday, she could not access her property until no earlier

13 than Tuesday.

14

36. Following her release, she had no blanket, tent or other items to

15 protect her from the elements. A few days after her release, she developed

16 pneumonia and was then hospitalized for treatment.

17

37. Plaintiff COLEMAN has attempted to retrieve her property without

18 success. She has called the telephone number on the property receipt she

19 received on her release from custody, but that location is generally unstaffed,

20 making it difficult, if not impossible to recover property. The signs at the storage

21 location in the parking lot across from the Roybal Building indicate the days and

22 hours that the facility is supposed to be open, but the facility is not staffed..

23

38. The appearance date on the citation for violation of the Business and

24 Professions Code was March 10, but no charges have been filed against her to

25 date.

26

///

27

///

28

///

P14

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 15 of 33 Page ID #:15

1 Los Angeles Catholic Worker

2

39. Plaintiff Los Angeles Catholic Worker, (“LACW”) founded in 1970,

3 is an unincorporated lay Catholic community of women and men that operate a

4 free soup kitchen, hospitality house for the homeless, hospice care for the dying

5 and by-monthly newspaper. Nicknamed the “Hippie Kitchen,” the facility is

6 located on the Northeast corner of 6th Street and Gladys Avenue in Skid Row.

7 LACW provides full meals to the community three times a week. In furtherance

8 of its mission, the Hippie Kitchen associates to provide other services, including

9 access to dental care, over-the-counter medications, podiatry services, toiletries

10 and other personal items. In furtherance of its mission, for the past several years,

11 the Hippie Kitchen has purchased shopping carts to provide them to unsheltered

12 homeless persons to store and move their personal belongings.

13

40. The shopping carts are a bright red with the LACW name marked on

14 the handle and a distinctive sign affixed to the front of each cart, stating that these

15 carts are the private property of LACW and provided as “Shopping Carts for the

16 Homeless.” Over the last three months, employees and agents of the City have

17 seized the carts without lawful justification. Nearly six dozen carts were rescued

18 by the fortuitous intervention of Plaintiff LACW, returned to Plaintiffs by private

19 shopping cart retrieval companies, which informed LACW that they were given

20 to them by the Los Angeles Police Department, or picked up from a location

21 where the LAPD stores collected carts. Significantly, in Lavan, Defendant City

22 submitted declarations to the Court, attesting that the LAPD would never take a

23 Hippie Kitchen cart and throw away the property in the cart. Despite the City’s

24 averments, the documentary evidence demonstrated that this statement was false

25 and the Court so found. See Lavan, 797 F.Supp.2d at 1014 (citing Duncanson

26 Decl. ¶ 5).

27

41. As a result of Defendants’ actions to seize the Hippie Kitchen carts,

28 Plaintiff LACW has had to expend personnel resources to prevent removal of the

P15

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 16 of 33 Page ID #:16

1 carts and to reclaim the carts once unlawfully taken by Defendants. In addition, 2 because many carts are never returned by Defendants, LACW has to expend

3 scarce financial resources to replace the carts and some of the property destroyed.

4 The policies of Defendants also interfere with Plaintiff LACW’s mission to

5 provide a safe place for the homeless community. Individuals cannot leave their

6 shopping carts to obtain the assistance provided by the Hippie Kitchen because

7 they risk of losing their property when it is unlawfully seized and destroyed.

8 Cangress

9

42. Plaintiff CANGRESS, also known as the Los Angeles Community

10 Action Network (“LA CAN”), is a grassroots, non-profit organization operating

11 in Skid Row for approximately two decades. More than 800 low-income

12 residents of Skid Row are involved with LA CAN, many of whom are

13 unsheltered each night. The primary purpose of the organization is to organize

14 and empower community residents to work collectively to address systemic

15 poverty and oppression in the community. Since its founding in 1999, LA CAN

16 has been the only member-driven organization in Skid Row whose goal is to

17 protect the rights and prevent the further disenfranchisement of homeless and

18 poor people in Los Angeles. LA CAN brings this action on behalf of its members

19 and associates whose property has been seized by employees and agents of the

20 CITY pursuant to the enforcement policies, practices and customs of seizing and

21 destroying property in Skid Row. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions,

22 LA CAN has expended personnel resources to try and prevent property from

23 being seized and to try and locate if and where any property was taken so that

24 they can assist their members and associates to recover the property.

25

26 DEFENDANTS:

27

43. Defendant City of Los Angeles (“CITY”) is a municipal entity with

28 the capacity to sue and be sued. It is a Charter City under the laws of the State of

P16

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 17 of 33 Page ID #:17

1 California. The departments of the City of Los Angeles include the Los Angeles

2 Police Department and the Los Angeles Department of Public Works and its

3 departments and agencies. Employees of the CITY have engaged in the acts

4 complained of herein pursuant to the policies, practices and customs of the CITY.

5

44. Defendant Lt. Andrew Mathis, Sgt. Hamer and Sgt. Richter are all

6 supervisors in the Los Angeles Police Department and presently assigned to

7 Central Division. They are the individual employees of Defendant CITY who

8 were on site and directed the unlawful seizure and destruction of Plaintiffs’

9 property and directed the false arrest of certain of the Plaintiffs on a misdemeanor

10 crime of possession of stolen shopping carts.

11

45. Each of the Defendants, their employees and agents, participated

12 personally in the unlawful conduct challenged herein and, to the extent that they

13 did not personally participate, authorized, acquiesced, set in motion, or otherwise

14 failed to take necessary steps to prevent the acts that resulted in the unlawful

15 conduct and the harm suffered by Plaintiffs. Each acted in concert with each

16 other. The challenged acts caused the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights.

17

46. The identities and capacities of defendants DOES 1 through 10 are

18 presently unknown to plaintiffs, and on this basis, Plaintiffs sue these defendants

19 by fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend the Complaint to substitute the true

20 names and capacities of the DOE defendants when ascertained. Plaintiffs are

21 informed, believe, and thereon allege that DOES 1 through 10 are, and were at all

22 times relevant herein, employees and/or agents of the Defendant CITY and are

23 responsible for the acts and omissions complained of herein. Defendants DOES 1

24 through 10 are sued in both their official and individual capacities.

25

26

THE SEIZURE AND DESTRUCTON OF PROPERTY

27
47. Despite five lawsuits against it for removing property without
28
adequate pre-deprivation notice or post-deprivation notice, the CITY has returned
P17

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 18 of 33 Page ID #:18

1 to the same unlawful policies and practices. This time, the due process violations

2 are compounded by the simultaneous arrests of homeless persons.

3

48. On information and belief, since at least December 2015, the Los

4 Angeles Police Department has had a policy, custom or practice of arresting

5 homeless individuals for non-violent quality of life crimes which would otherwise

6 be charged as infractions, and incident to those arrests, seizing and destroying

7 their property.

8

49. Since at least 2013, it has been the City Attorney’s policy to charge

9 a number of quality of life offenses as infractions, a policy which was codified in

10 an interoffice memorandum. Following the issuance of the Revised Filing

11 Guidelines for Direct Citations, the Los Angeles Police Department issued a

12 similar directive, instructing officers to charge these violations as infractions as

13 well. The ordinances covered by these customs and procedures include LAMC

14 §41.18(d), which prohibits sitting, sleeping, or lying on the sidewalk and LAMC

15 §41.45, which prohibits the “unauthorized removal, use or possession of shopping

16 carts” that have affixed to them a sign identifying the private business owners.

17

50. While law enforcement officers retain discretion to charge these

18 violations as misdemeanors, the practice of charging these crimes as infractions

19 was supported by the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles Police

20 Commission, and the Los Angeles City Council, following a report by the Los

21 Angeles Police Department. The report, which was completed at the direction of

22 the City Council and approved by both the Police Commission and the City

23 Council, found that the infraction policy was advantageous both in terms of the

24 costs and benefits of arrests and consistent with current LAPD practices. The

25 review overwhelmingly showed that individuals charged with violations of these

26 crimes were being cited for infractions and were not being arrested. For example,

27 in 2012, the LAPD did not arrest anyone for having a shopping cart in violation

28 of LAMC Section 41.45(c).

P18

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 19 of 33 Page ID #:19

1

51. When charged as an infraction, these violations may not form the

2 basis of arrest. Even when charged as a misdemeanor, the LAPD standard

3 operating procedure and state law provides that a person can be to be cited and

4 released from custody with the issuance of a Notice to Appear, without being

5 taken to a police station or held for any amount of time longer than necessary to

6 issue a Notice to Appear.

7

52. Despite this City-wide policy, since at least December 2015, the

8 LAPD has had a custom, policy, or practice of arresting homeless individuals in

9 Skid Row for violations of these quality of life ordinances, in order to seize and

10 destroy their property.

11

53. When a homeless individual is arrested for violations of these minor

12 offenses, LAPD has a custom, policy, and practice of contacting the Bureau of

13 Sanitation and Street Services trucks to respond to the scene. Since at least

14 February 2016, both the East Side Detail and RESET have been assigned a

15 deployment of trash trucks from the Department of Sanitation and Street Services,

16 which are now present in Skid Row every day.

17

54. When one of the City departments responds to deal with a homeless

18 person’s property, it responds with a trash truck, a flatbed pickup truck, and/or a

19 skiploader. When an arrestee is taken into custody, the LAPD and responding

20 department tape off a portion of the sidewalk with police tape, warning

21 individuals not to cross or enter the area. During these sweeps, the area covered

22 by the tape can include other individuals’ property. LAPD officers and City

23 Workers often use this opportunity to seize and destroy property other than the

24 property that belongs to the arrestee. LAPD officers instruct City personnel to

25 investigate property that does not belong to the arrestee; a single arrest can lead to

26 the clearing of an entire City block.

27

55. City workers responding to the property do not use care in handling

28 the property. It is treated as if it is presumptively trash. The workers use knives

P19

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 20 of 33 Page ID #:20

1 to rip open tents, destroying them in the process. They crush the tent poles and 2 items in the tent. When Bureau of Sanitation responds to a call from the LAPD 3 regarding an arrestee’s property, they seize and dispose of nearly all of the 4 property, including tents, blankets, shoes, clothing, and often medications, 5 medical assistance equipment such as walkers, diabetes testing machines and

6 nebulizers, personal documents, and other critical items. Items that the CITY the

7 Bureau of Sanitation determines should be thrown away are shoveled or thrown

8 in a Department of Sanitation trash truck for immediate disposal.

9

56. After an arrestee is taken into custody, the arrestee is not given a

10 chance to deal with their property in any way. Officers do not allow them to pack

11 up their belongings or to identify items that are critically important, like

12 Identification cards, medications, or family photos. Even when these items are

13 stored in a single backpack or bag, the officers do not allow the arrestees the

14 opportunity to identify these items, so that the items can be transported with the

15 arrestee and stored for release at the same time arrestee is released from custody.

16 The seizure and destruction of the backpacks is especially troubling because the

17 City Council is considering the City Attorney’s proposed revision to LAMC

18 Section 56.11, which would allow unsheltered individuals to keep a backpack

19 only with what the CITY has called “essential” personal property, including

20 medications and personal papers. Individuals who are arrested are also not

21 allowed to leave their property in the care of another person near them. Instead,

22 the arrest provides the City of Los Angeles with the opportunity to clear the

23 homeless individual’s property from the streets. The majority of the property is

24 simply thrown away.

25

57. If any property is saved, it is bagged, and according to LAPD policy,

26 should be itemized and tagged as the arrestee’s excess personal property.

27 Officers and city employees do not take care to ensure that only the arrestee’s

28 property is bagged and tagged. As a result, the property of other arrestees or

P20

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 21 of 33 Page ID #:21

1 individuals who are not arrested, have their property comingled with the

2 arrestees’ property. These individuals cannot get this property back because it is

3 stored under the arrestee’s name, and only the arrestee can retrieve the property.

4

58. Arrestees’ property that is bagged and tagged is not taken and stored

5 along with the arrestee, either at the Metropolitan Detention Center or the County

6 Jail. As a result, the property is not accessible to the arrestee upon his or her

7 release from custody. Instead, any small amount of property that is saved from

8 destruction is supposed to be given to the East Side Detail to store at the Central

9 Division “excess property warehouse,” a warehouse that the Detail operates. This

10 warehouse is separate and distinct from the Bureau of Sanitation 90-day storage

11 facility, where property is stored that is seized during Operation Healthy Streets

12 sweeps or when the Bureau of Sanitation picks up property on the streets during

13 any of its now daily cleanings.

14

59. If the property is collected by the RESET detail, it is not necessarily

15 transported directly to the warehouse. Because the East Side Detail only works

16 between the hours of 4:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, any

17 property that is picked up by RESET outside of these hours is transferred to the

18 Central Division and left by the East Side Detail truck until it can be transported

19 by a member of East Side Detail to the warehouse.

20

60. The LAPD’s excess property storage facility is not located at the

21 Metropolitan Detention Center or the Parker Center, where arrestees are routinely

22 transported. Instead, it is located in a hard-to-identify spot in the middle of a

23 parking lot across from the Roybal Federal Courthouse. The address given for

24 the warehouse leads to the City of Los Angeles parking lot entrance, with

25 prominent signs announcing that only City employees may use the lot. The

26 Excess Property warehouse sign itself is significantly smaller, and is next to a

27 number of gates that are locked. In order to access the walkway, one must walk

28 through the main vehicle entrance and through the parking lot to the building.

P21

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 22 of 33 Page ID #:22

1 Individuals can access their property from the warehouse only between the hours 2 of 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., Tuesday through Friday. The warehouse is not 3 regularly staffed however; in order to gain access to the facility and their 4 property, an individual must have access to a working and charged telephone, and 5 must call the non-emergency telephone number for the Central Division. At

6 times, this number is not answered, either by an individual or even a voicemail

7 system. If an individual is able to contact someone at the Central Division, they

8 must then wait for someone from the East Side Detail to respond to the call to

9 open up the warehouse during the limited hours that the warehouse will be

10 accessed.

11

61. Because of the limited hours that the individual can obtain their

12 property, someone who is arrested likely will not be able to obtain their property

13 the day they are arrested and released, if at all. Anyone arrested later than

14 Thursday afternoon will not be able to obtain their property until Tuesday of the

15 following week, regardless of how long they are held in custody, because the

16 facility is closed.

17

62. If an individual manages to find the warehouse when it is open, in

18 order to obtain the property, the arrestee must show a Property Receipt. Before

19 an arrestee is released, the arrestee is supposed to be given this receipt. This

20 property receipt should list all items that were stored; however, the LAPD lists

21 the items in vague terms, and does not itemize what has been retained. The

22 arrestee has no way of knowing what property was stored, and no way of

23 knowing what property was destroyed. This property receipt provides the

24 arrestee with the sole notice where their property is being housed and how it can

25 be retrieved. If the arrestee is not given a receipt, they have no way of knowing

26 where the remainder of their property that was not thrown away is being stored.

27 If another individual’s property is stored with the arrestee’s property, the property

28 owner will have no way to obtain the property.

P22

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 23 of 33 Page ID #:23

1

63. Property that is seized during a street cleaning or at any other time

2 other than incident to an arrest is stored at another facility. Therefore, individuals

3 whose property is seized are left to guess whether their property has been stored

4 and where it can be reclaimed. Because adequate post-deprivation notice is not

5 provided at the location of the seizure, they must often walk from location to

6 location, trying to search out what City employees did with their property.

7

8

THE HEALTH AND SAFETY RISK TO UNHOUSED PERSONS

9

10

64. A large percentage of the persons living on the streets in Los

11 Angeles have or are at serious risk for health problems. The risk is greatly

12 increased by several factors, including a lack of shelter, especially in the winter

13 months when it is cold and rains; preexisting health conditions; and the advanced

14 age of many chronically homeless residents.

15

65. The danger created for unhoused individuals by the systematic

16 seizure and destruction of their property, including the most basic necessities like

17 medications, blankets, tents and tarps, is obvious and particularly so in the winter.

18 Although Los Angeles often enjoys warm weather during daytime in the winter,

19 at night the temperature regularly drops to 50 and below. This crosses the

20 threshold for the risk of hypothermia, and increases the risk of other illnesses that

21 can result from sleeping unsheltered on the streets, particularly in the rain.

22 Moreover, when the wind-chill factor2 is included, the threat increases.

23

66. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”)

24 utilizes an index that takes into account advances in meteorology,

25

26

27

28

2 Wind-chill is the perceived decrease in air temperature felt by the

body when skin is exposed to wind.

P23

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 24 of 33 Page ID #:24

1 biometeorology, and computer modeling to create a formula that accurately 2 calculates this perceived temperature, and warns the public about the dangers 3 from exposure to winter winds and low temperatures. Essentially, this index 4 shows how wind speeds dramatically impact how quickly the human body loses 5 heat.

6

67. According to NOAA records, this past December, the average

7 minimum temperature in Los Angeles was 47.1 degrees. To illustrate, at this

8 temperature, winds of only 5 miles per hour reduce applied temperatures by 2

9 degrees; winds of 15 miles per hour create a wind-chill factor that reduces the

10 temperature felt by the body by 6 degrees; and winds traveling 25 miles per hour

11 produce a wind-chill factor of -8.1 degrees. In the rain coupled with lightning

12 and thunder on March 7, 2015, wind gusts reached as high as 33 miles per hour.

13 With a raw temperature of 51 degrees during the storm, the force of the wind

14 resulted in a wind-chill factor of -8 degrees, lowering the temperature to

15 approximately 43 degrees. Thus, even in Los Angeles’ so-called “moderate

16 winters,” the temperatures experienced by homeless individuals exposed to the

17 elements consistently fall well-below 50 degrees, the threshold where individuals

18 are exposed to hypothermia.

19

68. Defendants are well aware of the danger the homeless community

20 faces and recognized it in their plan for the winter shelter program and other

21 emergency pop-up shelters. But even without this public recognition,, it is plain

22 common sense that protection from the cold and rain is an identifiable human

23 need. Unprotected exposure to cold and rain presents a serious risk of illness and,

24 as already happened once this winter, death to someone living on the sidewalk

25 with only minimal or no protection once their property is seized and destroyed. A

26 policy that ignores the “mutually enforcing effect” of destroying property and

27 leaves people to live on the streets manifests actionable deliberate indifference.

28

P24

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 25 of 33 Page ID #:25

1

69. The immediate risk to the health and safety of the homeless

2 community far outweighs any element based on the perceived public health

3 hazard that may exist and are used to justify the seizure and destruction of

4 property, like the presence of rat droppings on property, or the fact that personal

5 possessions become wet as a result of the rain. The CITY is well aware of this.

6 In 2012, after the injunction was entered in Lavan, the CITY approached the Los

7 Angeles County Public Health Department to identify public health issues on

8 Skid Row. On May 21, 2012, Jacqueline Taylor, Bureau Director for Region 1,

9 issued a report on the County’s findings. Significantly, the County did not find

10 that identified health hazards justified the removal and destruction of personal

11 property. To the contrary, the County opined that if the property was moved

12 regularly and, if possible, kept 18 inches off the ground, such as in a shopping

13 cart or other mobile device, the problem would be alleviated. Without seizing

14 and destroying the property of homeless persons, the CITY implemented the

15 clean-up policies recommended by the County and, in fact, received a favorable

16 report from the County just a few months later.

17

70. Notably, the solution the County directed for most of the issues was

18 to provide additional public toilets, adequate trash bins with frequent disposal of

19 garbage, and access to soap and water to minimize the transmission of disease

20 because people were living on the streets in “desperate situations.” Although the

21 CITY did add a few trash cans in Skid Row since the County issued its report

22 four years ago, there are still only a few toilets, and no soap or water for the

23 number of homeless individuals, which has increased by more than 20 percent

24 since the County issued its report in 2012.

25

71. Defendants’ present justification for destroying Plaintiffs’ property is

26 based on the purported contamination of those items. This was not a justification

27 the County Public Health Department would sanction in 2012 and it is not a

28 sufficient rationale today. But even if some of the property is contaminated, this

P25

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 26 of 33 Page ID #:26

1 approach strips Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights precisely because of 2 Defendants’ failure to take adequate, let alone any, steps to address the most 3 fundamental needs of homeless persons for a safe environment. Moreover, the 4 consequence of Defendants’ policies and practices is to leave Plaintiffs in the 5 cold, literally. When Plaintiff MITCHELL was falsely arrested and then released 6 at approximately 3 a.m. on December 16, 2015, the low temperature in 7 Downtown Los Angeles was 40 degrees. Mr. MITCHELL was released from jail 8 with nothing to protect him from the elements as he slept on the sidewalk that 9 night other than a thin blanket he found in someone else’s cart.
10

11

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

12

Right to Be Secure From Unreasonable Seizures

42 U.S.C. §1983 - Fourth Amendment; Art. 1, §13, California

13

Constitution

14

72. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the

15 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

16

73. Defendants and their employees and agents violated Plaintiffs’

17 Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizure of their property

18 by confiscating and then destroying Plaintiffs’ property without a warrant.

19

74. Defendants and their employees and agents violated Plaintiffs

20 MITCHELL’s and COLEMAN’s rights to be free from false arrest.

21

75. These unlawful actions were done with the specific intent to deprive

22 Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights to be secure in their property.

23

76. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the acts of the Defendant and

24 their employees and agents were intentional in failing to protect and preserve

25 Plaintiffs’ property and that, at minimum, Defendants were deliberately 26 indifferent to the likely consequence that the property would be seized and 27 destroyed unlawfully, based on the past circumstances of similar constitutional 28 and statutory violations of the law.

P26

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 27 of 33 Page ID #:27

1

77. As a direct and proximate consequence of these unlawful acts,

2 Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer loss of their personal property and

3 are entitled to compensatory damages for their property personal injury.

4

5

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW; 42 U.S.C. § 1983

6

FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS; ART. I, § 7

7

78. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the

8 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

9

79. Defendants, their employees and agents, owed Plaintiffs a duty under

10 the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.

11 Constitution and Article I, § 7 of the California Constitution to protect the

12 personal property of the Plaintiffs. This duty applied to preserving the personal

13 property of individuals arrested and taken into custody.

14

80. Despite this well-defined duty, Defendants provided Plaintiffs with

15 no notice that their property was at risk of being seized and/or destroyed and did

16 not act to preserve the property or provide any means of reclaiming it in a timely

17 manner, even though Defendant CITY was put on notice by the Los Angeles

18 Superior Court, the United States District Court for the Central District of

19 California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that such notice and

20 preservation of property was required.

21

81. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the acts of the Defendants,

22 their employees and agents, were intentional in failing to protect and preserve

23 Plaintiffs’ property and that, at minimum, Defendants were deliberately

24 indifferent to the likelihood that the property would be seized and destroyed

25 without due process based on the past occurrences of these same constitutional

26 and statutory violations of the law.

27

82. Defendants have seized and destroyed the personal property of the

28 Plaintiffs without due process, lawful justification, or just compensation.

P27

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 28 of 33 Page ID #:28

1

83. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendants’

2 agents and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer loss of their

3 personal property and are entitled to compensatory damages for their property and

4 other injury to their person.

5

6

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

7

Violation of Civil Rights: 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Fourteenth Amendment

State Created Danger

8
84. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the

9
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

10
85. By taking and destroying the medicine, tents, tarps and blankets of

11
the Plaintiffs, the acts of Defendants, their employees and agents, have created a

12 danger for Plaintiffs by exposing them to the elements in the winter without

13 adequate shelter on the streets.

14

86. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendants’

15 agents and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer actual and

16 potential injury to their health and safety and are entitled to compensatory

17 damages for their property and other injury to their person.

18

19

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

20 Violation of Civil Rights: Interference By Threat, Intimidation or Coercion California Civil Code § 52.1
21
87. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the

22
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

23

88. Defendants’ agents and employees have used arrests, threats of arrest

24 and intimidation to interfere with Plaintiffs’ rights to maintain their personal

25 possessions in the exercise of Plaintiffs’ rights secured by the Constitution of the

26 United States, the Constitution of the State of California, and the statutory laws of

27 the State of California.

28

P28

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 29 of 33 Page ID #:29

1

89. Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction pursuant to California Civil

2 Code §52.1. Plaintiffs are also entitled to damages pursuant to Civil Code §§ 52

3 and 52.1. Plaintiffs have filed tort claims with the Defendant CITY. Plaintiffs

4 will amend this action to include damages under this provision once they have

5 exhausted their administrative remedies.

6

7

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

8

California Civil Code § 2080, et seq.

90. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the
9

preceding paragraphs 1 through 28 as though fully set forth hereat.
10

91. Defendant’s policies, practices and conduct challenged herein
11

violated California Civil Code § 2080 et seq., in that Defendant’s agents and
12

employees failed to protect and preserve the personal property of Plaintiffs when
13

the property was on the public sidewalk and streets; failed to provide written
14

notice that the property would be taken and failed to provide post-deprivation
15

notice so that Plaintiffs would have the opportunity to reclaim it within a
16

reasonable time. California Code of Civil Procedure § 2080 et seq. imposes a
17

mandatory duty to maintain property that is not abandoned.
18

19

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

20

CONVERSION

92. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the
21

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
22

93. Plaintiffs were in possession of their personal property at the time
23

that Defendants’ agents and employees ordered that the property be seized and
24

most, if not all of it, be immediately destroyed without prior notice. Defendants’
25

agents and employees unlawfully prohibited Plaintiffs from securing their
26

personal property.
27

28

P29

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 30 of 33 Page ID #:30

1

94. Defendants, their agents and employees, had a duty owed to

2 Plaintiffs to protect their personal property under Los Angeles Municipal Code

3 §52.55 and California Civil Code §§ 2080.2, 2080.4 and 2080.6. Plaintiffs’

4 property was not abandoned at the time that Defendant seized it and immediately

5 destroyed it. Defendants breached the duty to protect Plaintiffs’ personal

6 property when their agents and employees wrongly exerted dominion over the

7 property and denied Plaintiffs’ their constitutional and statutory rights.

8

95. Defendants had no legitimate governmental interest that gave their

9 agents and employees the legal right or justification to confiscate Plaintiffs’

10 property and then immediately demolish it without prior notice to Plaintiffs and

11 without a procedure to permit Plaintiffs to recover their property, and without fair

12 compensation to Plaintiffs.

13

96. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendants’

14 agents and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer loss of their

15 personal property and are entitled to compensatory damages

16

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17
FALSE ARREST

18

97. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the

19 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

20

98. Plaintiffs MITCHELL and COLEMAN were falsely arrested for

21 possession of “illegal” shopping carts. Defendants were informed that the carts in

22 question were not theirs. Despite this, Defendants arrested Plaintiffs. No

23 charges were filed against either Plaintiff.

24

99. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendants’

25 agents and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer injury.

26

///

27

///

28

///

P30

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 31 of 33 Page ID #:31

1

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

2

100. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the

3 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

4

101. A real and immediate difference exists between Plaintiffs and

5 Defendants regarding Plaintiffs’ rights and Defendants’ duty owed to Plaintiffs to

6 protect Plaintiffs’ personal property present on public sidewalks and streets in

7 Skid Row. Defendants’ policies and actions have resulted and will result in

8 irreparable injury to Plaintiffs. There is no plain, adequate or complete remedy at

9 law to address the wrongs described herein. Defendants have made clear by their

10 repeated escalation of the criminalization of the homeless community in Los

11 Angeles that they intend to continue these practices of confiscating and

12 immediately destroying the property of homeless individuals from the public

13 streets and sidewalks without a warrant and notice. Defendants have also made

14 clear that they intend to continue the practices described above that make it

15 impossible for homeless individuals to reclaim their property, even when some of

16 it is not immediately destroyed. Unless restrained by this Court, Defendants will

17 continue to implement these unlawful policies and practices.

18

102. Defendants’ acts alleged above violate established constitutional

19 rights of Plaintiffs and Defendants could not reasonably have thought that the

20 conduct of their agents and employees in seizing and destroying Plaintiffs’

21 property was lawful.

22

103. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants in

23 that Defendants, their agents and employees, have engaged in the unlawful and

24 unconstitutional acts alleged herein and intend to continue to do so. Plaintiffs

25 claim that these acts are contrary to law and seek a declaration of their rights with

26 regard to this controversy.

27

104. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendants’

28 agents and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer

P31

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 32 of 33 Page ID #:32

1 damages through injury to their person and the loss of their personal property,

2 including all of their clothing, bedding, medication, personal papers and other

3 personal possessions, stripping them of the essentials needed for their well-being

4 and personal dignity and putting them at serious and immediate risk of illness.

5

105. Plaintiffs have filed administrative claims with the Defendant CITY.

6

7

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray as follows:

8
1. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent
9
injunction, enjoining and restraining Defendants from engaging in
10
the policies, practices and conduct complained of herein;
11
2. For a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ policies, practices and
12

conduct as alleged herein violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the United
13

14

States and California constitutions and the laws of California;

15

3. For an order directing Defendants to provide replacement blankets,

16

tents, tarps, medications, clothing and replacement of critical

17

personal documents to anyone whose property is seized for whatever

18

reason, including purported public health and safety grounds;

19

4. For an order directing that any property taken be segregated by

20

owners and not combined with the property of any other person;

21

5. For damages in an amount to be determined according to proof.

22

6.

23
///
24
///
25
/// 26 /// 27 ///
28

For costs of suit and attorney fees as provided by law;

P32

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 1 Filed 03/14/16 Page 33 of 33 Page ID #:33

1

7. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

2
Dated: March 14, 2015
3

Respectfully submitted,

4

LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL

LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS

5

ANGELES

6

SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS &

7

HOFFMAN

8

/s/ Carol A. Sobel

9

By: CAROL A. SOBEL

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10

11

12

13

14

15 16 17

18

19 20 21 22 23

24

25 26 27 28

P33

 
 Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 1 of 37 Page ID #:46

1 CAROL A. SOBEL SBN 84483
2 COLLEEN M. MULLEN SBN 299059 JUSTINE SCHNEEWEIS SBN 305672
3 JOHN P. GIVEN SBN 269787
4 LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
3110 Main Street, Suite 210 5 Santa Monica, California 90405
6 t. 310 393–3055 f. 310 399-1854
7 e. carolsobel@aol.com e. mullen.colleen1@gmail.com
8 e. Justine.schneeweis@gmail.com
9 e. john@johngiven.com

10
11 FERNANDO GAYTAN SBN 224712 SHAYLA R. MYERS SBN 264054
12 LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES 13 7000 S. Broadway
Los Angeles, California 90003 14 t. 213 640-3983 f. 213 640-3988 15 e. smyers@lafla.org
Attorneys for Plaintiff CANGRESS
16

17 (ADDITIONAL COUNSEL ON NEXT PAGE)

18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION

20
CARL MITCHELL, et al.,
21

Case No.: 16-cv-01750 SJO (JPR)

22

PLAINTIFFS, AMENDED COMPLAINT:

23 v. 24 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,

FILED AS OF RIGHT

25
DEFENDANTS.
26

27

28

P1

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 2 of 37 Page ID #:47

1 PAUL L. HOFFMAN SBN 071244

2 CATHERINE SWEETSER SBN 271142

SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS &

3

HOFFMAN LLP

4 723 Ocean Front Walk

Venice, California 90291 5 t. 310 396-0731 f. 399-7040

6 e. hoffpaul@aol.com

7 e. catherine.sdshhh@gmail.com

8 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 16 17

18

19 20 21 22 23

24

25 26 27 28

P2

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 3 of 37 Page ID #:48

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

1. This is an action for injunctive relief and damages pursuant to 42

3 U.S.C. § 1983 based upon the continuing violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the

4 Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

5 Jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343 based on 42 U.S.C.

6 §1983 and questions of federal constitutional law. Jurisdiction also exists under

7 the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202. Supplemental

8 jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

9

2. Venue is proper in the Central District in that the events and conduct

10 complained of herein all occurred in the Central District.

11

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

12

3. “[T]he greatest of our evils and the worst of our crimes is poverty.”1

13 Los Angeles has the second largest unhoused population in the nation, but the

14 largest unsheltered community by far. Declaring a “State of Emergency” last Fall,

15 the City Council described this situation as “unprecedented.” The word used in

16 almost every motion and statement by public officials is that Los Angeles has a

17 homelessness “crisis.” According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services

18 Authority (LAHSA) 2015 count, the number of individuals living on the streets of

19 the City in the last two years has increased by approximately 12 percent as wages

20 stagnated, rents increased dramatically and the affordable housing stock declined

21 in the face of gentrification in formerly low-income neighborhoods across Los

22 Angeles. This translates to almost 5,000 additional individuals, nearly all of

23 whom are living in tents, various makeshift shelters and in their vehicles

24 throughout the city.

25

26

27

28

1 George Bernard Shaw, “Major Barbara.”

P3

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 4 of 37 Page ID #:49

1

4. According to the LAHSA 2015 count, 25,000 of the approximately

2 44,000 homeless persons in Los Angeles County are located in the City of Los

3 Angeles. While the City has made some progress in helping families and

4 veterans to get housed, the same is not true for the remainder of the individual

5 homeless persons. In 2014, the City projected that there was a 72 percent

6 shortfall between available shelter and the demand for it. City officials blame the

7 situation Los Angeles faces now on a combination of “a tremendous lack of

8 emergency shelter” and a “chronic shortage of affordable housing.” They

9 estimate that more than 10,000 units a year must be added to the City’s housing

10 stock for the next five years to meet the need for “very low-low income

11 households.” However, with thousands of people becoming homeless each

12 month, as reported by the Economic Roundtable, even this estimate seems out of

13 touch with the severity of the situation.

14

5. At the first meeting of the newly-formed City Council Homelessness

15 and Poverty Committee last year, Councilmember Bonin began his introductory

16 statement by conceding that the City failed to do what it needed to do after the

17 2007 settlement in Jones v. City of Los Angeles. 444 F.3d 1118 (2006), vacatur

18 approved per settlement, 505 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2007). The Jones settlement

19 suspended nighttime enforcement of LAMC § 41.18(d), the ban on sitting, lying,

20 or sleeping on the sidewalk, consistent with the decision of the Ninth Circuit

21 Court of Appeals. The nighttime enforcement ban remains in effect until an

22 additional 1,250 units of housing are created for chronically homeless persons,

23 half of which must be on Skid Row and the immediate surrounding downtown

24 area. Almost a decade later, the City has not met this obligation. In fact, if the

25 low-income housing units lost on Skid Row since 2007 are added into the

26 calculus, few, if any, units have been added toward the Jones requirement.

27

6. In September 2015, City officials held a press conference, describing

28 a state of emergency regarding homelessness and promising comprehensive

P4

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 5 of 37 Page ID #:50

1 proposals to address this dire situation. A motion introduced in the City Council 2 on September 22, 2015, characterized the situation as “a moral, humanitarian and 3 public health crisis.” The City promised to commit at least $100 million annually 4 for housing and other services. More recently, the City announced its long-term 5 plan to address this critical situation.

6

7. But the promise has proved to be an empty one because, at the same

7 time that City officials concede the desperate need for these programs, they claim

8 that there is no money to fund them. Elected officials now talk about putting a

9 bond measure on the ballot next November that, if passed by the necessary two-

10 thirds majority, might provide some funds in a few years. The Mayor has

11 publicly discounted the bond measure in favor of a $75 tax on each document

12 filed with the City government for commercial developments. Mayor Garcetti

13 projects this proposal would produce $30 to $40 million dollars annually, far less

14 than the promised $100 million annually calculated as necessary to implement

15 these critical programs. But, even if this proposal is adopted, it would take

16 several years to generate the projected funds. There is no immediate source of

17 funding for the City that will alter the homelessness crisis soon. In the meantime,

18 the City has begun a renewed vigorous and cruel enforcement of so-called

19 “quality of life” offenses against the homeless, charging many with misdemeanor

20 offenses, jailing them for these quality of life offenses, and seizing and destroying

21 their property.

22

8. The need to respond to the increasing numbers of unsheltered

23 individuals in Los Angeles is hardly new and neither is the approach of

24 criminalizing - rather than housing - people who are homeless. Over the past 25

25 years, the City’s primarily response has been to invest in approaches that address

26 the visible presence of homeless people, without actually reducing the number of

27 residents on the street each night. These approaches include criminalizing

28

P5

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 6 of 37 Page ID #:51

1 homelessness and the destruction of homeless people’s property. These practices

2 have been repeatedly challenged and struck down by the Court.

3

9. In 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined nighttime

4 enforcement of Los Angeles Municipal Code (“LAMC”) § 41.18(d), making it a

5 crime to lie, sit or sleep on a public sidewalk any time of day or night anywhere

6 in the City. The Court held that the law, as enforced, violated the Eighth

7 Amendment. Jones, 444 F.3d at 1138. In 2014, the Court struck down as

8 unconstitutionally vague LAMC § 85.02, which made it a crime for a person to

9 park or stand a vehicle on any public property in the City if the person “lived” in

10 the vehicle “day to day, overnight or otherwise.” Desertrain v. City of Los

11 Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2014).

12

10. In 2003, the City was also successfully sued to enjoin a sweeping

13 “stop and frisk” policy instituted immediately after Chief Bratton began his tenure

14 in Los Angeles and now-Chief Beck was the new Captain III at Central Station.

15 See Fitzgerald v. City of Los Angeles, CV 03-01876 DDP; 485 F.Supp.2d 1137

16 (C.D. Cal. 2007). The policy, dubbed "Operation Enough," was to locate

17 probation and/or parole violators or absconders but, in fact, swept up black males

18 on Skid Row without reasonable suspicion. Over the course of six years of

19 litigation, the district court enjoined the practice twice before a final settlement

20 was reached in 2009, requiring the LAPD to provide ongoing training on Fourth

21 Amendment requirements to all patrol officers at Central Station.

22

11. In addition to criminalizing homelessness with laws and actions the

23 Court has held to be unconstitutional, the City has also embarked on an

24 unconstitutional campaign to seize homeless people’s property and to remove

25 homeless individuals from the public sidewalks. The City has persisted with this

26 approach despite repeatedly being rebuked by the courts. The City was

27 successfully sued three times to stop the unlawful seizure of the personal property

28 of homeless individuals on Skid Row. See Bennion v. City of Los Angeles, LASC

P6

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 7 of 37 Page ID #:52

1 Case C637718 (1987); Justin v. City of Los Angeles, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

2 17881; CV-00-12352 LGB (CD Cal. 2000); Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 797 F.

3 Supp. 2d 1005 (CD Cal. 2011); aff’d, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2013). It has also

4 been sued twice to challenge the same practices in the Venice area.

5

12. In the most recent Court case, Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, in 2011,

6 after the City was caught seizing and destroying homeless people’s shopping carts

7 and belongings, the U.S. District Court granted an injunction against the City of

8 Los Angeles, prohibiting it from seizing property that is not abandoned, evidence

9 of a crime or creates a public hazard, and from destroying that property without

10 first storing for 90 days for someone to be able to claim it. The Ninth Circuit

11 upheld the injunction. 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2013).

12

13. The City’s practices towards people who are homeless have been

13 condemned by the Courts. In affirming the rights of the plaintiffs in Lavan the

14 Ninth Circuit underscored that the “simple rule [i.e. notice and an opportunity to

15 be heard by an impartial tribunal] holds whether the property in question is an

16 Escalade or a [tent], a Cadillac or a cart.” Id. at 1032.

17

14. Even as these laws have been struck down and the approaches

18 rebuked, the City continues its criminalization of homelessness. A report issued

19 in 2015 by the City’s Chief Administrative Officer, analyzed the resources spent

20 by the City to respond to the homeless in the prior year. The report identified

21 between $87 and $100 million spent indirectly by the City on responses to

22 homelessness. Ninety percent of that money was spent by the LAPD to enforce

23 laws against homelessness such as LAMC Section 41.18(d).

24

15. The City has continued to allocate nearly the bulk of its current

25 resources directed to addressing homelessness to target homeless communities as

26 criminals. In the Skid Row area alone, the City employs two Special Details, the

27 East Side Detail and the Safer Cities Initiative, which has now been rebranded

28 RESET. The primary mission of the East Side Detail is to enforce these laws

P7

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 8 of 37 Page ID #:53

1 against homelessness in the Central Division. Through RESET, the LAPD

2 deploys 50 uniformed officers, six sergeants and a lieutenant to suppress crime in

3 the area.

4

16. The City’s approach is even more indefensible when viewed against

5 the directives issued by the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

6 (“USICH”), composed of nineteen federal cabinet and agency heads to organize

7 federal efforts to end homelessness. The most recent USICH report, “Ending

8 Homelessness for People Living in Encampments,” is directly on point and

9 counter to the criminalization approach taken by Los Angeles to homeless

10 individuals forced to live on the streets in large part because of the government’s

11 failures over decades.

12

17. Specifically, the USICH underscored that “forced dispersal” of

13 homeless encampments is inappropriate and undermines the goal of providing

14 services to homeless individuals. While the USICH underscored the importance

15 of “intensive and persistent outreach and engagement,” the City of Los Angeles

16 implemented “intensive and persistent” citations, arrests, and destruction of

17 personal property, putting an already vulnerable community at extreme peril.

18

19

PARTIES

20 PLAINTIFFS

21 Carl Mitchell

22

18. Plaintiff CARL MITCHELL has been living on Skid Row for the

23 past several years. Prior to that time, he lived in various facilities with supportive

24 services. Mr. MITCHELL lived in a sober living facility for several years, until

25 the building was sold and the facility closed. After that, Mr. MITCHELL moved

26 to another supportive facility but was forced to move when the building was shut

27 down because of bed bug infestations. At that time, Mr. MITCHELL came to

28

P8

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 9 of 37 Page ID #:54

1 Skid Row, where he has been since. Mr. MITCHELL is almost 62 years old and

2 suffers from several significant health problems.

3

19. On December 15, 2015, Plaintiff MITCHELL was approached by a

4 supervisor in the LAPD and asked if a specific cart belonged to him. Mr.

5 MITCHELL responded that his carts were the two Hippie Kitchen carts next to

6 him and that the third cart, located on his other side, was not his. Despite his

7 repeated insistence that the third cart did not belong to him, he was arrested and

8 charged with a misdemeanor for possession of a stolen shopping cart. Mr.

9 MITCHELL was handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car. He watched

10 as the officer directed that the property in all three carts – his two Hippie Kitchen

11 carts and the third cart – be dumped out and then thrown in the back of a truck.

12 Mr. MITCHELL’s property was not segregated from the property in the

13 purportedly illegal shopping cart that belonged to another person. Although Mr.

14 MITCHELL asked that the officer give him his backpack with his medications,

15 medical appointment papers and other personal items, his request was rejected.

16

20. Mr. MITCHELL had not been arrested for any offense in a decade

17 when this incident occurred. Although he committed no crime in the first place,

18 his purported “crime” should have been charged as an infraction for a violation of

19 LAMC § 41.45(c) (“Illegal Possession of a Shopping Cart”). Even if erroneously

20 charged as a misdemeanor, because Mr. MITCHELL had his identification, he

21 should not have been taken into custody, pursuant to Volume 4, Section 216.66 of

22 the Los Angeles Police Department Manual. Had this occurred, Mr. MITCHELL

23 would not have had his property taken and he would not have been taken into

24 custody, charged with a misdemeanor, booked and held for about 18 hours at the

25 Metropolitan Detention Center before being released in the middle of the night.

26

21. On the night Mr. MITCHELL was released from the jail, the

27 temperature in Downtown Los Angeles was 40 degrees. That night, he slept in

28 the cold with only a single blanket he found on the sidewalk as cover. When he

P9

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 10 of 37 Page ID #:55

1 was released, he was not given any receipt or inventory for the property seized at 2 the time of his arrest. The only property receipt he received listed his shoelaces, a 3 belt and one or two other items that were on his person when he was arrested. He 4 was given no notice of where or how his backpack and other property could be 5 reclaimed. None of his property that was not destroyed has been returned. Mr.

6 MITCHELL had to go to JWCH, also known as Homeless Healthcare, where he

7 is a patient, to replace his medication. After all of this, Mr. MITCHELL’s

8 charges were rejected by the City Attorney, and he was not charged with a crime.

9 Michael Escobedo

10

22. Plaintiff MICHAEL ESCOBEDO had his tent taken and destroyed

11 around Christmas Eve 2015. Mr. ESCOBEDO has severe vision problems that

12 have left him legally blind, uses a white cane to navigate passage on the streets

13 and sidewalks and has the assistance of a support dog he has trained to guide him.

14 In the past, he tried to secure housing in a downtown Residential Hotel, only to be

15 told that they could not accommodate individuals with his disability or with

16 service animals. For the same reasons, Mr. ESCOBEDO cannot access the

17 shelters on Skid Row. Because his support dog is not a licensed guide dog, he

18 cannot bring her into a shelter.

19

23. On the morning that his property was taken, Mr. ESCOBEDO was

20 not informed of any notice that a clean-up of the area was schedule. Mr.

21 ESCOBEDO left his property in the care of his neighbor while he went to get

22 coffee at about 7 a.m. When he returned a short time later, he observed that the

23 area of the sidewalk where he kept his property had been taped off with yellow

24 tape and public employees were removing property. Mr. ESCOBEDO was given

25 a few minutes to take some of his possessions out of his tent, but because of his

26 disability, this was insufficient, and he was not allowed to take the tent. He

27 observed the tent dumped into the back of a garbage truck by City employees.

28 After his tent was seized and destroyed, Mr. ESCOBEDO was forced to sleep

P10

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 11 of 37 Page ID #:56

1 with only a tarp for protection for several months until he could replace the tent. 2 The tarp was insufficient to protect him from the cold, rain and wind, and he was 3 unable to get more than a few hours of sleep each night. Without the tent, his 4 personal property, including all of his clothes, was soaked and became mildewed. 5 Salvador Roque

6

24. Plaintiff SALVADOR ROQUE is an unsheltered resident of Skid

7 Row. He has only been homeless for a few months, following personal events

8 that caused him to suffer severe depression, for which he takes prescription

9 medications. On the morning of February 23, 2016, he was sweeping the

10 sidewalk area where he sleeps at night when an LAPD patrol car drove by. The

11 officers in the vehicle used the loudspeaker system to announce that everyone on

12 the block had to take down their tents. Before Mr. ROQUE could comply with

13 the order, the officers asked him for identification, ran a wants and warrants

14 check, and found an outstanding charge of a Failure to Appear on a prior

15 infraction.

16

25. Mr. ROQUE was handcuffed, arrested and placed in a patrol car. As

17 he was in the back of the vehicle, he observed LAPD officers use yellow tape to

18 surround his property. On information and belief, none of the property was

19 booked by the LAPD when Mr. ROQUE was arrested and held on $750 bail. He

20 was released the following day. At the time of his release, he was not given a

21 receipt for any of his property. He has attempted to find his property at several

22 locations, as advised by the LAPD, all to no avail to date.

23

26. For the last three weeks, he has stayed with a friend in a Residential

24 Hotel a few nights a week. Most nights, he stays awake all night and sleeps

25 during the day. As a result of being exposed to the cold and dampness all night,

26 he developed a cough, congestion in his chest and a sore throat.

27

27. As Plaintiff ROQUE was being arrested and his property was being

28 seized, the LAPD also took the opportunity to seize the property of his neighbor,

P11

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 12 of 37 Page ID #:57

1 Ernesto Aguirre, who was not at the scene; he was receiving medical care at the

2 JWCH Healthcare for the Homeless clinic.

3

28. Defendant City’s employees and agents knew that the property next

4 to Mr. ROQUE’s property did not belong to Mr. ROQUE, yet they seized them

5 without prior notice. Several individuals attempted to intervene and told the

6 police that the property owner was nearby at Homeless Healthcare for a medical

7 appointment. The City’s employees and agents continued to throw away the

8 majority of the property, while one of the bystanders ran to retrieve Mr. Aguirre.

9

29. City employees threw away most of the property of Plaintiff

10 ROQUE and Mr. Aguirre, and as to the few items that were not thrown away,

11 including all of Mr. Aguirre’s medications, they were commingled with the

12 property of Plaintiff ROQUE.

13

30. While all of the City’s employees and agents were still on site, Mr.

14 Aguirre, who was in medical distress but had been told what was going on with

15 his property, returned to the scene to retrieve his property, He told the officer in

16 charge at the scene, Sgt. Richter, that he needed his belongings. One of the

17 individuals who had gone to get him also told the LAPD officers that Mr. Aguirre

18 needed his medications, which were now in a bag with Mr. ROQUE’s property.

19 Sgt. Richter ignored these entreaties, grabbed the bag with the commingled

20 property and put it in the back of the LAPD truck, which then drove off. During

21 all of this time, Mr. Aguirre was collapsed on the sidewalk, his pleas ignored by

22 Sgt. Richter, who was standing right in front of him. Only after the property was

23 removed did Sgt. Richter call an ambulance to take Mr. Aguirre to the hospital for

24 emergency treatment.

25

31. Since his release from custody the following day, Mr. ROQUE has

26 tried multiple times to reclaim his property, including as recently as the date of

27 the filing of this action. Each time, he has been told by the LAPD that he has to

28 go to a different location, or talk to a different person, to see if someone knows

P12

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 13 of 37 Page ID #:58

1 where his property is stored. Because of his disabilities, attempting to track down 2 any property that might have been saved has been even more difficult, and all of 3 these efforts are to no avail. Mr. ROQUE lost everything, including medications, 4 blankets, money and important personal documents, including papers he needed 5 for his medical conditions and his efforts to obtain Social Security disability

6 benefits. Neither Mr. ROQUE nor Mr. Aguirre received any documents

7 inventorying the property that was taken or giving them notice that the property

8 could be reclaimed. Mr. ROQUE’s property was seized attendant to an arrest;

9 Mr. Aguirre’s property was seized without any prior notice and without cause.

10 Judy Coleman

11

32. Plaintiff JUDY COLEMAN is a disabled person who is homeless

12 and lives on Towne Avenue. She suffers from multiple conditions, including

13 severe arthritis in her hips and knees, diabetes, high blood pressure and

14 respiratory problems. Her health conditions require her to take medication, use

15 medical equipment and test her blood sugar levels regularly. On February 12,

16 2016, she was awakened at approximately 4:00 a.m. by an announcement over a

17 loud speaker on an LAPD vehicle. The announcement was that everyone had to

18 be packed and off the street by 6:00 a.m. because of a clean-up that was going to

19 occur. The announcement included a warning that anyone who did not comply

20 would be subject to arrest. Plaintiff COLEMAN complied fully with the order,

21 moving all of her property around the corner to Fifth Street.

22

33. Soon thereafter, LAPD Lieutenant Mathis approached her about a

23 silver shopping cart about five to six feet away from Ms. COLEMAN. She told

24 Lt. Mathis that the cart did not belong to her and that she did not know whose it

25 was. Lt. Mathis responded by insisting that the silver cart was hers now and that

26 she had too much property. He then placed her under arrest for possession of a

27 stolen shopping cart. Although possession of a stolen shopping cart is an

28 infraction under the Los Angeles Municipal Code, in order to be able to arrest

P13

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 14 of 37 Page ID #:59

1 her, officers charged Ms. COLEMAN with violating a provision of the California

2 Business and Professions Code, a nearly identical state law that allows the

3 violation to be charged as a misdemeanor and therefore, result in arrest.

4

34. While Ms. COLEMAN was being arrested, she asked to grab her

5 medication and to allow her to use her walker. The officers refused both requests.

6

35. Ms. COLEMAN was held in custody for two days, and was finally

7 released on Sunday, February 14, 2016. When she was released, she had no

8 medications or other equipment needed for her medical conditions, even though

9 the LAPD was aware of her medical situation and she was provided some

10 treatments while in custody. She was given a property receipt that listed only

11 that “multiple” bags were stored at the off-site property storage facility. Because

12 she was released on Sunday, she could not access her property until no earlier

13 than Tuesday.

14

36. Following her release, she had no blanket, tent or other items to

15 protect her from the elements. A few days after her release, she developed

16 pneumonia and was then hospitalized for treatment.

17

37. Plaintiff COLEMAN has attempted to retrieve her property without

18 success. She has called the telephone number on the property receipt she

19 received on her release from custody, but that location is generally unstaffed,

20 making it difficult, if not impossible to recover property. The signs at the storage

21 location in the parking lot across from the Roybal Building indicate the days and

22 hours that the facility is supposed to be open, but the facility is not staffed..

23 Because she has mobility issues, she cannot carry her property back to the area

24 where she receives services and stays at night, without some form of

25 transportation. The LAPD provides no assistance to transport any remaining

26 property that may have been salvaged, from the excess property storage facility.

27

28

P14

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 15 of 37 Page ID #:60

1

38. The appearance date on the citation for violation of the Business and

2 Professions Code was March 10, but no charges have been filed against her to

3 date.

4 Los Angeles Catholic Worker

5

39. Plaintiff Los Angeles Catholic Worker, (“LACW”) founded in 1970,

6 is an unincorporated lay Catholic community of women and men that operate a

7 free soup kitchen, hospitality house for the homeless, hospice care for the dying

8 and by-monthly newspaper. Nicknamed the “Hippie Kitchen,” the facility is

9 located on the Northeast corner of 6th Street and Gladys Avenue in Skid Row.

10 LACW provides full meals to the community three times a week. In furtherance

11 of its mission, the Hippie Kitchen associates to provide other services, including

12 access to dental care, over-the-counter medications, podiatry services, toiletries

13 and other personal items. In furtherance of its mission, for the past several years,

14 the Hippie Kitchen has purchased shopping carts to provide them to unsheltered

15 homeless persons to store and move their personal belongings.

16

40. The shopping carts are a bright red with the LACW name marked on

17 the handle and a distinctive sign affixed to the front of each cart, stating that these

18 carts are the private property of LACW and provided as “Shopping Carts for the

19 Homeless.” Over the last three months, employees and agents of the City have

20 seized these carts without lawful justification. Nearly six dozen carts were

21 rescued by the fortuitous intervention of Plaintiff LACW; returned to Plaintiffs by

22 private shopping cart retrieval companies, which informed LACW that they were

23 given to them by the Los Angeles Police Department; or picked up from a

24 location where the LAPD stores collected carts. Significantly, in Lavan,

25 Defendant City submitted declarations to the Court, attesting that the LAPD

26 would never take a Hippie Kitchen cart and throw away the property in the cart.

27 Despite the City’s averments, the documentary evidence demonstrated that this

28

P15

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 16 of 37 Page ID #:61

1 statement was false and the Court so found. See Lavan, 797 F.Supp.2d at 1014

2 (citing Duncanson Decl. ¶ 5).

3

41. As a result of Defendants’ actions to seize the Hippie Kitchen carts,

4 Plaintiff LACW has had to expend personnel resources to prevent removal of the

5 carts and to reclaim the carts once unlawfully taken by Defendants. In addition,

6 because many carts are never returned by Defendants, LACW has to expend

7 scarce financial resources to replace the carts and some of the property destroyed.

8 The policies of Defendants also interfere with Plaintiff LACW’s mission to

9 provide a safe place for the homeless community. Individuals cannot leave their

10 shopping carts to obtain the assistance provided by the Hippie Kitchen because

11 they risk of losing their property when it is unlawfully seized and destroyed.

12 CANGRESS

13

42. Plaintiff CANGRESS, also known as the Los Angeles Community

14 Action Network (“LA CAN”), is an grassroots, non-profit organization operating

15 in Skid Row for approximately two decades. More than 800 low-income

16 residents of Skid Row are involved with LA CAN, many of whom are

17 unsheltered each night. The primary purpose of the organization is to organize

18 and empower community residents to work collectively to address systemic

19 poverty and oppression in the community. Since its founding in 1999, LA CAN

20 has been the only member-driven organization in Skid Row whose goal is to

21 protect the rights and prevent the further disenfranchisement of homeless and

22 poor people in Los Angeles. LA CAN brings this action on behalf of its members

23 and associates whose property has been seized by employees and agents of the

24 CITY pursuant to the enforcement policies, practices and customs of seizing and

25 destroying property in Skid Row. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions,

26 LA CAN has expended personnel resources to try and prevent property from

27 being seized and to try and locate if and where any property was taken so that

28

P16

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 17 of 37 Page ID #:62

1 they can assist their members and associates to recover the property.
2

3 DEFENDANTS:

4

43. Defendant City of Los Angeles (“CITY”) is a municipal entity with

5 the capacity to sue and be sued. It is a Charter City under the laws of the State of

6 California. The departments of the City of Los Angeles include the Los Angeles

7 Police Department and the Los Angeles Department of Public Works and its

8 departments and agencies. Employees of the CITY have engaged in the acts

9 complained of herein pursuant to the policies, practices and customs of the CITY.

10

44. Defendant Lt. Andrew Mathis, Sgt. Hamer and Sgt. Richter are all

11 supervisors in the Los Angeles Police Department and presently assigned to

12 Central Division. They are the individual employees of Defendant CITY who

13 were on site and directed the unlawful seizure and destruction of Plaintiffs’

14 property and directed the false arrest of certain of the Plaintiffs on a misdemeanor

15 crime of possession of stolen shopping carts.

16

45. Each of the Defendants, their employees and agents, participated

17 personally in the unlawful conduct challenged herein and, to the extent that they

18 did not personally participate, authorized, acquiesced, set in motion, or otherwise

19 failed to take necessary steps to prevent the acts that resulted in the unlawful

20 conduct and the harm suffered by Plaintiffs. Each acted in concert with each

21 other. The challenged acts caused the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights.

22

46. The identities and capacities of defendants DOES 1 through 10 are

23 presently unknown to plaintiffs, and on this basis, Plaintiffs sue these defendants

24 by fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend the Complaint to substitute the true

25 names and capacities of the DOE defendants when ascertained. Plaintiffs are

26 informed, believe, and thereon allege that DOES 1 through 10 are, and were at all

27 times relevant herein, employees and/or agents of the Defendant CITY and are

28

P17

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 18 of 37 Page ID #:63

1 responsible for the acts and omissions complained of herein. Defendants DOES 1 2 through 10 are sued in both their official and individual capacities.
3

4

THE SEIZURE AND DESTRUCTON OF PROPERTY

5

6

47. Despite five lawsuits against it for removing property without

7 adequate pre-deprivation notice or post-deprivation notice, the CITY has returned

8 to the same unlawful policies and practices. This time, the due process violations

are compounded by the simultaneous arrests of homeless persons.
9

48. On information and belief, since at least December 2015, the Los
10

Angeles Police Department has had a policy, custom or practice of arresting
11

homeless individuals for non-violent quality of life crimes which would otherwise
12

be charged as infractions, and incident to those arrests, seizing and destroying
13

their property.
14

49. Since at least 2013, it has been the City Attorney’s policy to charge
15

a number of quality of life offenses as infractions, a policy which was codified in
16
an interoffice memorandum. Following the issuance of the Revised Filing
17
Guidelines for Direct Citations, the Los Angeles Police Department issued a
18
similar directive, instructing officers to charge these violations as infractions as
19
well. The ordinances covered by these customs and procedures include LAMC
20
§41.18(d), which prohibits sitting, sleeping, or lying on the sidewalk and LAMC
21
§41.45, which prohibits the “unauthorized removal, use or possession of shopping
22
carts” that have affixed to them a sign identifying the private business owners.
23
50. While law enforcement officers retain discretion to charge these
24
violations as misdemeanors, the practice of charging these crimes as infractions
25
was supported by the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles Police
26
Commission, and the Los Angeles City Council, following a report by the Los
27
Angeles Police Department. The report, which was completed at the direction of
28
the City Council and approved by both the Police Commission and the City

P18

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 19 of 37 Page ID #:64

1 Council, found that the infraction policy was advantageous both in terms of the 2 costs and benefits of arrests and consistent with current LAPD practices. The 3 review overwhelmingly showed that individuals charged with violations of these 4 crimes were being cited for infractions and were not being arrested. For example, 5 in 2012, the LAPD did not arrest anyone for having a shopping cart in violation

6 of LAMC Section 41.45(c).

7

51. When charged as an infraction, these violations may not form the

8 basis of arrest. Even when charged as a misdemeanor, the LAPD standard

9 operating procedure and state law provides that a person can be to be cited and

10 released from custody with the issuance of a Notice to Appear, without being

11 taken to a police station or held for any amount of time longer than necessary to

12 issue a Notice to Appear.

13

52. Despite this City-wide policy, since at least December 2015, the

14 LAPD has had a custom, policy, or practice of arresting homeless individuals in

15 Skid Row for violations of these quality of life ordinances, in order to seize and

16 destroy their property.

17

53. When a homeless individual is arrested for violations of these minor

18 offenses, LAPD has a custom, policy, and practice of contacting the Bureau of

19 Sanitation and Street Services trucks to respond to the scene. Since at least

20 February 2016, both the East Side Detail and RESET have been assigned a

21 deployment of trash trucks from the Department of Sanitation and Street Services,

22 which are now present in Skid Row every day.

23

54. When one of the City departments responds to deal with a homeless

24 person’s property, it responds with a trash truck, a flatbed pickup truck, and/or a

25 skiploader. When an arrestee is taken into custody, the LAPD and responding

26 department tape off a portion of the sidewalk with police tape, warning

27 individuals not to cross or enter the area. During these sweeps, the area covered

28 by the tape can include other individuals’ property. LAPD officers and City

P19

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 20 of 37 Page ID #:65

1 Workers often use this opportunity to seize and destroy property other than the

2 property that belongs to the arrestee. LAPD officers instruct City personnel to

3 investigate property that does not belong to the arrestee; a single arrest can lead to

4 the clearing of an entire City block.

5

55. City workers responding to the property do not use care in handling

6 the property. It is treated as if it is presumptively trash. The workers use knives

7 to rip open tents, destroying them in the process. They crush the tent poles and

8 items in the tent. When Bureau of Sanitation responds to a call from the LAPD

9 regarding an arrestee’s property, they seize and dispose of nearly all of the

10 property, including tents, blankets, shoes, clothing, and often medications,

11 medical assistance equipment such as walkers, diabetes testing machines and

12 nebulizers, personal documents, and other critical items. Items that the CITY

13 determines should be thrown away are shoveled or thrown in a Department of

14 Sanitation trash truck for immediate disposal.

15

56. After an arrestee is taken into custody, the arrestee is not given a

16 chance to deal with their property in any way. Officers do not allow them to pack

17 up their belongings or to identify items that are critically important, like

18 Identification cards, medications, or family photos. Even when these items are

19 stored in a single backpack or bag, the officers do not allow the arrestees the

20 opportunity to identify these items, so that the items can be transported with the

21 arrestee and stored for release at the same time arrestee is released from custody.

22 The seizure and destruction of the backpacks is especially troubling because the

23 City Council is considering the City Attorney’s proposed revision to LAMC

24 Section 56.11, which would allow unsheltered individuals to keep a backpack

25 only with what the CITY has called “essential” personal property, including

26 medications and personal papers. Individuals who are arrested are also not

27 allowed to leave their property in the care of another person near them. Instead,

28 the arrest provides the City of Los Angeles with the opportunity to clear the

P20

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 21 of 37 Page ID #:66

1 homeless individual’s property from the streets. The majority of the property is

2 simply thrown away.

3

57. If any property is saved, it is bagged, and according to LAPD policy,

4 should be itemized and tagged as the arrestee’s excess personal property.

5 Officers and city employees do not take care to ensure that only the arrestee’s

6 property is bagged and tagged. As a result, the property of other arrestees or

7 individuals who are not arrested, have their property comingled with the

8 arrestees’ property. These individuals cannot get this property back because it is

9 stored under the arrestee’s name, and only the arrestee can retrieve the property.

10

58. Arrestees’ property that is bagged and tagged is not taken and stored

11 along with the arrestee, either at the Metropolitan Detention Center or the County

12 Jail. As a result, the property is not accessible to the arrestee upon his or her

13 release from custody. Instead, any small amount of property that is saved from

14 destruction is supposed to be given to the East Side Detail to store at the Central

15 Division “excess property warehouse,” a warehouse that the Detail operates. This

16 warehouse is separate and distinct from the Bureau of Sanitation 90-day storage

17 facility, where property is stored that is seized during Operation Healthy Streets

18 sweeps or when the Bureau of Sanitation picks up property on the streets during

19 any of its now daily cleanings.

20

59. If the property is collected by the RESET detail, it is not necessarily

21 transported directly to the warehouse. Because the East Side Detail only works

22 between the hours of 4:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, any

23 property that is picked up by RESET outside of these hours is transferred to the

24 Central Division and left by the East Side Detail truck until it can be transported

25 by a member of East Side Detail to the warehouse.

26

60. The LAPD’s excess property storage facility is not located at the

27 Metropolitan Detention Center or the Parker Center, where arrestees are routinely

28 transported. Instead, it is located in a hard-to-identify spot in the middle of a

P21

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 22 of 37 Page ID #:67

1 parking lot across from the Roybal Federal Courthouse. The address given for 2 the warehouse leads to the City of Los Angeles parking lot entrance, with 3 prominent signs announcing that only City employees may use the lot. The 4 Excess Property warehouse sign itself is significantly smaller, and is next to a 5 number of gates that are locked. In order to access the walkway, one must walk

6 through the main vehicle entrance and through the parking lot to the building.

7 Individuals can access their property from the warehouse only between the hours

8 of 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., Tuesday through Friday. The warehouse is not

9 regularly staffed however; in order to gain access to the facility and their

10 property, an individual must have access to a working and charged telephone, and

11 must call the non-emergency telephone number for the Central Division. At

12 times, this number is not answered, either by an individual or even a voicemail

13 system. If an individual is able to contact someone at the Central Division, they

14 must then wait, often for hours, for someone from the East Side Detail to respond

15 to the call to open up the warehouse during the limited hours that the warehouse

16 will be accessed.

17

61. Because of the limited hours that the individual can obtain their

18 property, someone who is arrested likely will not be able to obtain their property

19 the day they are arrested and released, if at all. Anyone arrested later than

20 Thursday afternoon will not be able to obtain whatever property was saved from

21 destruction, until Tuesday of the following week, regardless of how long they are

22 held in custody, because the facility is closed.

23

62. If an individual manages to find the warehouse when it is open, in

24 order to obtain the property, the arrestee must show a Property Receipt. Before

25 an arrestee is released, the arrestee is supposed to be given this receipt. This

26 property receipt should list all items that were stored; however, the LAPD lists

27 the items in vague terms, and does not itemize what has been retained. The

28 arrestee has no way of knowing what property was stored, and no way of

P22

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 23 of 37 Page ID #:68

1 knowing what property was destroyed. This property receipt provides the

2 arrestee with the sole notice where their property is being housed and how it can

3 be retrieved. If the arrestee is not given a receipt, they have no way of knowing

4 where the remainder of their property that was not thrown away is being stored.

5 If another individual’s property is stored with the arrestee’s property, the property

6 owner will have no way to obtain the property.

7

63. Property that is seized during a street cleaning or at any other time

8 other than incident to an arrest is stored at another facility. Therefore, individuals

9 whose property is seized are left to guess whether their property has been stored

10 and where it can be reclaimed. Because adequate post-deprivation notice is not

11 provided at the location of the seizure and even law enforcement officers in

12 charge of the facilities are unable to provide accurate information, individuals

13 whose property has been taken must often must walk from location to location,

14 trying to search out what City employees did with their property. For individuals

15 with disabilities that impair their ability to navigate this process, or who have

16 mobility issues, and in particular if their mobility devices have been seized and

17 not returned, this is an impossible feat. As a result, even if any items are stored,

18 the individual never sees them again.

19

20

THE HEALTH AND SAFETY RISK TO UNHOUSED PERSONS

21

22

64. A large percentage of the persons living on the streets in Los

23 Angeles have or are at serious risk for health problems. The risk is greatly

24 increased by several factors, including a lack of shelter, especially in the winter

25 months when it is cold and rains; preexisting health conditions; and the advanced

26 age of many chronically homeless residents.

27

65. The danger created for unhoused individuals by the systematic

28 seizure and destruction of their property, including the most basic necessities like

P23

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 24 of 37 Page ID #:69

1 medications, blankets, tents and tarps, is obvious and particularly so in the winter.

2 Although Los Angeles often enjoys warm weather during daytime in the winter,

3 at night the temperature regularly drops to 50 and below. This crosses the

4 threshold for the risk of hypothermia, and increases the risk of other illnesses that

5 can result from sleeping unsheltered on the streets, particularly in the rain.

6 Moreover, when the wind-chill factor2 is included, the threat increases.

7

66. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”)

8 utilizes an index that takes into account advances in meteorology,

9 biometeorology, and computer modeling to create a formula that accurately

10 calculates this perceived temperature, and warns the public about the dangers

11 from exposure to winter winds and low temperatures. Essentially, this index

12 shows how wind speeds dramatically impact how quickly the human body loses

13 heat.

14

67. According to NOAA records, this past December, the average

15 minimum temperature in Los Angeles was 47.1 degrees. To illustrate, at this

16 temperature, winds of only 5 miles per hour reduce applied temperatures by 2

17 degrees; winds of 15 miles per hour create a wind-chill factor that reduces the

18 temperature felt by the body by 6 degrees; and winds traveling 25 miles per hour

19 produce a wind-chill factor of -8.1 degrees. In the rain coupled with lightning

20 and thunder on March 7, 2015, wind gusts reached as high as 33 miles per hour.

21 With a raw temperature of 51 degrees during the storm, the force of the wind

22 resulted in a wind-chill factor of -8 degrees, lowering the temperature to

23 approximately 43 degrees. Thus, even in Los Angeles’ so-called “moderate

24 winters,” the temperatures experienced by homeless individuals exposed to the

25

26

27

28

2 Wind-chill is the cooling effect of wind on exposed skin. See,

www.nws.noaa.gov/forecasts/wfo/definitions/defineWindChill.html

P24

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 25 of 37 Page ID #:70

1 elements consistently fall well-below 50 degrees, the threshold where individuals

2 are exposed to hypothermia.

3

68. Defendants are well aware of the danger the homeless community

4 faces and recognized it in their plan for the limited winter shelter program and

5 other emergency pop-up shelters. But even without this public recognition, it is

6 plain common sense that protection from the cold and rain is an identifiable

7 human need. Unprotected exposure to cold and rain presents a serious risk of

8 illness and, as already happened once this winter, death to someone living on the

9 sidewalk with only minimal or no protection once their property is seized and

10 destroyed. A policy that ignores the “mutually enforcing effect” of destroying

11 property and leaves people to live on the streets manifests actionable deliberate

12 indifference.

13

69. The immediate risk to the health and safety of the homeless

14 community far outweighs any element based on the perceived public health

15 hazard that may exist and are used to justify the seizure and destruction of

16 property, like the presence of rat droppings on property, or the fact that personal

17 possessions become wet as a result of the rain. The CITY is well aware of this.

18 In 2012, after the injunction was entered in Lavan, the CITY approached the Los

19 Angeles County Public Health Department to identify public health issues on

20 Skid Row. On May 21, 2012, Jacqueline Taylor, Bureau Director for Region 1,

21 issued a report on the County’s findings. Significantly, the County did not find

22 that identified health hazards justified the removal and destruction of personal

23 property. To the contrary, the County opined that if the property was moved

24 regularly and, if possible, kept 18 inches off the ground, such as in a shopping

25 cart or other mobile device, the problem would be alleviated. Without seizing

26 and destroying the property of homeless persons, the CITY implemented the

27 clean-up policies recommended by the County and, in fact, received a favorable

28 report from the County just a few months later.

P25

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 26 of 37 Page ID #:71

1

70. Notably, the solution the County directed for most of the issues was

2 to provide additional public toilets, adequate trash bins with frequent disposal of

3 garbage, and access to soap and water to minimize the transmission of disease

4 because people were living on the streets in “desperate situations.” Although the

5 CITY did add a few trash cans in Skid Row since the County issued its report

6 four years ago, there are still only a few toilets, and no soap or water for the

7 number of homeless individuals, which has increased by more than 20 percent

8 since the County issued its report in 2012.

9

71. Defendants’ present justification for destroying Plaintiffs’ property is

10 based on the purported contamination of those items. This was not a justification

11 the County Public Health Department would sanction in 2012 and it is not a

12 sufficient rationale today. But even if some of the property is contaminated, this

13 approach strips Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights precisely because of

14 Defendants’ failure to take adequate, let alone any, steps to address the most

15 fundamental needs of homeless persons for a safe environment. Moreover, the

16 consequence of Defendants’ policies and practices is to leave Plaintiffs in the

17 cold, literally. When Plaintiff MITCHELL was falsely arrested and then released

18 at approximately 3 a.m. on December 16, 2015, the low temperature in

19 Downtown Los Angeles was 40 degrees. Mr. MITCHELL was released from jail

20 with nothing to protect him from the elements as he slept on the sidewalk that

21 night other than a thin blanket he found in someone else’s cart.

22

23

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Right to Be Secure From Unreasonable Seizures

24

42 U.S.C. §1983 - Fourth Amendment; Art. 1, §13, California

25

Constitution

26

72. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the

27 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

28

P26

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 27 of 37 Page ID #:72

1

73. Defendants and their employees and agents violated Plaintiffs’

2 Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizure of their property

3 by confiscating and then destroying Plaintiffs’ property without a warrant.

4

74. Defendants and their employees and agents violated Plaintiffs

5 MITCHELL’s and COLEMAN’s rights to be free from false arrest.

6

75. These unlawful actions were done with the specific intent to deprive

7 Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights to be secure in their property.

8

76. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the acts of the Defendant and

9 their employees and agents were intentional in failing to protect and preserve

10 Plaintiffs’ property and that, at minimum, Defendants were deliberately

11 indifferent to the likely consequence that the property would be seized and

12 destroyed unlawfully, based on the past circumstances of similar constitutional

13 and statutory violations of the law.

14

77. As a direct and proximate consequence of these unlawful acts,

15 Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer loss of their personal property and

16 are entitled to compensatory damages for their property personal injury.

17

18

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Right To Due Process Of Law; 42 U.S.C. § 1983

19

Fifth And Fourteenth Amendments; Art. I, § 7

20

78. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the

21 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

22

79. Defendants, their employees and agents, owed Plaintiffs a duty under

23 the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.

24 Constitution and Article I, § 7 of the California Constitution to protect the

25 personal property of the Plaintiffs. This duty applied to preserving the personal

26 property of individuals arrested and taken into custody.

27

80. Despite this well-defined duty, Defendants provided Plaintiffs with

28 no notice that their property was at risk of being seized and/or destroyed and did

P27

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 28 of 37 Page ID #:73

1 not act to preserve the property or provide any means of reclaiming it in a timely 2 manner, even though Defendant CITY was put on notice by the Los Angeles 3 Superior Court, the United States District Court for the Central District of 4 California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that such notice and 5 preservation of property was required.

6

81. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the acts of the Defendants,

7 their employees and agents, were intentional in failing to protect and preserve

8 Plaintiffs’ property and that, at minimum, Defendants were deliberately

9 indifferent to the likelihood that the property would be seized and destroyed

10 without due process based on the past occurrences of these same constitutional

11 and statutory violations of the law.

12

82. Defendants have seized and destroyed the personal property of the

13 Plaintiffs without due process, lawful justification, or just compensation.

14

83. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendants’

15 agents and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer loss of their

16 personal property and are entitled to compensatory damages for their property and

17 other injury to their person.

18

19

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Civil Rights: 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Fourteenth Amendment

20

State Created Danger

21

84. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the

22 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

23

85. By taking and destroying the medicine, tents, tarps and blankets of

24 the Plaintiffs, the acts of Defendants, their employees and agents, have created a

25 danger for Plaintiffs by exposing them to the elements in the winter without

26 adequate shelter on the streets.

27

86. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendants’

28 agents and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer actual and

P28

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 29 of 37 Page ID #:74

1 potential injury to their health and safety and are entitled to compensatory 2 damages for their property and other injury to their person.
3

4

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

5

Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.: Title II of the Americans with

6

Disabilities Act

7

87. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the

8 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

9

88. Title II of the ADA provides in pertinent part: “[N]o qualified

10 individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be … denied the

11 benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected

12 to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

13

89. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants, their employees and

14 agents, were public entities within the meaning of Title II of the ADA and

15 provided programs, services, or activity to the general public.

16

90. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs MITCHELL, ROQUE,

17 and COLEMAN were qualified individuals with one or more disabilities within

18 the meaning of Title II of the ADA and met the essential eligibility requirements

19 under Title II.

20

91. Defendants’ policies and practices in seizing and destroying

21 Plaintiffs’ medications and medical devices and equipment have utilized methods

22 of administration that violate Plaintiffs’ rights on the basis of their disabilities. 28

23 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3).

24

92. The acts and omissions of the Defendants, their agents and

25 employees, subjected the above-identified Plaintiffs to discrimination on the basis

26 of their disabilities in violation of Title II of the ADA by destroying their

27 property, including prescription medication and medical devices provided to them

28 by health services, and for storing any remaining items following the seizures in a

P29

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 30 of 37 Page ID #:75

1 way that was inaccessible and unreasonable. After seizing Plaintiffs’ medications

2 and medical devices, Defendants, their agents and employees, released Plaintiffs

3 from custody without provision for replacement of their medically necessary

4 prescriptions and devices.

5

93. Plaintiffs knew, or should have known, that the incidence of

6 disabilities for people who are homeless is extremely high, with estimates as high

7 as more than one in two homeless individuals suffering from some significant

8 mental, medical or physical disability, and many, like Plaintiff COLEMAN,

9 suffering from compound disabilities. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege

10 that Defendants could have reasonably retained Plaintiffs’ prescription

11 medications, medical devices, and critical personal papers. As a public entity,

12 Defendants are required to “make reasonable modifications in policies practices,

13 or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on

14 the basis of disability” where, as here, modifications to would not “fundamentally

15 alter the nature of the service, program or activity.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).

16 This includes the need to make reasonable accommodations to protect the

17 essential life-protecting and mobility assistive property of persons who are

18 homeless, as well as provide prompt and reasonable access to ensure that

19 individuals are able to recover seized property. The policies, practices and

20 procedures challenged in this action, even if otherwise facially neutral, unduly

21 burden disabled persons who are without shelter and within the federal definition

22 of homeless.

23

94. Defendants committed the acts and omissions alleged herein with

24 intent and/or reckless disregard for the rights of each of these Plaintiffs.

25

95. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants and their agents

26 and employees have failed and continue to fail to adopt and enforce adequate

27 policies and procedures for interacting with homeless individuals with

28 disabilities.

P30

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 31 of 37 Page ID #:76

1

96. As a result of the actions of Defendant and their agents and

2 employees, Plaintiffs have suffered injury to their persons and property and are

3 entitled to damages.

4

5

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

6

Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 794: Section 504 of the

7

Rehabilitation Act of 1973

8

97. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the

9 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

10

98. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides in pertinent

11 part: “[N]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability … shall, solely by

12 reason of his or her disability, … be subjected to discrimination under any

13 program or activity receiving federal financial assistance ….” 29 U.S.C. § 794.

14

99. Plaintiffs MITCHELL, ROQUE and COLEMAN were, at all

15 relevant times, qualified individuals within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act

16 because they have a mental and/or medical impairment that substantially limits

17 one or more of their major life activities.” 29 U.S.C. § 705(20((B).

18

100. At all relevant times and continuing to the present, Defendant CITY

19 was the recipient of federal funding within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.

20

101. The acts and omissions by Defendants and their agents and

21 employees complained of herein were committed with intent and/or reckless

22 disregard for the rights of the above-named Plaintiffs and discriminated against

23 them on the basis of their respective disabilities.

24

102. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and

25 omissions by Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer injury to

26 their persons, including pain and suffering and are entitled to compensatory

27 damages according to proof.

28

P31

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 32 of 37 Page ID #:77

1

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2 Violation of Civil Rights: Interference By Threat, Intimidation or Coercion California Civil Code § 52.1
3
103. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the
4
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

5
104. Defendants’ agents and employees have used arrests, threats of arrest

6
and intimidation to interfere with Plaintiffs’ rights to maintain their personal

7
possessions in the exercise of Plaintiffs’ rights secured by the Constitution of the

8
United States, the Constitution of the State of California, and the statutory laws of

9
the State of California.

10
105. Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction pursuant to California Civil

11
Code §52.1. Plaintiffs are also entitled to damages pursuant to Civil Code §§ 52

12 and 52.1. Plaintiffs have filed tort claims with the Defendant CITY. Plaintiffs

13 will amend this action to include damages under this provision once they have

14 exhausted their administrative remedies.

15

16

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

17

California Government Code § 11135

18

106. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the

19 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

20

107. Section 11135(a) of the California Government Code provides in

21 pertinent part: “No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of …

22 disability, … be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under any program or

23 activity that is funded directly by, or receives any financial assistance from, the

24 state.”

25

108. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this action,

26 Defendants received funding and/or other financial assistance from the State of

27 California sufficient to invoke the protections of Section 11135 et seq.

28

P32

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 33 of 37 Page ID #:78

1

109. Defendants, their agents and employees, have violated Government

2 Code § 11135 by unlawfully subjecting Plaintiffs MITCHELL, ROQUE and

3 COLEMAN to discrimination for the reasons set forth above.

4

110. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of

5 Defendants, their agents and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to

6 suffer injury, including but not limited to pain and suffering.

7

8

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

9

Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act: Civil Code § 51 et seq.

10

111. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the

11 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

12

112. California Civil Code 51 et seq. provides in pertinent part that: “All

13 persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what

14 their … disability … are entitled to the full and equal … privileges, or services in

15 all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

16

113. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 51(f), a violation of the ADA

17 necessarily is a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

18

114. Defendants, through their agents and employees in the LAPD and

19 other City Departments, are “business establishments” within the meaning of §

20 51.

21

115. The acts and omissions complained of herein denied Plaintiffs their

22 rights on the basis of their disabilities and were done with intent or reckless

23 disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs’ as disabled individuals.

24

116. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts,

25 Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer injury, including but not limited to

26 pain and suffering. Plaintiffs are entitled to all of the relief available pursuant to

27 California Civil Code § 52.

28

P33

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 34 of 37 Page ID #:79

1

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2

California Civil Code § 2080, et seq.

3

117. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the

4 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

5

118. Defendant’s policies, practices and conduct challenged herein

6 violated California Civil Code § 2080 et seq., in that Defendant’s agents and

7 employees failed to protect and preserve the personal property of Plaintiffs when

8 the property was on the public sidewalk and streets; failed to provide written

notice that the property would be taken and failed to provide post-deprivation
9

notice so that Plaintiffs would have the opportunity to reclaim it within a
10

reasonable time. California Code of Civil Procedure § 2080 et seq. imposes a
11

mandatory duty to maintain property that is not abandoned.
12

13

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

14

CONVERSION

15

119. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the

16 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

17

120. Plaintiffs were in possession of their personal property at the time

18 that Defendants’ agents and employees ordered that the property be seized and

19 most, if not all of it, be immediately destroyed without prior notice. Defendants’

20 agents and employees unlawfully prohibited Plaintiffs from securing their

personal property.
21

121. Defendants, their agents and employees, had a duty owed to
22

Plaintiffs to protect their personal property under Los Angeles Municipal Code
23

§52.55 and California Civil Code §§ 2080.2, 2080.4 and 2080.6. Plaintiffs’
24
property was not abandoned at the time that Defendant seized it and immediately
25
destroyed it. Defendants breached the duty to protect Plaintiffs’ personal
26
property when their agents and employees wrongly exerted dominion over the
27
property and denied Plaintiffs’ their constitutional and statutory rights.
28

P34

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 35 of 37 Page ID #:80

1

122. Defendants had no legitimate governmental interest that gave their

2 agents and employees the legal right or justification to confiscate Plaintiffs’

3 property and then immediately demolish it without prior notice to Plaintiffs and

4 without a procedure to permit Plaintiffs to recover their property, and without fair

5 compensation to Plaintiffs.

6

123. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendants’

7 agents and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer loss of their

8 personal property and are entitled to compensatory damages

9

10

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FALSE ARREST

11
124. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the

12 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

13

125. Plaintiffs MITCHELL and COLEMAN were falsely arrested for

14 possession of “illegal” shopping carts. Defendants were informed that the carts in

15 question were not theirs. Despite this, Defendants arrested Plaintiffs. No

16 charges were filed against either Plaintiff.

17

126. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendants’

18 agents and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer injury.

19

20

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

21

127. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the

22 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.

23

128. A real and immediate difference exists between Plaintiffs and

24 Defendants regarding Plaintiffs’ rights and Defendants’ duty owed to Plaintiffs to

25 protect Plaintiffs’ personal property present on public sidewalks and streets in

26 Skid Row. Defendants’ policies and actions have resulted and will result in

27 irreparable injury to Plaintiffs. There is no plain, adequate or complete remedy at

28 law to address the wrongs described herein. Defendants have made clear by their

P35

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 36 of 37 Page ID #:81

1 repeated escalation of the criminalization of the homeless community in Los

2 Angeles that they intend to continue these practices of confiscating and

3 immediately destroying the property of homeless individuals from the public

4 streets and sidewalks without a warrant and notice. Defendants have also made

5 clear that they intend to continue the practices described above that make it

6 impossible for homeless individuals to reclaim their property, even when some of

7 it is not immediately destroyed. Unless restrained by this Court, Defendants will

8 continue to implement these unlawful policies and practices.

9

129. Defendants’ acts alleged above violate established constitutional

10 rights of Plaintiffs and Defendants could not reasonably have thought that the

11 conduct of their agents and employees in seizing and destroying Plaintiffs’

12 property was lawful.

13

130. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants in

14 that Defendants, their agents and employees, have engaged in the unlawful and

15 unconstitutional acts alleged herein and intend to continue to do so. Plaintiffs

16 claim that these acts are contrary to law and seek a declaration of their rights with

17 regard to this controversy.

18

131. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendants’

19 agents and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer injury

20 to their person and the loss of their personal property, including all their clothing,

21 bedding, medication, personal papers and other personal possessions, stripping

22 them of the essentials needed for their well-being and personal dignity and

23 placing them at serious and immediate risk of illness.

24

132. Plaintiffs filed administrative claims with the Defendant CITY.

25

26

27

28

P36

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 9 Filed 03/17/16 Page 37 of 37 Page ID #:82

1

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray as follows:

2
1. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent
3
injunction, enjoining and restraining Defendants from engaging in
4

the policies, practices and conduct complained of herein;
5

2. For a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ policies, practices and
6

7

conduct as alleged herein violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the United

8

States and California constitutions and the laws of California;

9

3. For an order directing Defendants to provide replacement blankets,

10

tents, tarps, medications, clothing and replacement of critical

11

personal documents to anyone whose property is seized for whatever

12

reason, including purported public health and safety grounds;

13

4. For an order directing that any property taken be segregated by

14

owners and not combined with the property of any other person;

15

5. For damages in an amount to be determined according to proof.

16

6. For costs of suit and attorney fees as provided by law;

17

7. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

18
Dated: March 17, 2015
19

Respectfully submitted,

20

LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL

21

LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS

ANGELES

22

SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS &

23

HOFFMAN

24

/s/ Carol A. Sobel

25

By: CAROL A. SOBEL

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
26

27

28

P37

 
 Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 27 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:474
TRANSFER ORDER DECLINED
TRANSFER ORDER DECLINED

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 27 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:475 ,
Although the two cases present similar legal theories, they are factually distinct. In Tony Lavan, et al. v. City ofLos Angeles, CV 11-2874 PSG (AJWx), Plaintiffs are homeless individuals whose property was allegedly confiscated and destroyed by Defendant, even though there was allegedly no evidence that the property was abandoned. In Carl Mitchell, et al. v. City ofLos Angeles, et al., CV 15-1750 SJO (JPRx), Plaintiffs are homeless individuals whose property was allegedly confiscated and destroyed and/or mishandled during arrests. The Court therefore does not believe that transfer is warranted.

 
 Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTtE5S1 DFISilTedRI0C4T/1C3/O1U6 RPTage 1 of 1P1riorPityage ID #:814

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Send Enter

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Closed JS-5/JS-6

Scan Only

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: April 13, 2016

TITLE:

Carl Mitchell, et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al.

======================================================================== PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Victor Paul Cruz Courtroom Clerk

Not Present Court Reporter

COUNSEL PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:

COUNSEL PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

Not Present

Not Present

======================================================================== PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Docket No. 13].

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Carl Mitchell, Michael Escobedo, Salvador Roque, Judy Coleman, Los Angeles Catholic Worker, and Cangress' (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Ex Parte Application for (1) Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"), and (2) Order to Show Cause Re: Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction, filed on March 30, 2016. (See generally Ex Parte Appl. for a TRO And/Or Order to Show Cause Re Issuance of a Prelim. Inj. ("Appl."), ECF No. 13.) Defendants City of Los Angeles ("the City"), Lieutenant Andrew Mathes, Sergeant Hamer, and Sergeant Richter ("Individual Defendants") (collectively, "Defendants") filed an Opposition to the Application ("Opposition") on April 6, 2016. Plaintiffs filed a Reply ("Reply") on April 8, 2016. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Application and ISSUES a preliminary injunction, as specified below.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiffs, a group of homeless individuals and organizations providing support services to the homeless, sue Defendants for purported violations of their constitutional and statutory rights. According to Plaintiffs, the City has undertaken a mass practice and policy of clearing Skid Row and its surrounding areas of homeless people. Since around December of 2015, the City and the Individual Defendants have allegedly seized and deprived Plaintiffs of property, without a pre- or post-deprivation hearing, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and various federal and California state laws. (See generally First Am. Compl. ("FAC"), ECF No. 1).

Plaintiffs' FAC alleges as follows. Since around December of 2015, LAPD officers and City employees have used arrests for what Plaintiffs call "minor quality of life offenses," (Appl. P. & A. 1), as a pretext to seize and confiscate Plaintiffs' property. The City's arrests take place pursuant

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 1 of 11

: Initials of Preparer

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTtE5S1 DFISilTedRI0C4T/1C3/O1U6 RPTage 2 of 11 Page ID #:815 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: April 13, 2016

to two LA County ordinances, Los Angeles Municipal Code ("LAMC") Section 41.18(d), which prohibits sitting, sleeping, or lying on sidewalks, and LAMC Section 41.45, which prohibits the unauthorized use of shopping carts. (FAC ¶¶ 47-49.) During some arrests, LAPD officers allegedly cordon off areas where homeless people are located and contact the Department of Sanitation and Street Services ("Dep't of Sanitation"), which in turn deploys trash trucks and other personnel to clean and dispose of the homeless people's property. (FAC ¶¶ 51-53.)
The property confiscated during arrests and cleanups include tents, medications, personal items, and shopping carts provided by organizations for use by the homeless. (FAC ¶¶ 20-25, 32-38.) Plaintiffs claim that city workers do not use care in handling this property, and that the workers summarily dispose of tents, tarps, blankets, shoes, and clothing. (FAC ¶ 55.)
Plaintiffs additionally claim that they have not been able to recover property after seizures take place. Although the LAPD normally itemizes and tags property taken during an arrest, officers and city employees do not separately catalog property seized from different homeless individuals. (FAC ¶ 58.) According to Plaintiffs, the confiscated property is stored at various locations, including a "hard-to-identify spot in the middle of a parking lot across from the Roybal Federal Courthouse," which is only accessible between the hours of 8:00 am and 1:00 pm on Tuesday through Friday. (FAC ¶ 60.) As a result, property is lost after the City's arrests and cleanups. (FAC ¶ 58.)
B. Prior Proceedings
Plaintiffs bring eleven causes of action stemming from Defendants' arrests of homeless individuals and cleanups of areas where they are located. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' confiscation and destruction of Plaintiffs' property, without a warrant or a pre- or post-deprivation hearing, violates the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. (FAC ¶¶ 72-86). Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants falsely arrested certain Plaintiffs based on faulty allegations that they stole shopping carts, committed the tort of conversion by wrongfully seizing Plaintiffs' property, and contravened California state and federal laws protecting disabled individuals by depriving homeless people suffering from disabilities of necessary medications and medical equipment. (FAC ¶¶ 87-102, 106-110 119-21).
On March 30, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the instant Application, seeking to enjoin the City from confiscating property during arrests and cleanups of homeless areas. Plaintiffs contend that "they have lost all or nearly all of their possessions without prior notice and adequate advisement of post-deprivation resources to reclaim their property" and that "the loss of key items, including

Page 2 of 11

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTtE5S1 DFISilTedRI0C4T/1C3/O1U6 RPTage 3 of 11 Page ID #:816 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: April 13, 2016

[Plaintiffs'] medications, has taken an enormous toll on them, especially when they are left without protection from the elements at night."1 (Appl. 4.)
II. DISCUSSION
To obtain a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs, the moving party, must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in favor of the moving party; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see also Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005). The Ninth Circuit also employs a sliding scale test whereby the existence of "serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest." Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). "These formulations are not different tests but represent two points on a sliding scale in which the degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success on the merits decreases." Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of the Anchorage Sch. Dist., 868 F.2d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir.1989). Overall, a preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief." Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Plaintiffs bring this Application based on Defendants' purported violations of the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. (Appl. P.& A. 4-18.) The Court addresses these two causes of action in turn and ultimately concludes that Plaintiffs have made a threshold showing of a likelihood of success on the merits.2
\\

1 The instant case is related to a prior case in the Central District of California, Tony Lavan et al. v. City of Los Angeles, CV-11-2874 (PSG).

2 Plaintiffs bring two causes of action based on the Fourteenth Amendment, the first based on procedural due process, Defendants' deprivation of Plaintiffs' property without notice or an opportunity to be heard, (see FAC ¶¶ 78-83), and the second based on substantive due process, (FAC ¶¶ 84-86). Having concluded that Plaintiffs have made a threshold showing of a likelihood of success on the procedural due process cause of action, the Court sees no need to reach Plaintiffs' substantive due process claim at the present stage of the litigation.

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 3 of 11

: Initials of Preparer

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTtE5S1 DFISilTedRI0C4T/1C3/O1U6 RPTage 4 of 11 Page ID #:817 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: April 13, 2016

1. Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," and requires that a warrant sanctioning a search or seizure be supported by probable cause. U.S. Const., amend. IV.
As a preliminary matter, the Ninth Circuit has held that homeless individuals have a Fourth Amendment property interest in unattended property left on public sidewalks. See Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022, 1030 (9th Cir. 2012). "The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable interferences in property interests regardless of whether there is an invasion of privacy." Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has clearly held that personal property located in a public area is protected by the Fourth Amendment, despite its physical location in a public space. See Soldal v. Cook Cnty, 506 U.S. 56, 68 (1992).
The Court next addresses whether Defendants' actions in arresting individuals and confiscating their property constitute an "unreasonable" seizure, precluded by the Fourth Amendment. On the one hand, Defendants correctly assert that there are significant public health and safety issues involved in the arrests and cleanups of sidewalks and streets where homeless persons reside. For example, some of the property owned by homeless individuals may be contaminated by hazardous materials located on a Skid Row street; other property may be infested with rats and infected with rodent and other vermin transmitted diseases. (See, e.g., Decl. of Lt. Andrew Mathes ("Mathes Decl.") ¶¶ 3-6, ECF No. 38-1; DVD, Ex. B to Opp'n, ECF No. 38-4.)3 LAMC Section 56.11.3(f) empowers City employees to clear an area of property that "poses an immediate threat to the health and safety of the public." In the injunction issued in Lavan, the Ninth Circuit confronted very similar factual circumstances to those at issue here and recognized that some seizures of property may be necessary to protect against "an immediate threat to public health or safety." Lavan, 693 F.3d at 1026. In the instant case, the City claims it complies with a strict checklist to determine if immediate health hazards are present in property owned by homeless individuals. (Decl. of Steven Pederson ("Pederson Decl.") 15, ECF No. 38-2.) The Court commends the City for following this protocol. If the City deems that specific property is infected with disease or toxins, then the immediate seizure of this specific property is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The narrow preliminary injunction issued here should not dissuade Defendants from pursuing this important public health duty.

3 Certain areas of the city depicted in the submitted video evidence are so dirty, it is a surprise that a widespread occurrence of infectious disease has not yet impacted the homeless community.

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 4 of 11

: Initials of Preparer

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTtE5S1 DFISilTedRI0C4T/1C3/O1U6 RPTage 5 of 11 Page ID #:818 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: April 13, 2016

On the other hand, Defendants sometimes seize and summarily dispose of essential medications and medical equipment, without distinguishing contaminated property from other property and without separating each individual's property.4 Afterwards, Plaintiffs face significant challenges in recovering this property, some of which is necessary for their basic survival. (See Decl. of Carl Anthony Mitchell ("Mitchell Decl.") ¶¶ 7, 10-13, ECF No. 13-3; Decl. of Eric Ares ("Ares Decl."), ¶¶ 12-14, 17-18, ECF No. 14; Decl. of Salvador Richard Roque ("Roque Decl.") ¶¶ 5, 8, 13, 18, ECF No. 15; Decl. of Gabby Cervantes ("Cervantes Decl.") ¶¶ 6-12, ECF No. 16; Decl. of Judy Coleman ("Coleman Decl.") ¶¶ 10, 13-14, 16, ECF No. 17; Decl. of Michael Escobedo ("Escobedo Decl.) ¶¶ 10-11, 13, ECF No. 18.) In one case, certain Defendants apparently confiscated medical equipment used by a homeless person suffering from diabetes to treat her sugar and insulin levels. (Coleman Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.) In another case, some of the individual Defendants appeared to take away property from a person lying on the sidewalk, visibly suffering physical pain. (DVD, Ex. 14 at 4:40-6:00, ECF No. 31.)
Defendants attempt to challenge these affidavits and video footage by claiming that "Plaintiffs to a person are not being truthful." (Opp'n 6.) They urge the Court to watch their video footage, which shows some Plaintiffs having time to take and store their property at the time of arrest and cleanup. (Opp'n 6; DVD, Ex. E to Opp'n, ECF No. 38-4; DVD, Ex. F to Opp'n, ECF No. 38-4.) These videos also appear to show Plaintiffs Judy Coleman, Carl Mitchell, Michael Escobedo, and Salvador Roque making statements to police officers contradicting facts stated in their affidavits. (Opp'n 6.) Roque, for example, admits to having contraband in his possession at the time of his arrest. (DVD, Ex. H to Opp'n, ECF No. 38-4.) The City is correct that the possession of contraband would justify some searches and seizures incident to an arrest, although the seizure of the entirety of Roque's property, including his tent, raises countervailing Fourth Amendment concerns, especially after LAPD officers had placed Roque in handcuffs. See Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 335 (2009). Similarly, Escobedo asserts in his affidavit that the police officers dumped his tent into a garbage truck at the time of the cleanup. (Escobedo Decl. ¶ 7.) In video footage, however, LAPD officers appear to give Escobedo and those around him some time to clear their belongings and take tents down. (See DVD, Ex. E, ECF No. 38-4.) Nevertheless, the video footage only shows an isolated period of time, and it may be that City officials discarded Escobedo's property afterwards.
In preliminary injunction cases where a moving party's assertions "are substantially controverted by counter-affidavits, a court should not grant [injunctive] relief unless the moving party makes a further showing sufficient to demonstrate that he will probably succeed on the merits." K-2 Ski Co.

4 The Court recognizes that in many instances, separating property that is contaminated from property that is not is, at best, difficult.

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 5 of 11

: Initials of Preparer

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTtE5S1 DFISilTedRI0C4T/1C3/O1U6 RPTage 6 of 11 Page ID #:819 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: April 13, 2016

v. Head Ski Co., 467 F.2d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 1972). This is not the case here. The counterevidence submitted by Defendants, including the videos, are at best inconclusive.5 At the current stage of litigation, the Court cannot be asked to act as the final trier of fact. For now, the Court has the limited task of determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction. In this context, the Court accepts the facts contained in Plaintiffs' affidavits as true statements made under penalty of perjury, as required by federal statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the significant claims alleged in the affidavits, the Court concludes that some of Defendants' seizures of property are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, particularly the seizure of essential medication and medical equipment. As the Ninth Circuit held in Lavan, "[v]iolation of a City ordinance does not vitiate the Fourth Amendment's protection of one's property. Were it otherwise, the government could seize and destroy any illegally parked car or unlawfully unattended dog without implicating the Fourth Amendment." Lavan, 693 F.3d at 1029. Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits of their Fourth Amendment claim. See Lavan, 693 F.3d at 1030 ("Here, by seizing and destroying Appellees' unabandoned legal papers, shelters, and personal effects, the City meaningfully interfered with Appellees' possessory interests in that property.")
2. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
Plaintiffs are also entitled to a preliminary injunction based on the likelihood of success on the merits of their Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause provides that "No state shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const., amend. XIV. "Application of this prohibition requires the familiar two-stage analysis: [The Court] must first ask whether the asserted individual interests are encompassed within the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of 'life, liberty or property'; if protected interests are implicated, [the Court] then must decide what procedures constitute 'due process of law.'" Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 672 (1977).

5 The Court has received Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Objections to the evidence submitted but declines to rule on these objections here. (See generally Obj. to Evid., ECF No. 38-3; Obj. to Def.'s Evid., ECF No. 46.) Although a motion for preliminary injunction must be supported by evidence that goes beyond the unverified allegations of the pleadings, a district court may rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence in deciding such a motion. See San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 18 F. Supp. 3d 997, 1006 (N.D. Cal. 2014). The Court's consideration of this evidence in the preliminary injunction context is without prejudice to either side objecting at trial.

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 6 of 11

: Initials of Preparer

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTtE5S1 DFISilTedRI0C4T/1C3/O1U6 RPTage 7 of 11 Page ID #:820 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: April 13, 2016

In Lavan, the Ninth Circuit squarely held that homeless individuals retain an "interest in the continued ownership of their personal possessions." Lavan, 693 F.3d at 1031. After the decision in Lavan, several district courts in this Circuit have echoed its reasoning, concluding that homeless individuals have a property interest in possessions, such as tents, tarps, blankets, and medications, even when these possessions are kept in a public space. See, e.g., Sanchez v. City of Fresno, 914 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1103 (E.D. Cal. 2012) ("If there has ever been any doubt in this Circuit that a homeless person's unabandoned possessions are 'property' within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, that doubt was put to rest by the Ninth Circuit's September 2012 Decision in Lavan v. City of Los Angeles . . . ."); Carr v. Oregon Dep't of Transp., No. 3:13-CV02218-MO, 2014 WL 3741934, at *4 (D. Or. July 29, 2014) ("Within this most basic scope of the due process guarantee is a homeless person's ownership interest in property that she has left unattended but not abandoned.")
Having established that Defendants' actions in the instant case implicate property within the meaning of the Due Process Clause, the Court next applies the test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge to determine whether the City has met procedural due process requirements. 424 U.S. 319 (1976). The Mathews test balances three factors: "(1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the Government's interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens that additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail." Id. at 321. The Court addresses each prong of Mathews in turn.
a. Private Interest
Plaintiffs' affidavits establish that the private interest at stake in the instant litigation is significant and touches on the basic survival of homeless individuals. Tents and non-contaminated blankets are necessary to protect individuals from rain and extreme weather. (See, e.g., Escobedo Decl. ¶ 12.) Medications and medical equipment are necessary to treat chronic ailments and conditions. (See, e.g., Coleman Decl. ¶ 10.)
b. Risk of Erroneous Deprivation
Plaintiffs' sworn declarations also establish that there is a significant risk that the City erroneously deprives Plaintiffs of their property through its actions. Although the City apparently posted Notices advising of street cleaning and requiring that Plaintiffs remove their property from designated areas, (Decl. of Steven Pedersen ("Pedersen Decl.") 8, 12), Plaintiffs contend that the City actually offered them basically no notice of the seizure of personal property. According to Plaintiffs, the Individual Defendants sometimes gave Plaintiffs a moment's warning, ordering

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 7 of 11

: Initials of Preparer

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTtE5S1 DFISilTedRI0C4T/1C3/O1U6 RPTage 8 of 11 Page ID #:821 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: April 13, 2016

homeless persons to take their tents down, just before arresting the homeless or confiscating their property. (Mitchell Decl. ¶¶ 4-7; Roque Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; Cervantes Decl. ¶¶ 4-6; Escobedo Decl. ¶ 9.)
The City's current procedures also do not appear to afford the homeless a meaningful way to recover confiscated property. The City posted Notices advising Plaintiffs of locations where property would be located. (Pedersen Decl. 10). Despite this, some Plaintiffs claim that they have been forced to shuttle between different warehouses, which essentially results in the City not returning their property. (Roque Decl. ¶¶ 14-29; Cervantes Decl. ¶¶ 7-12.) Even when the homeless successfully find storage locations, the property returned may be incomplete. (Decl. of Steve Richardson ("Richardson Decl.") ¶¶ 14-22, ECF No. 22.)
The process afforded by the City carries a significant risk that homeless individuals are erroneously deprived of property. In De-Occupy Honolulu v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, a district court in Hawaii confronted a due process challenge similar to the one at issue here; the court upheld a city ordinance permitting the clearing of public spaces occupied by homeless people. CV No. 12-00668 JMS-KSC, 2013 WL 2285100, at *5-*7 (D. Haw. May 21, 2013). The Hawaii district court cited approvingly to the fact that the city ordinance provided sufficient notice and process, including twenty-four hours written notice before seizure of items, post-seizure notice describing the items taken and the location where they could be retrieved, and the storage of items for thirty days before destruction. Id. The Court is persuaded by the reasoning of De-Occupy Honolulu and applies similar principles here. Were the City to actually provide Plaintiffs additional process, including advance notice of seizures and cleanups and a readily accessible storage facility, it would allow Plaintiffs to protect and recover their essential property.
c. Government's Interest
The government's interest, including the cost of additional procedural safeguards on the City, are significant. The Court takes judicial notice of the exhibits submitted by Plaintiffs, which underscore the massive challenge created by Los Angeles' homelessness epidemic.6 The numbers are staggering. Los Angeles apparently had around 41,000 homeless individuals in January of 2015, and this number may be growing today. (Ex. 11 to Appl., U.S. Dep't of Hous. and Urban Dev., 2015 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress 16, ECF No. 19.) The Court is keenly

6 The Court may take judicial notice of a fact "not subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 8 of 11

: Initials of Preparer

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTtE5S1 DFISilTedRI0C4T/1C3/O1U6 RPTage 9 of 11 Page ID #:822 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: April 13, 2016

aware of the public health hazards posed by this situation. Seized property may be contaminated by toxins and communicable diseases. (Pedersen Decl. ¶¶ 5, 12-13, 15.) Addressing the challenge posed by homelessness will necessarily impose heavy costs on the City and its residents.
However, the Ninth Circuit's decision in Lavan makes clear that these costs do not justify infringing the basic constitutional rights of homeless individuals. Plaintiffs' due process challenge essentially asks the Court to consider whether one of the City's means of addressing homelessness, the arrests and summary confiscation of the property of the homeless, outweighs the individual interests of homeless people. Given the scope of the property interest at stake, which encompasses essentials such as medications and medical equipment, the Court believes that the City can offer additional process to Plaintiffs. The City, for example, could establish a more organized catalog of property seized, rather than the haphazard structure currently in place. The City also could carefully enforce its public health mandate, only seizing property that clearly poses an immediate risk to the public. In this vein, the City could provide advance notice advising the homeless of an upcoming cleanup and seizures, and advising the homeless to separate essential property such as medications and medical equipment from other property that might be confiscated.
If such additional protocol and process were put in place, the City would not contravene the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At the current time, however, the City, in many instances, appears to be confiscating all property, without differentiating the types of property at issue or giving homeless people a meaningful opportunity to separate essential medications or medical equipment from their other property. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have established a threshold showing of a likelihood of success on the merits of the procedural due process claim.
B. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm to the Moving Party in the Absence of Preliminary Relief
Because Plaintiffs have clearly carried their burden to establish meritorious claims based on the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, the Ninth Circuit's sliding scale test requires the issuing of a preliminary injunction, so long as Plaintiffs meet the minimum requirements for a preliminary injunction. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135. When it comes to the second prong of the preliminary injunction test, Plaintiffs do show a likelihood of irreparable harm based on the City's alleged Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment violations. "'[A]n alleged constitutional infringement will often alone constitute irreparable harm.'" Associated Gen. Contractors of California, Inc. v. Coal. for Econ. Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1412 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Goldie's Bookstore v. Superior Ct., 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir.1984)).

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 9 of 11

: Initials of Preparer

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTt E51S DFIiSleTdR0IC4/T13C/1O6URPTage 10 of 11 Page ID #:823 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: April 13, 2016

Moreover, the City apparently has continued arresting homeless individuals and confiscating their property in areas of Skid Row since the filing of the instant lawsuit. (Ares Decl. ¶ 10.) The Court is especially concerned about the possibility of continuing constitutional violations because the Ninth Circuit decision in Lavan required that the City stop practices similar to the ones at issue in the instant litigation. Because of the possibility of constitutional violations in the future, Plaintiffs have shown that they may suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction.
C. Balance of Equities and the Public Interest
The Court finally considers the possible harm that a preliminary injunction might cause the City. To justify a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs must establish that the balance of equities and the public interest favors their position. See Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109, 1128 (9th Cir. 2011). This balancing test is similar to the analysis of the three prongs of Mathews considered supra. On the one hand, the Court takes into account the immediate public health hazards posed by some of the property held by homeless individuals. There are areas of Skid Row that contain biohazardous material, which may breed bacteria and disease. (Pedersen Decl. ¶¶ 5, 12-13, 15.) On the other hand, the Court recognizes the significant, constitutionallyprotected property interests at stake for the homeless. These property interests encompass essentials, necessary for their day-to-day survival.
Ultimately, as in Lavan, the Court holds that the balance of equities and the public interest favor Plaintiffs. See Lavan, 693 F.3d at 1032-33; Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 797 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1019 (C.D. Cal. 2011). Although a preliminary injunction will place additional burdens on the City to keep Los Angeles safe, Plaintiffs risk greater harm if the preliminary injunction is not granted. To put it bluntly, Plaintiffs may not survive without some of the essential property that has been confiscated.
III. RULING
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' proposed order, and concludes that it cuts too broadly. (See generally Proposed Order Granting Pl.'s Appl., ECF No. 13-2.) The Court will not issue a sweeping preliminary injunction that will only serve to instigate further litigation to enforce the injunction. The Court also is sensitive to placing too onerous a burden on the City, especially given the scope of the homelessness challenge in Los Angeles. The Court issues the following preliminary injunction.
The City, its agents and employees are hereby enjoined from:

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 10 of 11

: Initials of Preparer

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTt E51S DFIiSleTdR0IC4/T13C/1O6URPTage 11 of 11 Page ID #:824 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: April 13, 2016

1. Confiscating property in Skid Row or its surrounding areas, incident to an arrest or as part of a cleanup of an area where homeless people are located, absent an objectively reasonable belief that it is abandoned, presents an immediate threat to public health or safety, is evidence of a crime, or is contraband; and
2. Destroying property in Skid Row or its surrounding areas, absent an immediate threat to public health or safety, without maintaining the property in a secure location for a period of less than 90 days; and
3. Storing seized property from Skid Row or its surrounding areas in a facility not open during regular business hours; and
4. Failing to provide notice advising homeless individuals whose property is seized of the address where seized property is being stored; and
5. Storing seized property from Skid Row or its surrounding areas in a facility that does not clearly catalog and segregate property based on the names and identification, where available, of individuals from whom the property is taken; and
6. Storing seized property from Skid Row or its surrounding areas in a facility that is not accessible within 72 hours of seizure. Medication, medical equipment, and uncontaminated tents, sleeping bags, and blankets must be accessible within 24 hours of seizure or an individual's release from custody, whichever is later.
7. Additionally, where the City plans to engage in a mass cleanup of an area in Skid Row or its surrounding areas, the City must provide 24 hours advance notice advising homeless people of the cleanup and possible seizure of property and advising such individuals to remove essential property that they do not want confiscated.
The Court concludes that it is appropriate to waive the requirement that Plaintiffs file an injunctive bond in this instance. See Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999), supplemented, 236 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2001).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 11 of 11

: Initials of Preparer

 
 Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JUPNRITEDDocSuTmAeTnEt 5S7DIFSiTleRdIC05T/0C6O/1U6RTPage 1 of P5rioPritayge ID #:859

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Send Enter

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Closed JS-5/JS-6

Scan Only

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: May 6, 2016

TITLE:

Carl Mitchell, et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al.

======================================================================== PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Victor Paul Cruz Courtroom Clerk

Not Present Court Reporter

COUNSEL PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:

COUNSEL PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

Not Present

Not Present

======================================================================== PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Docket No. 37].

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants City of Los Angeles ("the City"), Lieutenant Andrew Mathes, Sergeant Hamer, and Sergeant Richter's ("Individual Defendants") (collectively, "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Carl Mitchell, Michael Escobedo, Salvador Roque, Judy Coleman, Los Angeles Catholic Worker, and Cangress' (collectively, "Plaintiffs") First Amended Complaint, filed on April 5, 2016. (See generally Mot. to Dismiss First Am. Compl. ("Mot."), ECF No. 37.) Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Motion on April 18, 2016, to which Plaintiffs filed a Reply ("Reply") on April 25, 2016. The Court found this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacated the hearing set for May 9, 2016. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiffs, a group of homeless individuals and organizations providing support services to the homeless, sue Defendants for purported violations of their constitutional and statutory rights. According to Plaintiffs, the City has undertaken a mass practice and policy of clearing Skid Row and its surrounding areas of homeless people. Since around December of 2015, the City and the Individual Defendants have allegedly seized and deprived Plaintiffs of property, without a pre- or post-deprivation hearing, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and various federal and California state laws. (See generally First Am. Compl. ("FAC"), ECF No. 1).

Plaintiffs' FAC alleges as follows. Since around December of 2015, LAPD officers and City employees have used arrests as a pretext to seize and confiscate Plaintiffs' property. The City's arrests take place pursuant to two LA County ordinances, Los Angeles Municipal Code ("LAMC") Section 41.18(d), which prohibits sitting, sleeping, or lying on sidewalks, and LAMC Section

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 1 of 5

: Initials of Preparer

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JUPNRITEDDocSuTmAeTnEt 5S7DIFSiTleRdIC05T/0C6O/1U6RTPage 2 of 5 Page ID #:860 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: May 6, 2016

41.45, which prohibits the unauthorized use of shopping carts. (FAC ¶¶ 47-49.) During some arrests, LAPD officers allegedly cordon off areas where homeless people are located and contact the Department of Sanitation and Street Services ("Dep't of Sanitation"), which in turn deploys trash trucks and other personnel to clean and dispose of the homeless people's property. (FAC ¶¶ 51-53.)
The property confiscated during arrests and cleanups include tents, medications, personal items, and shopping carts provided by organizations for use by the homeless. (FAC ¶¶ 20-25, 32-38.) Plaintiffs claim that city workers do not use care in handling this property, and that the workers summarily dispose of tents, tarps, blankets, shoes, and clothing. (FAC ¶ 55.)
Plaintiffs additionally claim that they have not been able to recover property after seizures take place. Although the LAPD normally itemizes and tags property taken during an arrest, officers and city employees do not separately catalog property seized from different homeless individuals. (FAC ¶ 58.) According to Plaintiffs, the confiscated property is stored at various locations, including a "hard-to-identify spot in the middle of a parking lot across from the Roybal Federal Courthouse," which is only accessible between the hours of 8:00 am and 1:00 pm on Tuesday through Friday. (FAC ¶ 60.) As a result, property is lost after the City's arrests and cleanups. (FAC ¶ 58.)
B. Prior Proceedings
Plaintiffs bring eleven causes of action stemming from Defendants' arrests of homeless individuals and cleanups of areas where they are located. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' confiscation and destruction of Plaintiffs' property, without a warrant or a pre- or post-deprivation hearing, violates the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. (FAC ¶¶ 72-86). Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants falsely arrested certain Plaintiffs based on faulty allegations that they stole shopping carts, committed the tort of conversion by wrongfully seizing Plaintiffs' property, and contravened California state and federal laws protecting disabled individuals by depriving homeless people suffering from disabilities of necessary medications and medical equipment. (FAC ¶¶ 87-102, 106-110 119-21).
On April 13, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Application for Preliminary Injunction ("Application"). (See generally Order Granting Pl.'s Appl. ("Prelim. Inj. Order"), ECF No. 51.) The Court concluded that "the City, in many instances, appears to be confiscating all property, without differentiating the types of property at issue or giving homeless people a meaningful opportunity to separate essential medications or medical equipment from their other property. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have established a threshold showing of a likelihood of success on the merits of the procedural due process claim." (Prelim. Inj. Order 9.)
While the briefing on the preliminary injunction was ongoing, Defendants brought the instant Motion. Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiffs' second cause of action, for violation of Plaintiffs'
Page 2 of 5

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JUPNRITEDDocSuTmAeTnEt 5S7DIFSiTleRdIC05T/0C6O/1U6RTPage 3 of 5 Page ID #:861 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: May 6, 2016

due process rights, and Plaintiffs' six through eleventh causes of action, for violations of California state law. With reference to the California state law claims, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Government Claims Act, which requires that plaintiffs in California first present a claim for money or damages to a government entity, before filing suit in court against the government. (Mot. 6-7.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court only considers the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, and matters of judicial notice. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, which provides for dismissal of a plaintiff's cause of action for "failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), must be read in conjunction with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) ("Rule 8"). See Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2003). Rule 8 requires that "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the pleader is not required to plead "detailed factual allegations" under Rule 8, this standard demands "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). Pleadings that contain nothing more than legal conclusions or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" are insufficient. Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Where a complaint pleads sufficient facts "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level," a court may not dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545. A court may deny leave to amend where amendment would be futile or if the claim is legally insufficient. Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988).

B. Due Process

The Court begins by analyzing Defendants' Motion as it pertains to Plaintiffs' due process claim. According to Defendants, because they seize property pursuant to a Los Angeles city ordinance, this seizure does not transgress constitutional due process requirements. (Mot. 5-6.) Defendants also contend that the City provides a constitutionally-adequate remedy for Plaintiffs' loss of property, in the form of replevin actions, which means that Defendants do not violate Plaintiffs' due process rights. (Mot. 6.)

The Court is not persuaded by Defendants' arguments, and therefore, DENIES Defendants' Motion as to the due process cause of action. In its prior order, the Court already held that

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 3 of 5

: Initials of Preparer

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JUPNRITEDDocSuTmAeTnEt 5S7DIFSiTleRdIC05T/0C6O/1U6RTPage 4 of 5 Page ID #:862 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: May 6, 2016

Plaintiffs demonstrate a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their due process claim. (Prelim. Inj. Order. 7-8.) The prior holding controls the Court's analysis of the instant Motion, because to qualify for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs had to meet a higher bar than they do now. The Court had to previously consider competing evidence, submitted by both parties, and then decide whether Plaintiffs had a high likelihood of prevailing on a due process claim. The Court now only determines if Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts in their FAC, taken as true, to state a cause of action for violation of procedural due process. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009). Plaintiffs meet this standard. Defendants' alleged actions, seizing property from homeless people and then storing it in places that may be difficult to access, violate the Due Process Clause.
Defendants' argument that the seizure of property occurred pursuant to local Los Angeles law is unavailing. (Mot. 4.) Government actions taken pursuant to a local ordinance or statute can still violate the Constitution, and that is precisely what Plaintiffs allege in the FAC. See Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022, 1032 (9th Cir. 2012).
Defendants' contention that the municipal ordinances provide Plaintiffs constitutionally-adequate post-deprivation remedies also does not support dismissing Plaintiffs' due process claim. (Mot. 4.) If such post-deprivation remedies exist in practice, then Defendants may not violate the Constitution, and Defendants would prevail on the merits. The instant case, however, is only at the motion to dismiss stage. At the present time, Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that the City has seized property from homeless individuals, destroyed some property, and made it extremely difficult for the homeless to recover this property. (See generally FAC.) Assuming this is all true, as is required for now, Plaintiffs state a claim for violation of procedural due process.
C. California State Law Claims
The Court next considers Defendants' contention that Plaintiffs had to first present their California state law claims to the local government entity being sued, pursuant to the Government Claims Act. Under California Government Code Section 910 et seq., actions for "money or damages" against a public entity may not proceed against the entity unless a written claim has first been presented to the government and the claim either has been granted or rejected. Where plaintiffs seek injunctive relief or another form of judicial relief, the plaintiffs do not have to comply with the California Government Claims Act. See Madera Cmty. Hosp. v. Cty. of Madera, 201 Cal. Rptr. 768, 776 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). Moreover, where plaintiffs primarily seek injunctive or judicial relief and monetary damages are "incidental" to their claim, the Government Claims Act does not apply. See Indep. Hous. Servs. of San Francisco v. Fillmore Ctr. Associates, 840 F. Supp. 1328, 1358 (N.D. Cal. 1993).

Plaintiffs' two common law tort claims, for false arrest and conversion, are actions for damages and are therefore, subject to the Government Claims Act. See Loehr v. Ventura County

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 4 of 5

: Initials of Preparer

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JUPNRITEDDocSuTmAeTnEt 5S7DIFSiTleRdIC05T/0C6O/1U6RTPage 5 of 5 Page ID #:863 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: May 6, 2016

Community College District, 195 Cal. Rptr. 576, 581 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (holding that where plaintiffs seek monetary damages pursuant to a tort action, plaintiffs must meet the claims presentation requirement of the Government Claims Act). The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiffs' tenth and eleventh causes of action without leave to amend.
Plaintiffs' remaining claims are not subject to the Government Claims Act because Plaintiff primarily seeks injunctive, non-monetary relief. For example, the ninth cause of action, under California Civil Code Section 2080, seeks an injunction that ensures that the City will store and maintains property seized from homeless individuals. The seventh cause of action, similarly, seeks an order enjoining the city from discriminating against individuals suffering disabilities. Damages recovered pursuant to these causes of action are incidental to the injunction itself. See Blumhorst v. Jewish Family Servs. of Los Angeles, 24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 474, 480 (2005) ("The fourth paragraph was added to clarify the legislative intent that 'a victim of unlawful discrimination' could enforce the prohibition against discrimination in section 11135 through an action for equitable relief without pursuing administrative remedies first.") Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiffs' six, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action.
D. Meet and Confer
The Court finally considers Plaintiffs' argument that Defendants did not meet and confer prior to the filing of the instant Motion, in violation of the Local Rules and the Initial Standing Order. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants transmitted a letter outlining the grounds for the instant Motion, subsequently followed up by email, and then canceled a telephonic meet and confer. Plaintiffs and Defendants never met and conferred in person or by telephone. (Opp'n 1-3.)
The Court is troubled by these allegations. If Defendants canceled the telephonic conferences and only met and conferred via letters and email, Defendants' actions do not comport with the Local Rules and the Initial Standing Order. These rules are in place to facilitate the litigation process and allow the Court to manage its docket effectively. In the interest of deciding the instant Motion on the merits, the Court addresses Plaintiffs' and Defendants' legal arguments in this Order. The Court, however, cautions the parties to strictly comply with the Local Rules and the Initial Standing Order or face sanctions in the future.
III. RULING
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs' causes of action for false arrest and conversion are DISMISSED without leave to amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 5 of 5

: Initials of Preparer

 
 Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 58 Filed 05/11/16 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:864

1 MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney
2 THOMAS H. PETERS, Chief Assistant City Attorney ERIC BROWN, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 170410)
3 SUREKHA PESSIS, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 193206) 4 200 North Main Street, 6th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90012 5 Telephone: 213.978.7508
6 Facsimile: 213.978.7011 Eric.Brown@lacity.org
7 Sureka.Pessis@lacity.org

8
Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LT. ANDREW MATHES, 9 and SGT. RICHTER

10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11

12

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 CARL MITCHELL, MICHEAL
14 ESCOBEDO, SALVADOR ROQUE, JUDY COLEMAN, as individuals; LOS
15 ANGELES CATHOLIC WORKER,
16 CANGRESS, as organizations,

17

PLAINTIFFS,

18
v.
19

20 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity; LT. ANDREW MATHIS, SGT.
21 HAMER and SGT. RICHTER, in their
22 individual and official capacities,

23
24
25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / /

DEFENDANTS.

CASE NO. CV16-01750 SJO (JPRx) [Assigned to the Honorable S. James Otero, Courtroom 1]
CITY OF LOS ANGELES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER [F.R.Civ.P 60(a)]
Date: June 27, 2016 Time: 10 a.m. Place: Courtroom 1
Meet and confer under L.R. 7-3 conducted on May 4 & 9, 2016

1
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 58 Filed 05/11/16 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #:865

1 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:

2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 27, 2016 at 10 a.m., or as soon

3 thereafter as this matter may be heard in Courtroom 1 of the above-entitled court,

4 located at 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012, Defendants CITY

5 OF LOS ANGELES, LT. ANDREW MATHES, and SGT. RICHTER (collectively

6 “the City”) will move the Court for clarification of the Court’s Order Granting

7 Plaintiffs’ Application for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 13) (hereinafter “the

8 Order”). Specifically, the City seeks clarification of the following:

9

1) Whether the City may understand the phrase “Skid Row or its surrounding

10

areas” to mean the definition of Skid Row given in Jones v. City of L.A., 444

11

F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006) vacated pursuant to settlement Jones v. City of L.A.,

12

505 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2007), plus an additional buffer zone around those

13

boundaries as suggested herein;

14 2) Whether the Court intends the City to leave non-essential property of homeless

15

arrestees on the street pursuant to Enjoined Action No. 1;

16 3) Whether confiscating property after 24 hours advance notice in compliance

17

with Enjoined Action No. 7 is allowed under Enjoined Action No. 1; and

18 4) Whether the Order prohibits the City from removing sofas, appliances, sheds,

19

and other bulky items from City sidewalks, streets, and other public areas.

20

The City has made a good faith effort to understand the Order. The City has

21 also met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel in an effort to reach a mutual

22 understanding of the Order. However, the City is still unable to reconcile certain

23 portions of the Order with others, and with City practices that seem to already be in

24 compliance with the Order and with federal law.

25

This motion will be based upon this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum

26 of Points and Authorities, the papers filed in support of and against the application

27 which resulted in the Order, all pleadings and papers on file in this action, and upon

28

2
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 58 Filed 05/11/16 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #:866

1 such further evidence or argument as may be presented to the Court at the time of the 2 hearing.
3

4 DATED: May 11, 2016
5 6 7

MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney THOMAS H. PETERS, Chief Asst. City Attorney ERIC BROWN, Deputy City Attorney SUREKHA PESSIS, Deputy City Attorney

8

By: _______/S/__________________

9

ERIC BROWN

Deputy City Attorney

10

11

Attorneys for Defendants

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LT. ANDREW

12

MATHES, and SGT. RICHTER

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 58 Filed 05/11/16 Page 4 of 11 Page ID #:867

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2

Introduction

3

The City respectfully requests clarification of the Court’s order of April 13,

4 2016 (“the Order”), in order to comply fully with the Order and avoid potential

5 unintended violations. City personnel interact with the homeless population in Skid

6 Row on a daily basis. The Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) patrols this

7 crime-ridden area in which homeless individuals are too often targets. The City’s

8 Bureau of Sanitation routinely clears debris and cleans in Skid Row to ensure public

9 areas are sanitary and accessible by residents (including the disabled, as required by

10 the Americans with Disabilities Act), and patrons of businesses in the area.

11

This motion seeks clarification of the effect of the Order on these activities,

12 and whether and to what extent the Order precludes or limits them. The City is not

13 challenging or seeking reconsideration of the Order. However, to effectively comply

14 with the Order, the City must be able to give clear direction to its employees who

15 provide service to the Skid Row area and its citizens. Certain terms of the Order are

16 vague, and certain portions could be read to conflict with other portions of the Order.

17 To the extent the Order intersects with the City’s already existing and constitutionally

18 appropriate treatment of property in public areas, inconsistency would result in

19 paralyzing confusion and could result in unintended violations of the Order.

20 Moreover, the City would be unable to balance of all of its residents’ needs,

21 expectations, and rights in the Skid Row area.

22

Authorities for Request for Clarification

23

The City has made a good faith attempt to determine the Court’s intent as to

24 each of the actions it enjoins (the “Enjoined Actions” itemized on page 11 of the

25 Order), and to discern whether the Enjoined Actions could be implemented without

26 further clarification. The City has an honest inability to reconcile certain portions of

27 the Order with other portions, or with practices in which the City was engaging

28 which seemed to be in compliance with the Order before it was issued. Thus, for the

4
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 58 Filed 05/11/16 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:868

1 purpose of directing the City as to how to implement the Order on those fronts,

2 clarification is appropriate.

3

The purpose of an injunction is to preserve the status quo. Welchen v. Harris,

4 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14517 at 3 (E.D. Cal. 2016); Stanley v. University of

5 Southern California, 13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994). “The status quo is the last

6 uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy.” Tanner Motor Livery,

7 Ltd. v. Avis, Inc., 316 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1963). Here, it is unclear whether the Court

8 intended a significant departure from the status quo, because the Order could be read

9 to enjoin practices regularly engaged in by the City which presumptively were in

10 compliance with federal law.

11

“The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight

12 or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.

13 The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice.” F. R. Civ. P.

14 60(a). Generally, “courts would not be apt to withhold a clarification in the light of a

15 concrete situation that left parties . . . in the dark as to their duty toward the court.”

16 Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9, 15 (1945).

17

Requests for Clarification

18 1) Whether the City may understand the phrase “Skid Row or its

19

surrounding areas” to mean the definition of Skid Row given in Jones v.

20

City of L.A., plus an additional buffer zone around those borders.

21

While “Skid Row” has been defined in previous litigation involving Los

22 Angeles’s homeless population, the “surrounding areas” of Skid Row has not. The

23 City needs to give its employees clear and specific instructions on where the Order

24 applies so they can perform their job duties in compliance with the Order.

25

The City believes a workable definition of “Skid Row and its surrounding

26 areas” is the geographic definition given in Jones v. City of L.A., 444 F.3d 1118 (9th

27 Cir. 2006) vacated pursuant to settlement Jones v. City of L.A., 505 F.3d 1006 (9th

28 Cir. 2007), plus an additional buffer zone around three of those four streets. Jones

5
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 58 Filed 05/11/16 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #:869

1 defined Skid Row as “the area bordered by Third Street to the north, Seventh Street

2 to the south, Alameda Street to the east, and Main Street to the west.” 444 F.3d at

3 1121. In order to define the parameters of “Skid Row and its surrounding areas,” the

4 City would expand those borders to Second Street to the north, Eighth Street to the

5 south, and Spring Street to the west.1 (A map of the boundaries of this proposed area

6 is attached.)

7

The City requests clarification as to whether “Skid Row and its surrounding

8 areas” may be defined as “the area bordered by Second Street to the north, Eighth

9 Street to the south, Alameda Street to the east, and Spring Street to the west.”

10 2) Whether the Court intends the City to leave non-essential property of

11

homeless arrestees on the street pursuant to Enjoined Action No. 1.

12

Enjoined Action No. 1 allows the City to take property of a homeless arrestee

13 only if that property is abandoned, an immediate threat to health or safety, evidence

14 of a crime, or contraband. Otherwise, it must be left on the street, unguarded. This

15 runs contrary to LAPD’s community caretaking function, long recognized under

16 federal and state law. See, e.g., South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369-371

17 (1976); People v. Ray, 21 Cal. 4th 464, 473-474 (1999). Unattended property could

18 be stolen or damaged, which could cause more harm to the homeless arrestee than

19 having the property confiscated and stored until he or she is released. In addition,

20 leaving an arrestee’s property on the street may lead to claims and lawsuits against

21 the City for any loss of or damage to unattended property. Thus, under the

22 community caretaking function, where a police department has a policy to store an

23 arrestee’s property pending his or her release from custody, courts have upheld the

24 policy of impounding that property to prevent it from being damaged or stolen. See

25 Id.

26

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures,

27 but storing an arrestee’s property pending that person’s release has been deemed

28 1 There are little to no enforcement actions in the industrial area east of Alameda. 6
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 58 Filed 05/11/16 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:870

1 reasonable. Defendants therefore request clarification as to whether the Court intends

2 that the City abrogate its community caretaking function and leave homeless

3 arrestee’s property on the street in order to comply with Enjoined Action No. 1.

4

3) Whether confiscating property after 24 hours advance notice in

5

compliance with Enjoined Action No. 7 and Los Angeles Municipal

6

Code § 56.11 is allowed under Enjoined Action No. 1.

7

Enjoined Action No. 7 allows the City to confiscate property as part of a

8 cleanup after 24 hours advance notice and failure of the owner to remove the

9 property. Similarly, the City has an ordinance which allows for the removal of

10 property from a public area after 24 hours advance notice. LAMC § 56.11(4). This

11 ordinance is consistent with Enjoined Action No. 7, but could be read to conflict with

12 Enjoined Action No. 1.

13

LAMC § 56.11 was amended in light of Lavan v. City of L.A., 693 F.3d 1022

14 (9th Cir. 2012). At the time this case was filed, the City was completing a lengthy

15 and comprehensive process to develop a precise ordinance and operational guidelines

16 to humanely and constitutionally manage the property of homeless individuals while

17 protecting public health and assuring that public areas are accessible by all citizens.

18 As amended, LAMC § 56.11, which became effective on April 11, 2016, is

19 remarkably consistent with the Order. (A copy of the current ordinance is attached

20 for the Court’s convenience.2)

21

The City Council enacted the ordinance as a method of balancing the interests

22 of the homeless who have nowhere to live except on city streets, of businesses and

23 pedestrians in accessing those streets, and of the City in protecting the health and

24

25

26 2 The new ordinance may be found online at http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-165627 s1_ORD_184182_4-11-16.pdf, last accessed April 28, 2016. The City Council file showing
§ 56.11’s legislative history may be located at the City Clerk’s website, Council File No. 14-165628 S1, https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=14-
1656-S1, last accessed April 28, 2016.
7
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 58 Filed 05/11/16 Page 8 of 11 Page ID #:871

1 safety of its citizens by preventing the accumulation of trash and hazardous materials

2 on its streets. The Council found:

3

On the one hand, the unauthorized use of public areas for the

4

storage of unlimited amounts of personal property interferes with

the rights of other members of the public to use public areas for

5

their intended purposes and can create a public health or safety

6

hazard that adversely affects those who use public areas. On the

other hand, the City’s large and vulnerable homeless population

7

needs access to a manageable amount of essential property for

8

their personal use and well-being. This section attempts to balance

the needs of all of the City’s residents.

9

LAMC § 56.11(1). Accordingly, the ordinance includes various provisions to balance
10

these competing interests, including recognizing the need of homeless individuals to
11

maintain essential and necessary personal belongings (§ 56.11(2)(f),3(b)); allowances
12

for access by disabled individuals (§ 56.11(3)(d)); bans against blocking building
13

entrances (§ 56.11(3)(e)); and requiring 24 hours advance notice before the City may
14

remove property which it then stores for 90 days (§ 56.11(4)). Furthermore, it places
15

self-imposed limits on the City by permitting collection only if 90 days of storage
16

space is available. (The version of § 56.11 in effect when the TRO was filed and
17

referenced in the opposition similarly declared the statute’s purpose as a balance of
18

the competing interests of access to and storage on city streets, and provided for 24
19

hours advance notice before confiscating property stored in public areas.)
20

There is a tension between Enjoined Action No. 7, which allows property to be
21

confiscated after 24 hours advance notice (which is the City’s current practice under
22

LAMC § 56.11), and Enjoined Action No. 1, which prohibits confiscating property
23

“absent an objectively reasonable belief that it is abandoned, presents an immediate
24

threat to public health or safety, is evidence of a crime, or is contraband.” If the City
25

confiscates property after 24 hours advance notice, a homeless property owner may
26

argue that the City violated the injunction by confiscating property without evidence
27

28

8
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 58 Filed 05/11/16 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #:872

1 that “it is abandoned, presents an immediate threat to public health or safety, is

2 evidence of a crime, or is contraband.”

3

The City requests clarification whether confiscating property after 24 hours

4 advance notice in compliance with Enjoined Action No. 7 and LAMC § 56.11 is

5 consistent with, and not a violation of, Enjoined Action No. 1.

6 4) Whether the Order prohibits the City from removing sofas, appliances,

7

sheds, and other bulky items from City sidewalks and streets.

8

As discussed above, the City has a need for certain enforcement actions in

9 order to balance the interests and rights of the homeless with the interests and rights

10 of other citizens. The City Council found that property stored on a public sidewalk or

11 street must not be “unlimited” so as to create a health or safety hazard. In addition,

12 the City must enforce the laws against illegal dumping of bulky items and other

13 discarded property in public areas. See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code § 374.3; LAMC

14 § 190.02. The City also must keep sidewalks accessible for those pedestrians with

15 disabilities pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). See, e.g., 28

16 C.F.R. § 35.150(a), (d); Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073, 1076 (9th Cir.

17 2002). The City is required to enforce these statutes or face litigation claiming it is

18 deliberately indifferent to the health, safety, and welfare needs of its constituents.

19 One such suit is currently pending in this District (Willits v. City of Los Angeles, Case

20 No. CV 10-05782 CBM (RZx)).

21

Accordingly, LAMC § 56.11 allows for immediate removal and destruction of

22 “bulky items” that cannot fit within a 60-gallon container with the lid closed. LAMC

23 § 56.11(2)(c), (3)(i). This provision is designed to address the problem of oversized

24 items as large as sofas, mattresses, and appliances being kept on city sidewalks,

25 streets, and in other public areas. The City adopted these procedures in order to

26 prohibit the accumulation of such items which, due to their size, provide places for

27 rodents to live and breed, create traps or hazards for pedestrians, impose access

28

9
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 58 Filed 05/11/16 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:873

1 problems for the disabled, and significantly limit the overall access and use of the

2 City’s public areas for their intended purposes.

3

Some bulky items are designed for use as living quarters. A prime example is a

4 small shed or similar structure sometimes seen on the sidewalk. These non-permitted

5 structures are deemed per se unsafe and subject to deconstruction under the City and

6 County Building Codes, as they often lack proper building, ventilation, and hygienic

7 safeguards. Also, these structures are often large enough to block an entire sidewalk.

8 They then violate the ADA and its predecessor the Rehabilitation Act (which outlaws

9 discrimination based on disability in programs receiving federal funds), as both

10 statutes follow the same analytic framework for determining violations. See 29

11 U.S.C. § 794(d). The City’s ordinance requires 24 hours advance notice before

12 removing these shed-like bulky items, but if the item is not removed by the owner

13 and is seized by the City, it may be discarded immediately. LAMC § 56.11(3)(i).

14

The City requests clarification as to whether the Order prohibits the City from

15 removing sofas, appliances, sheds, and other bulky items from City sidewalks and

16 streets.

17

CONCLUSION

18

The City wants to comply fully with this Court’s Order. Indeed, the City is

19 already in compliance with much of the Order through the protocols developed to

20 implement the newly-amended LAMC § 56.11. There are a few instances, however,

21 where the Order may cause consequences that were not intended by this Court:

22

 The Order enjoins the City from engaging in community caretaking functions

23

and other municipal obligations whose constitutionality has been confirmed.

24

 It is unclear whether compliance with one Enjoined Action may be a violation

25

of another.

26

 The boundaries of the area covered by the Order are unclear.

27 / / /

28 / / /

10
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 58 Filed 05/11/16 Page 11 of 11 Page ID #:874

1

For all of the foregoing reasons, and for any additional reasons that may be

2 discussed at the hearing on this matter, the City respectfully requests clarification of

3 the Court’s Order.

4

5 DATED: May 11, 2016
6 7 8

MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney THOMAS H. PETERS, Chief Asst. City Attorney ERIC BROWN, Deputy City Attorney SUREKH PESSIS, Deputy City Attorney

9

By: __________/S/_____________________

10

ERIC BROWN

Deputy City Attorney

11

12

Attorneys for Defendants

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LT. ANDREW

13

MATHES, and SGT. RICHTER

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER

 
 Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:1126

JS-6
1

2

3

4

May 31, 2019

5 VPC

6

7

8

9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 CARL MITCHELL, MICHEAL
13 ESCOBEDO, SALVADOR ROQUE, JUDY COLEMAN, as individuals; LOS
14 ANGELES CATHOLIC WORKER,
15 CANGRESS, as organizations,

16

PLAINTIFFS,

17
v.
18

19 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity; LT. ANDREW MATHIS, SGT.
20 HAMER and SGT. RICHTER, in their
21 individual and official capacities,

CASE NO. CV16-01750 SJO (JPRx)
[Assigned to the Honorable S. James Otero, Courtroom 1]
[xPxrxoxpxoxsxexdx] STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Action Filed: March 14, 2016

22

DEFENDANTS.

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:1127

1

On March 14, 2016, plaintiffs Carl Mitchell, Judy Coleman, Michael

2 Escobeda, Sal Roque, the Los Angeles Catholic Worker, and Cangress (“Plaintiffs”)

3 filed the above-captioned against the City of Los Angeles (“City”), Lieutenant

4 Andrew Mathis, Sergeant Hamer, and Sergeant Richter (collectively with the City the

5 “Defendants”). Plaintiffs alleged that the City unlawfully seized, destroyed, and/or

6 failed to preserve or store property located in the Skid Row area of downtown Los

7 Angeles belonging to homeless individuals in violation of, among other things, the

8 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and state and

9 federal disability laws. Defendants denied all material allegations in the complaint.

10

On April 13, 2016, this Court entered a Preliminary Injunction against

11 enjoining the City and its agents and employees relating to the seizure, destruction,

12 and/or storage of property located in Skid Row or its surrounding areas, incident to

13 an arrest or as part of a clean-up of an area where homeless people are located. [ECF

14 Dkt. No. 51]. On September 25, 2016, this Court further addressed the terms of the

15 preliminary injunction in an order denying Defendants’ Motion for Clarification of

16 the Preliminary Injunction Order. [ECF Dkt. No. 102].

17

Following extensive discussions, the Parties subsequently reached a settlement

18 resolving the disputed claims in this Action. A copy of the executed Settlement and

19 Release Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) is attached hereto as Exhibit A, the

20 terms of which are expressly incorporated herein by reference.

21

The Court hereby expressly retains jurisdiction to resolve any future disputes

22 regarding the interpretation, performance, or enforcement of the Settlement

23 Agreement for a period of no more than three (3) years from the date of this Order.

24 See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994); Flanagan v.

25 Arnaiz, 143 F.3d 540, 544 (9th Cir. 1998).

26

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2),

27 and good cause appearing therefore, the Court HEREBY ORDERS AND DECREES

28 the following:

1
STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 3 of 30 Page ID #:1128

1

1. The Court’s Preliminary Injunction dated April 13, 2016 is hereby

2

dissolved in its entirety.

3

2. The Court expressly incorporates all of the terms of the Settlement

4

Agreement, attached as Exhibit A, into this Order, including all non-

5

monetary terms outlined in Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement.

6

3. The Court expressly retains exclusive jurisdiction for a period of three

7

(3) years from the date of this Order to enforce the Settlement

8

Agreement, and to resolve any future disputes regarding interpretation,

9

performance, or enforcement of the Agreement, including and expressly,

10

the non-monetary terms set forth in the Agreement.

11

4. The Parties shall comply with the Dispute Resolution procedures in the

12

Settlement Agreement before seeking Court intervention to address any

13

disputes related to the Settlement Agreement.

14

5. Except as may be provided otherwise in the Settlement Agreement, each

15

side shall bear their own fees and costs in this Action.

16

6. This entire Action is hereby dismissed with prejudice as to all

17

Defendants.

18

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
Dated:
21
22
23

5/31/19

____________________________________ Hon. S. James Otero
Judge, United States District Court

24

25

26

27

28

2
STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 4 of 30 Page ID #:1129

1 APPROVED AS TO FORM:

2

3 Dated: May 28, 2019
4 5 6

LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

By:

/s/

FELIX LEBRON

Deputy City Attorney

7

Attorney for Defendants

8

City of Los Angeles, Lt. Andrew Mathes,

9

Sgt. Richter, and Sgt. Hamer

10 Dated: May 28, 2019
11

SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP

12

By:

/s/

13

CATHERINE SWEETSER

14
15
16 Dated: May 28, 2019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL

17

By:

/s/

18

CAROL A. SOBEL

19 20
21 Dated: May 28, 2019
22 23 24 25 26

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES

By:

/s/

SHAYLA R. MYERS

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Carl Mitchell, Judy Coleman, Michael Escobedo, CANGRESS, and Los Angeles Catholic Worker

27
All parties have authorized the use of their electronic signatures for this document.
28

3
STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 5 of 30 Page ID #:1130
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 6 of 30 Page ID #:1131
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
This SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of April 25, 2019, by and among Carl Mitchell, Judy Coleman, Salvador Roque, the Los Angeles Catholic Worker, and Cangress (collectively the “Plaintiffs”) and the City of Los Angeles (the “City”). The City and Plaintiffs may sometimes be each referred to as a “Party” or, collectively, the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, on or around March 14, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the City and Los Angeles Police Department officers Lieutenant Andrew Mathis, Sergeant Mark Hamer, and Sergeant Jack Richter in the United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. CV-16-01750 SJO (JPRx), alleging claims that the City unlawfully seized, destroyed, and/or failed to preserve or store property located in or around downtown Los Angeles belonging to homeless individuals in violation of, among other things, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and state and federal disability laws (the “Action”);
B. WHEREAS, the City expressly denies all claims alleged in the Action and further denies that the City and any of its officers, employees, or agents violated any laws or committed any wrongful acts or omissions against the Plaintiffs as alleged in the Action;
C. WHEREAS, on April 13, 2016, the District Court entered a preliminary injunction against the City and its agents and employees relating to the seizure, destruction, and/or storage of property located in Skid Row1 or its surrounding areas incident to an arrest or as part of a clean-up of an area where homeless people are located;
D. WHEREAS, on September 25, 2017, the District Court further addressed the terms of the preliminary injunction in an order denying the City’s motion for clarification of the order granting the preliminary injunction; and
E. WHEREAS, the Parties desire to fully and finally compromise and settle all claims arising out of or relating to all matters alleged or that could have been alleged in the Action, without any admission of fault, liability, or wrongdoing, in the
1 “Skid Row” is defined in Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2006) as being bordered by Third Street to the north, Seventh Street to the south, Alameda Street to the east, and Main Street to the west.

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 7 of 30 Page ID #:1132
interests of avoiding the additional expense and the inherent uncertainties of protracted litigation upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual covenants and promises contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. MONETARY TERMS. The City shall pay a total amount of $645,000.00, which shall be inclusive of any and all claims for damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs claimed by Plaintiffs in the Action (“Settlement Sum”). Within thirty (30) days of the City obtaining all necessary approvals, the City shall pay the Settlement Sum in the form of a check or checks made payable to the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, and shall deliver that payment to the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, 7000 S. Broadway, Los Angeles CA 90003.
2. STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL.
a. Within ten (10) business days after receiving written notice from the City confirming that the City has obtained all approvals needed to make this Agreement final and binding, as set forth in Section 7 below, Plaintiffs and City shall jointly file a Stipulated Settlement and Order of Dismissal, the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Order”).
b. This Agreement shall have a term of three (3) years commencing on the date the Court enters the Order. The Order shall include an express provision for the District Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Agreement for a period of three (3) years following the date of the Court’s entry of the Order. The Court’s jurisdiction may be extended-in whole or in part-for an additional period of one year upon proof that the City has failed to substantially comply with the provisions of the Order. Any determination of a failure to substantially comply under this provision shall be based on the totality of circumstances and not a single or isolated failure during otherwise sustained compliance.
c. If necessary to permit the City adequate time to remedy an alleged failure to comply with the Order, the Parties may submit a joint request to extend the Court’s initial period of jurisdiction.
2

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 8 of 30 Page ID #:1133
3. RELEASES. The following releases shall become effective upon the City’s payment to Plaintiffs of the Settlement Sum as provided in Section 1:
a. The undersigned Plaintiffs to this Agreement, each on behalf of themselves, and their respective heirs, spouses, trustees, successors, assigns, agents, representatives, attorneys, employees, officers, directors, shareholders, members, managers, principals, partners, insurers, and predecessors do hereby forever release, acquit, and discharge the City and all of its boards, bureaus, departments, administrators, officers, agents, employees, including but not limited to, Andrew Mathis, Mark Hamer, and Jack Richter, and all persons that acted on behalf of the City (collectively the “City Released Parties”) from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, covenants, settlements, contracts, agreements, and liabilities for personal injuries, property damage, loss, cost or expense of every nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, contingent or otherwise, at law or in equity, and whether or not expected to exist (the “Claims”) which the undersigned Plaintiffs to this Agreement had, have or may have against the City Released Parties, and each of them, arising out of or related to the Action, and any allegations, events, transactions or occurrences that were alleged or that could have been alleged therein (the “City Released Claims”).
b. The undersigned Plaintiffs further acknowledge and agree that, as to the City Released Claims, they waive and relinquish the provisions of any protection under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code of the State of California, and/or any similar law, either federal or of any state or territory of the United States or statute or applicable law anywhere existing. Plaintiffs acknowledge and agree that they understand the meaning of California Civil Code Section 1542, which provides as follows:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH, IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.
c. The undersigned Plaintiffs expressly acknowledge that each of them understands the significance and consequence of such a specific waiver of Section 1542 as applied to the City Released Claims.
3

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:1134
4. NONMONETARY TERMS.
a. Covered Area: For purposes of this Agreement, the “Covered Area” shall be defined as the area of downtown Los Angeles bordered by: Second Street to the north; Eighth Street to the south; Spring Street to the west; Alameda Street to the east. A map of the Covered Area is attached as Exhibit B.
b. Seizure of Property as Part of a Cleanup within the Covered Area: Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, within the Covered Area, the City will not seize property as part of a cleanup of an area where homeless people’s property is located, absent an objectively reasonable belief that it is abandoned, presents an immediate threat to public health or safety, is evidence of a crime, or is contraband. Where the City plans to engage in a cleanup of an area where homeless people are located within the Covered Area, whether as part of Operation Healthy Streets or other cleanup, the City must adhere to the following provisions, and may seize property that remains within the cleanup area as part of that cleanup, provided it does so consistent with the following:
i. The City must provide at least 24 hours advance notice of the cleanup, advising homeless individuals of the cleanup and possible seizure of property and advising such individuals to remove property from the cleanup area before the cleanup begins;
ii. The City must provide a 30 minute warning and opportunity for individuals to remove property when a cleanup is imminent on any block about to be cleaned;
iii. The City will not close off more than any block on which it is actually conducting a cleanup and for no more time than cleanup personnel and equipment are actually present on the block;
iv. If an individual’s belongings remain after an area has been closed for cleaning, and the owner arrives on the scene before the process of screening and removal of his or her property has been completed, any medication, medical equipment, or identification found in the screening process will be given to the claimed owner at the scene if he or she so requests rather than sent to storage. With respect to other items which are designated for storage after the screening process, Bureau of Sanitation personnel conducting the cleanup will have discretion to give the property
4

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 10 of 30 Page ID #:1135
to the owner at the scene rather than removing the property to storage; and
v. The City will not conduct cleanups if it is raining or the temperature is below 50 degrees, unless the Director of the Bureau of Sanitation determines that the cleanup is necessary to respond to an urgent condition risking public health or safety. If a cleanup is halted or postponed because of rain, the cleanup will not commence again until the City has provided new posted notice consistent with Section 4(b) of this Agreement.
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall prohibit the City from performing routine sanitation services in the Covered Area, such as picking up trash, debris, litter, and recycling, or sanitizing and cleaning streets and sidewalks, as long as such activities do not involve the seizure or removal of individuals’ property.
c. Seizure of Property Incident to Arrest within the Covered Area: Within the Covered Area, the City will not seize property incident to an arrest absent an objectively reasonable belief that the property is abandoned, presents an immediate threat to public health or safety, is evidence of a crime, or is contraband. Nothing contained in this Agreement limits (i) the City’s right to seize property under any other applicable exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, including the Community Caretaking doctrine, as defined by relevant legal standards; or (ii) any arguments the Plaintiffs may make that such a seizure constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, either through Plaintiffs’ enforcement of this Order or in any other legal proceeding.
d. Storage of Property Seized within the Covered Area:
i. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, the City will not destroy property seized within the Covered Area, absent an immediate threat to public health or safety, without maintaining the property in a secure location for a period of no less than 90 days.
ii. The City will provide notice advising individuals whose property is seized within the Covered Area of the address where seized property may be recovered and the hours of operation for that facility. This notice will be posted prominently in the location from which the property was taken or provided to individuals when they are released from custody.
5

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 11 of 30 Page ID #:1136
iii. Property seized within the Covered Area will be stored in a facility that clearly catalogs and segregates property based on the name and identification, when available, of individuals from whom the property was taken.
iv. Property seized within the Covered Area will be stored in a facility from which property may be retrieved during regular business hours.
v. When the City seizes medication, medical equipment, and uncontaminated tents, sleeping bags, and blankets within the Covered Area, these items must be accessible within 24 hours of seizure or an individual’s release from custody (where the belongings were seized from an arrestee), whichever is later. Other property seized within the Covered Area will be accessible within 72 hours after seizure.
e. Large Furniture, Appliances, and Similar Items: Nothing contained in this Agreement shall prohibit the City from seizing within the Covered Area, with or without notice, nor require the City to store or maintain, the following items:
i. couches, mattresses, dressers, or other similarly-sized or larger furniture;
ii. wooden pallets;
iii. refrigerators or other similarly-sized or larger appliances, or barbeques or other open-flame cooking devices having fuel containers with a water capacity greater than 2.5 pounds.
f. Impeding ADA Access or Ingress/Egress:
i. If property in the Covered Area is (a) obstructing entrance into, or exit from, any building or property, including impeding entry or exit into a driveway, loading dock, or other ingress or egress point of a building, business, residence, or real property, or (b) impeding access as required by the American with Disabilities Act, the property may be moved, with or without notice, to provide appropriate clearance.
ii. If (a) property is attended and the person attending the property refuses to move it or have it moved to another location for them to provide appropriate clearance of the obstruction or impediment or (b) property is unattended and City personnel
6

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 12 of 30 Page ID #:1137
responsible for moving the unattended property reasonably determine that the unattended property cannot reasonably be moved to provide appropriate clearance, then the City may seize the property, with or without notice, and store it in accordance with Section 4(d) of this Agreement; provided, however, that if the person attending the property is impaired and incapable of moving the property, City personnel may reasonably assist the individual with compliance if the attended property can reasonably be moved to provide appropriate clearance.
g. Documentation: The City must document and maintain records containing sufficient detail to document compliance with the terms and conditions of Section 4 of this Agreement. The City shall maintain the documentation for a period of no less than one year. The City will make such documentation available to Plaintiffs within twenty (20) business days after the receipt of a written request made to the City Attorney’s Office pursuant to the Notice provisions in Section 23 of this Agreement. The time in which to request or produce such documentation may be extended by mutual agreement of the Parties.
5. EXPRESS RESERVATION. This Agreement shall not prohibit or prevent the City from enforcing laws otherwise applicable within the Covered Area that are not inconsistent with this Agreement. Nor do the Parties waive any right to dispute in the future whether or not enforcement of any law otherwise applicable in the Covered Area violates state or federal law or the California or United States Constitutions.
6. MODIFICATION CLAUSE. If a court issues an order or judgment regarding the constitutionality of, or the City’s ability to enforce, any law, code, ordinance, or regulation (including but not limited to LAMC § 56.11), or if the City and Plaintiffs Los Angeles Catholic Worker and Cangress enter into a written agreement regarding City’s policies or procedures concerning the property of homeless individuals, and that order, judgment, or agreement conflicts with or is inconsistent with any part or subpart of the terms contained in Section 4 of this Agreement, the Parties agree that the conflicting or inconsistent part(s) or subpart(s) of this Agreement shall no longer be effective. In the event a Party asserts that an order, judgment, or agreement conflicts with or is inconsistent with a part or subpart of the terms contained in Section 4, the Party shall notify the other Parties pursuant to Section 23 of this Agreement. If the Parties disagree as to whether a conflict
7

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 13 of 30 Page ID #:1138
or inconsistency exists, the question of whether a conflict or inconsistency exists shall be resolved according to Section 22 of this Agreement.
7. FINAL APPROVAL. The Parties understand and agree that this Agreement is subject to final approval by the City Council or other City officers, boards, commissions, or entities, and that the execution of this Agreement is subject to and conditioned upon the granting of all such City approvals needed to make this Agreement final and binding. The person signing this Agreement on behalf of the City will recommend that this Agreement be so approved. Once the City has formally and finally approved this Agreement, the City shall provide the Parties’ respective counsel of record with written confirmation of said approval within ten (10) business days of such approval being given.
8. NO RELIANCE. Except as expressly set forth herein, the Parties are not entering into this Agreement in reliance upon any express or implied warranty, representation, agreement, or understanding of any kind made by, or entered into by, the Parties. The Parties expressly acknowledge and agree that they have each relied upon their own information and investigations as to all matters agreed, represented, warranted, or acknowledged herein, and the Parties do not have any desire for further information or for further investigation.
9. INTEGRATION. This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, understanding or representations, either oral or in writing, with respect to the matters addressed herein. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement of the Parties hereto with respect to such matters.
10.AMENDMENTS. Except as otherwise provided in Section 6, the Parties agree that this Agreement shall only be amended by written instruments executed by the Parties. Plaintiffs Carl Mitchell, Judy Coleman, and Salvador Roque expressly assign their rights to amend this Agreement to Plaintiffs Los Angeles Catholic Worker and Cangress.
11.ADVICE OF COUNSEL. In entering this Agreement, the Parties represent that they have had the opportunity to seek the advice of an attorney of their own choice, to review and explain the terms of this Agreement, and/or that they have voluntarily and willingly waived such right having read and understood the Agreement on their own behalf.
12.GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
13.SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Agreement shall for any reason be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction (sustained on appeal, if
8

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 14 of 30 Page ID #:1139
any) to be unenforceable in any respect, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain unaffected and in full force and effect.
14.COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts. Any such counterpart, when executed, shall constitute an original of this Agreement, and all such counterparts together shall constitute an original of this Agreement, and all such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same Agreement. Any photocopied, faxed, or emailed version of this Agreement bearing one or more authentic signatures shall be valid, binding, and admissible for all purposes as though original.
15.FURTHER ASSURANCES. Each Party agrees to make, execute, and deliver such other instruments or documents, and to do or cause to be done such further or additional acts, as reasonably may be necessary in order to effectuate the purposes or to implement the terms of this Agreement.
16.BINDING. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns.
17.NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, there are no intended third-party beneficiaries that may assert rights or defenses under this Agreement, except the Parties to this Agreement.
18.WAIVER. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless such waiver is in writing and signed by the waiving Party, and any such waiver shall not be deemed a waiver of any other provision of this Agreement.
19.NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY. This Agreement is in compromise of disputed claims, and neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, nor the performance of any obligations thereunder, shall be construed as an admission of liability or wrongdoing or as an admission of any other matter on the part of any of the Parties, or any of them.
20.CONSTRUCTION. This Agreement shall not be construed against any of the Parties and the rule of construing contract ambiguities against the party drafting the contract shall be inapplicable.
21.EFFECT OF HEADING. The headings used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not affect the construction or interpretation of this Agreement.
22.DISPUTE RESOLUTION. If a dispute arises between the Parties regarding the interpretation, performance, or enforcement of this Agreement, the Parties shall meet and confer within a reasonable time after either Party receives
9

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 15 of 30 Page ID #:1140
written notice of a dispute provided in accordance with Section 23 of this Agreement. The Parties shall endeavor in good faith to resolve any dispute during a meet-and-confer meeting. In the event that the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute within a reasonable time after the meeting, Plaintiffs or the City may, pursuant to the Order, submit the matter to the District Court for review and decision.
23.NOTICES. Any notice required under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered in-person, or with proof of receipt by a nationally recognized delivery service or by United States Certified Mail. Notices are effective when received. Either Party may change the name or address for receipt of notice by providing notice of such change to the other Party, without having to amend this Agreement. The Parties shall deliver notices to the following persons and addresses:
a. Notice to City:
i. Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney Attn: Deputy City Attorney Felix Lebron City Hall East, Business and Complex Litigation Division 200 N. Main Street, Room 675 Los Angeles, CA 90012 felix.lebron@lacity.org Tel: (213) 978-7559
ii. Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney Attn: Senior Assistant City Attorney Scott Marcus City Hall East, Civil Litigation Branch 200 N. Main Street, Room 700 Los Angeles, CA 90012 scott.marcus@lacity.org Tel: (213) 978-4681
b. Notice to Plaintiffs:
i. Shayla Myers Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles 7000 S. Broadway Los Angeles, CA 90013 smyers@lafla.org Tel: (213) 640-3983
ii. Catherine Sweetser Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP
10

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 16 of 30 Page ID #:1141
11543 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90064 csweetser@sshhlaw.com Tel: (310) 396-0731 iii. Carol Sobel Law Offices of Carol Sobel 725 Arizona Avenue, Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401 carolsobellaw@gmail.com Tel: 310-393-3055
11

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 17 of 30 Page ID #:1142

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be

duly executed and delivered as of the date first above written.

DATED:~

~, I1~lL J Jf,JAa4~;:;

J 7-/ DATED:5 -/

C . MITC EL

DATEu.2 - JVLI J_'D(rO
DATED: 1--d--C, --(4_
DATED:- - - -
DATED:

r
LOS ANGELES CATHOLIC WORKER
By:C~: ~- /
Printed:C..-Aftt€R.1 t-J E /1 o B.3~ l$
Its: --- CAN GRESS By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Printed:- - - - - - - - - - Its:- - - - - - - - - - - - THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Printed: Its:- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Reviewed and approved as to form and content:
12

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 18 of 30 Page ID #:1143
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed and delivered as of the date first above written.

DATED:___________ DATED:___________ DATED:___________ DATED:___________
DATED:__0_5_/_2_1_/2_0_1_9_
DATED:___________

_________________________________ CARL MITCHELL _________________________________ JUDY COLEMAN __________________________________ SALVADOR ROQUE LOS ANGELES CATHOLIC WORKER By:_________________________________ Printed:_____________________________ Its:_________________________________ CANGRESS By:_________________________________ Printed:__P_e_te__W__hi_te____________________ Its:__E__xe_c_u_t_iv_e_D__ire_c_t_o_r _________________ THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES By:_________________________________
Printed:_____________________________ Its:_________________________________

Reviewed and approved as to form and content:
12

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 19 of 30 Page ID #:1144

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 20 of 30 Page ID #:1145

______________ Carol Sobel Law Office of Carol Sobel Counsel for Plaintiffs

_________________________ Scott Marcus Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Counsel for Defendants

_______________________________ Catherine Sweetser Law Offices of Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman Counsel for Plaintiffs

________________________________ Shayla Myers Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles Counsel for Plaintiffs

13

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 21 of 30 Page ID #:1146

Carol Sobel Law offices of Carol Sobel Counsel for Plaintiffs

Scott Marcus Los Angeles City Attorney's Office Counsel for Defendants

Catherine Sweetser Law Offices of Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman Counsel for Plaintiffs

Shayla Myers Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles Counsel for Plaintiffs

13

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 22 of 30 Page ID

.. ' ' ' '

#:1147

Carol Sobel Law offices of Carol Sobel Counsel for Plaintiffs

Scott Marcus Los Angeles City Attorney's Office Counsel for Defendants

Catherine Sweetser Law Offices of Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman Counsel for Plaintiffs

Shayla Myers Legal Aid Foun tio ' of Los Angeles Counsel for Plainti fs

13

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 23 of 30 Page ID #:1148

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 24 of 30 Page ID #:1149
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 25 of 30 Page ID #:1150

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
CARL MITCHELL, MICHEAL 13 ESCOBEDO, SALVADOR ROQUE,
14 JUDY COLEMAN, as individuals; LOS ANGELES CATHOLIC WORKER,
15 CANGRESS, as organizations,

16
PLAINTIFFS,
17

18

v.

CASE NO. CV16-01750 SJO (JPRx)
[Assigned to the Honorable S. James Otero, Courtroom 1]
[Proposed] STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Action Filed: March 14, 2016

19 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal
20 entity; LT. ANDREW MATHIS, SGT. HAMER and SGT. RICHTER, in their
21 individual and official capacities,
22
DEFENDANTS.
23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 26 of 30 Page ID #:1151

1

On March 14, 2016, plaintiffs Carl Mitchell, Judy Coleman, Michael

2 Escobeda, Sal Roque, the Los Angeles Catholic Worker, and Cangress (“Plaintiffs”)

3 filed the above-captioned against the City of Los Angeles (“City”), Lieutenant

4 Andrew Mathis, Sergeant Hamer, and Sergeant Richter (collectively with the City the

5 “Defendants”). Plaintiffs alleged that the City unlawfully seized, destroyed, and/or

6 failed to preserve or store property located in the Skid Row area of downtown Los

7 Angeles belonging to homeless individuals in violation of, among other things, the

8 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and state and

9 federal disability laws. Defendants denied all material allegations in the complaint.

10

On April 13, 2016, this Court entered a Preliminary Injunction against

11 enjoining the City and its agents and employees relating to the seizure, destruction,

12 and/or storage of property located in Skid Row or its surrounding areas, incident to

13 an arrest or as part of a clean-up of an area where homeless people are located. [ECF

14 Dkt. No. 51]. On September 25, 2016, this Court further addressed the terms of the

15 preliminary injunction in an order denying Defendants’ Motion for Clarification of

16 the Preliminary Injunction Order. [ECF Dkt. No. 102].

17

Following extensive discussions, the Parties subsequently reached a settlement

18 resolving the disputed claims in this Action. A copy of the executed Settlement and

19 Release Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) is attached hereto as Exhibit A, the

20 terms of which are expressly incorporated herein by reference.

21

The Court hereby expressly retains jurisdiction to resolve any future disputes

22 regarding the interpretation, performance, or enforcement of the Settlement

23 Agreement for a period of no more than three (3) years from the date of this Order.

24 See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994); Flanagan v.

25 Arnaiz, 143 F.3d 540, 544 (9th Cir. 1998).

26

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2),

27 and good cause appearing therefore, the Court HEREBY ORDERS AND DECREES

28 the following:

1
STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 27 of 30 Page ID #:1152

1

1. The Court’s Preliminary Injunction dated April 13, 2016 is hereby

2

dissolved in its entirety.

3

2. The Court expressly incorporates all of the terms of the Settlement

4

Agreement, attached as Exhibit A, into this Order, including all non-

5

monetary terms outlined in Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement.

6

3. The Court expressly retains exclusive jurisdiction for a period of three

7

(3) years from the date of this Order to enforce the Settlement

8

Agreement, and to resolve any future disputes regarding interpretation,

9

performance, or enforcement of the Agreement, including and expressly,

10

the non-monetary terms set forth in the Agreement.

11

4. The Parties shall comply with the Dispute Resolution procedures in the

12

Settlement Agreement before seeking Court intervention to address any

13

disputes related to the Settlement Agreement.

14

5. Except as may be provided otherwise in the Settlement Agreement, each

15

side shall bear their own fees and costs in this Action.

16

6. This entire Action is hereby dismissed with prejudice as to all

17

Defendants.

18

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

21 Dated:
22 23

____________________________________ Hon. S. James Otero
Judge, United States District Court

24

25

26

27

28

2
STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 28 of 30 Page ID #:1153

1 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
2

3
Dated: _____________
4 5 6 7 8 9

LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

By:

/s/

FELIX LEBRON

Deputy City Attorney

Attorney for Defendants City of Los Angeles, Lt. Andrew Mathes, Sgt. Richter, and Sgt. Hamer

10
Dated: _____________
11 12 13 14 15

SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP

By:

/s/

CATHERINE SWEETSER

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16 Dated: _____________
17 18 19 20

LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL

By:

/s/

CAROL A. SOBEL

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

21 Dated: _____________
22

LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES

23

By:

/s/

24

SHAYLA R. MYERS

25

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Carl Mitchell, Judy

26

Coleman, Michael Escobedo, CANGRESS,

and Los Angeles Catholic Worker

27

28 [All parties have authorized the use of their electronic signatures for this document.]

3
STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPR Document 119 Filed 05/31/19 Page 29 of 30 Page ID #:1154
EXHIBIT B

CaCsaes2e:126:1-c6v--c0v1-0715705-S0J-SOJ-OJP-JRPRDoDcoucmuemnet n5t81-119 FiFleilded050/51/13/11/619 PaPgaege2 3o0f 2of 3P0agePaIDge#I:D876
SKID ROW AND S#:U11R55ROUNDING AREA
Los Angeles

u; ",.'.

",,' ;

?O.,_0::,,

t::
"'

".;

"'Is.,.,

~
"'1 .o,

fJ>
~
i ..

c. ~

0 0

":!? "

":<' ~

!:
2:...
0

:!? ~

P.J.t~etto'St

factor)' f-'I

Wh"'.'le., .11.- SI ~
ln<tu~tuaJ sr:E

i. 3rd St ~
: .
':!:

~ ~
!
F f,\h St
3
";
~.,
E Tlh St

Wholes.ale

5i·1,,,,. <;:.
' ' · 1J4f.#
J•·~"'~ St
Ui
0
ii:
"'

c-
0

I~.}.,,~ ~,

"r

.~., mt

~ .r •• !.~

SKID ROW NORTH - 3RD STREET WEST - MAIN STREET EAST-ALAMEDA STREET SOUTH - 7TH STREET

;;

•...

f,
:,.
~

:;;
"0 " '

.!

t 9th St

Hooter St

~o·•~t 51

t u;l'mp,.; bf~tt
.
< .
~L 1HhSt

c

J ~

E 12th St

f' • ·'"

SURROUNDING AREA NORTH - 2ND STREET WEST - SPRING STREET EAST-ALAMEDA STREET SOUTH - 8TH STREET

 
 Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTt E12S7DIFSiTleRdIC08T/2C7O/1U9RTPage 1 of P7rioPritayge ID #:1442

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Send Enter

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Closed JS-5/JS-6

Scan Only

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: August 27, 2019

TITLE:

Carl Mitchell, et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al.

======================================================================== PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Victor Paul Cruz Courtroom Clerk

Not Present Court Reporter

COUNSEL PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: Not Present

COUNSEL PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: Not Present

======================================================================== PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION [Docket No. 120].
This matter is before the Court on Proposed Intervenors DTLA Alliance for Human Rights, Joseph Burk, Harry Tashdijian, Karyn Pinsky, Charles Malow, and Charles Van Scoy's (collectively, "Proposed Intervenors") Motion To Intervene ("Motion"), filed June 24, 2019. Plaintiffs Carl Mitchell, Michael Escobedo, Salvador Roque, Judy Coleman, Los Angeles Catholic Worker, and Cangress' (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed an Opposition to the Motion ("Plaintiffs' Opposition") on July 15, 2019. Defendants City of Los Angeles ("the City"), Lieutenant Andrew Mathes, Sergeant Hamer, and Sergeant Richter (collectively, "Defendants") filed an Opposition to the Motion ("Defendants' Opposition") on July 15, 2019. Proposed Intervenors filed two separate Replies to each of the Oppositions on July 29, 2019. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion for lack of jurisdiction.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
In this action, Plaintiffs, a group of homeless individuals and organizations providing support services to the homeless, sued Defendants for purported violations of their constitutional and statutory rights. According to Plaintiffs, the City has undertaken a mass practice and policy of clearing homeless people from the Skid Row area in Los Angeles. Since around December of 2015, Defendants have allegedly seized and deprived Plaintiffs of property, without a pre- or postdeprivation hearing, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and various federal and California state laws. (See generally First Am. Compl. ("FAC"), ECF No. 1).
B. Procedural Background
Plaintiffs initially brought eleven causes of action against Defendants. Plaintiffs claimed that Defendants' confiscation and destruction of Plaintiffs' property, without a warrant or a pre- or post-

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 1 of 7

: Initials of Preparer

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTt E12S7DIFSiTleRdIC08T/2C7O/1U9RTPage 2 of 7 Page ID #:1443 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: August 27, 2019

deprivation hearing, violated the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. (FAC ¶¶ 72-86). Plaintiffs also contended that Defendants falsely arrested certain Plaintiffs based on faulty allegations that they stole shopping carts, committed the tort of conversion by wrongfully seizing Plaintiffs' property, and contravened California state and federal laws protecting disabled individuals by depriving homeless people suffering from disabilities of necessary medications and medical equipment. (FAC ¶¶ 87-102, 106-110 119-21).
On March 30, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order ("Application"), seeking to enjoin the City from confiscating property during arrests and cleanups of homeless areas. Plaintiffs contended that "they have lost all or nearly all of their possessions without prior notice and adequate advisement of post-deprivation resources to reclaim their property" and that "the loss of key items, including [Plaintiffs'] medications, has taken an enormous toll on them, especially when they are left without protection from the elements at night."1 (Appl. 4.)
The Court granted the Application in part and issued a preliminary injunction that provided as follows:
"The City, its agents and employees are hereby enjoined from:
1. Confiscating property in Skid Row or its surrounding areas, incident to an arrest or as part of a cleanup of an area where homeless people are located, absent an objectively reasonable belief that it is abandoned, presents an immediate threat to public health or safety, is evidence of a crime, or is contraband; and
2. Destroying property in Skid Row or its surrounding areas, absent an immediate threat to public health or safety, without maintaining the property in a secure location for a period of less than 90 days; and
3. Storing seized property from Skid Row or its surrounding areas in a facility not open during regular business hours; and
4. Failing to provide notice advising homeless individuals whose property is seized of the address where seized property is being stored; and
5. Storing seized property from Skid Row or its surrounding areas in a facility that does not clearly catalog and segregate property based on the names

1 The instant case is related to a prior case in the Central District of California, Tony Lavan et al. v. City of Los Angeles, CV-11-2874 (PSG).
Page 2 of 7

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTt E12S7DIFSiTleRdIC08T/2C7O/1U9RTPage 3 of 7 Page ID #:1444 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: August 27, 2019

and identification, where available, of individuals from whom the property is taken; and

6. Storing seized property from Skid Row or its surrounding areas in a facility that is not accessible within 72 hours of seizure. Medication, medical equipment, and uncontaminated tents, sleeping bags, and blankets must be accessible within 24 hours of seizure or an individual's release from custody, whichever is later.

7. Additionally, where the City plans to engage in a mass cleanup of an area in Skid Row or its surrounding areas, the City must provide 24 hours advance notice advising homeless people of the cleanup and possible seizure of property and advising such individuals to remove essential property that they do not want confiscated."

The Court modeled the injunction after a prior injunction issued against the City in Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 797 F. Supp. 2d 1005, aff'd 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court limited the scope of the injunction to the area surrounding Skid Row.

After this preliminary injunction, the instant litigation remained dormant for several years. On April 25, 2019, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered a Settlement Agreement. (See Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 119.) Among several provisions, the Settlement Agreement contained the following requirements: (1) the City shall pay a total amount of $645,000 to Plaintiffs in this action (Settlement Agreement at 2); (2) Plaintiffs released Defendants from any claims related to the instant litigation (Settlement Agreement at 3); (3) the City would not seize property as part of a cleanup "absent an objectively reasonable belief that it is abandoned, presents an immediate threat to public health or safety, is evidence of a crime, or is contraband" (Settlement Agreement at 4); (4) "the City must provide at least 24 hours advance notice of the cleanup, advising homeless individuals of the cleanup and possible seizure of property and advising such individuals to remove property from the cleanup area before the cleanup begins" (Settlement Agreement at 4); and (5) "[t]he City must provide a 30 minute warning and opportunity for individuals to remove property when a cleanup is imminent on any block about to be cleaned" (Settlement Agreement at 4).

Prior to entering the Settlement Agreement, the City held several closed-door City Council sessions to analyze the merits of entering the Settlement Agreement. (Letter From City Attorney Dated March 16, 2019, Ex. B., ECF No. 123-1). During the public portion of the closed-door hearings, the City asked for and received comments from constituents, interested individuals, and organizations. (Speaker Request List, Special Meeting – Homelessness and Poverty Committee dated September 7, 2018, Ex. C, ECF No. 123-1; Speaker Request List, Homelessness and Poverty Committee Meeting dated October 3, 2018, Ex. D., ECF No. 123-1). Prior to voting on

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 3 of 7

: Initials of Preparer

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTt E12S7DIFSiTleRdIC08T/2C7O/1U9RTPage 4 of 7 Page ID #:1445 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: August 27, 2019

the Settlement Agreement, City Council members also considered correspondence from constituents. (See Letter To Councilmember Huizar dated September 10, 2018, Ex. E, ECF No. 123-1; Letter To Council President Wesson dated March 4, 2019, Ex. G, ECF No. 123-1).
After considering the Settlement Agreement and the comments submitted at the hearings on the Settlement Agreement, the City Council voted to enter the Settlement Agreement with Defendants. The Court dismissed the instant litigation, reserving its jurisdiction only for the purpose of "resolv[ing] any future disputes regarding the interpretation, performance, or enforcement of the Settlement Agreement for a period of no more than three (3) years from the date of this Order."
Proposed Intervenors, a group of people who "live, work, and own business and/or property within the area entitled 'Skid Row and Surrounding Area,'" subsequently filed the instant Motion. (Mot. at 5, ECF No. 120.) They seek to intervene in this litigation to challenge the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (See generally Mot.) Proposed Intervenors mainly contend that the City entered the Settlement Agreement without giving them a meaningful opportunity to object to its terms. Moreover, they contend that the City's actions pursuant to the Settlement Agreement have had a hugely detrimental effect on them. For example, the City has purportedly caused health and hygiene issues at some of Proposed Intervenors' businesses.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal citations omitted). Article III of the federal Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual "cases" or "controversies." "It is not enough that a case presents a live controversy when it is filed. An actual controversy must exist at all stages of federal court proceedings." Protectmarriage.com-Yes on 8 v. Bowen, 752 F.3d 827, 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal citations omitted).
A third party may intervene in litigation only if the underlying litigation meets the case or controversy requirement of the federal Constitution. Accordingly, before allowing a third party to intervene, a court must determine if it has jurisdiction over the underlying litigation. See Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000). Where there is no such jurisdiction, a court must deny the motion to intervene. W. Coast Seafood Processors Ass'n v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 643 F.3d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 2011) A court has "a continuing obligation to assess its own subject-matter jurisdiction," Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2004), and the court "may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction." Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 865 (citation omitted).

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 4 of 7

: Initials of Preparer

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTt E12S7DIFSiTleRdIC08T/2C7O/1U9RTPage 5 of 7 Page ID #:1446 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: August 27, 2019

The burden to demonstrate proper subject matter jurisdiction lies with the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction—here, the Proposed Intervenors. See Jou v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., No. 13-CV03075-JSC, 2015 WL 4537533, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2015).
B. Application
Having reviewed the pleadings in this matter, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over the litigation between Plaintiffs and Defendants. Because there is no active case or controversy before this Court, the Court DENIES Proposed Intervenors' Motion for lack of jurisdiction.
On May 31, 2019, the Court dismissed the underlying litigation between Plaintiffs and Defendants with prejudice and terminated the case. (See Stipulated Order of Dismissal at ¶ 6, ECF No. 119.) As summarized in detail above, the Settlement Agreement provided that the City would pay Plaintiffs a sum of $645,000, that Plaintiffs relinquished legal claims against the City, and that the City would provide notice prior to seizing property from Plaintiffs and other homeless people located in certain areas of Skid Row. (See Settlement Agreement at 2, 4.) This Settlement Agreement brought an end to the litigation, which at its core involved the City's seizure of Plaintiffs' property in a series of organized cleanups. The Court's dismissal terminated the proceedings before this Court, eliminating the active case or controversy that had existed.
Accordingly, Proposed Intervenors cannot intervene in this litigation. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 382. "Because the underlying litigation is over, [t]his Court cannot grant [Intervenors] any 'effective relief' by allowing [them] to intervene now." W. Coast Seafood Processors Ass'n, 643 F.3d at 704 (quoting United States v. Ford, 650 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 1981)).
In West Coast Seafood Processors, the Natural Resource Defence Council and the Pacific Marine Conservation Council (together, "NRDC") challenged the National Marine Fisheries Service's ("NMFS") program to preserve groundfish species off the coast of California. Id. at 702-03. The West Coast Seafood Processors Association ("WCSPA") sought to intervene in the litigation, and the district court denied this intervention. Id. at 704. While an appeal of the district court's denial was pending, the underlying litigation ran its course. The district court issued a final decision on NRDC's and NMFS' cross-motions for summary judgment and entered a final judgment, which the parties did not appeal. Id. After this occurred, the Ninth Circuit held that the motion to intervene was moot and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Id. The Ninth Circuit ruled that it could not order WCSPA to be included as intervenors in litigation that had terminated. Id.
The instant case is in almost the same procedural posture as West Coast Seafood Processors. Plaintiffs and Defendants were litigating before this Court, but the parties entered the Settlement Agreement. This Court then dismissed the litigation with prejudice. After the Court granted

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 5 of 7

: Initials of Preparer

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTt E12S7DIFSiTleRdIC08T/2C7O/1U9RTPage 6 of 7 Page ID #:1447 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: August 27, 2019

dismissal, the parties did not appeal. The litigation between Plaintiffs and Defendants was over. After all of this occurred, Proposed Intervenors filed the instant Motion. Much like in West Coast Seafood Processors, Proposed Intervenors cannot participate in litigation that has terminated.
Proposed Intervenors contend, perhaps rightly, that some of Plaintiffs' and Defendants' actions taken pursuant to the Settlement Agreement have resulted in adverse consequences to them. Proposed Intervenor Harry Tashidijian, for example, argues that as a result of this Court's injunction and the subsequent Settlement Agreement, "[t]he risk to his property from fire damage and vandalism has increased exponentially in the last several years; the business is constantly having to replace gates and other property, clean the facilities, and post security to safeguard its property. They have had to spend over $100,000 in upgrades to their system and increased monitoring and pest control just as a result of the increased homeless and property in the area." (Mot. at 7.) If these types of allegations are true and are traceable to Plaintiffs' or Defendants' actions under the Settlement Agreement, Proposed Intervenors may have standing to pursue independent litigation against Plaintiffs or Defendants. Any such litigation is not part of the litigation between Plaintiffs and Defendants, which has terminated.
To clarify this last point, the Court provides Proposed Intervenors with an example. Consider that Neighbor A and Neighbor B are engaging in private nuisance litigation because Neighbor A has raucous parties seven days a week that begin at 10 p.m.. The neighbors enter a settlement agreement, which provides that Neighbor A may continue to have parties, but the parties must begin at 8:00 pm and can only occur three times a week. Although contractually binding on Neighbor A and Neighbor B, the results of this agreement could impact the rights of third parties that were not involved in the litigation (for example, Neighbor C, who lives on the other side of Neighbor A). Neighbor C, of course, retains the right to bring a lawsuit against Neighbor A for having parties three times a week.
Similarly, Proposed Intervenors can bring a lawsuit against Plaintiffs or Defendants for actions that Plaintiffs or Defendants are taking pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, assuming that the actions have an adverse effect on Proposed Intervenors. Such an action is a separate dispute requiring its own basis for jurisdiction.
As a final matter, the Court addresses Proposed Intervenors' argument that this Court has jurisdiction over the instant Motion because the Settlement Agreement specifies that: "The Court hereby expressly retains jurisdiction to resolve any future disputes regarding the interpretation, performance, or enforcement of the Settlement Agreement for a period of no more than three (3) years from the date of this Order." Although the Court retains jurisdiction over disputes between Plaintiffs and Defendants about the interpretation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, this is the extent of the Court's jurisdiction. The Settlement Agreement is only binding on Plaintiffs

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 6 of 7

: Initials of Preparer

Case 2:16-cv-01750-SJO-JPURNITDEoDcuSmTeAnTt E12S7DIFSiTleRdIC08T/2C7O/1U9RTPage 7 of 7 Page ID #:1448 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CASE NO.: CV 16-01750 SJO (GJSx)

DATE: August 27, 2019

and Defendants, and the Court can only resolve disputes between these parties.2 This Court's jurisdiction does not extend to non-parties' desire to challenge the Settlement Agreement.
III. RULING
The Court DENIES Intervenors Motion To Intervene for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 Although the City has incurred broad obligations under the Settlement Agreement, this is not a class action, and the terms of the Settlement Agreement are only binding on the named Plaintiffs and Defendants. Proposed Intervenors insist that the City has enacted a legislative policy through the Settlement Agreement without following the constitutionallyrequired process. Although this may be true, the instant litigation is not the appropriate forum in which to pursue this argument.

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL GEN

Page 7 of 7

: Initials of Preparer

 
 Case: 2:16-cv-1750 As of: 01/24/2018 08:22 AM PST 1 of 14
ACCO,(JPRx),DISCOVERY,MANADR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:16−cv−01750−SJO−JPR

Carl Mitchell et al v. City of Los Angeles et al Assigned to: Judge S. James Otero Referred to: Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/14/2016 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Carl Mitchell as individual

represented by Shayla Renee Myers Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles 7000 S Broadway Los Angeles, CA 90003 213−640−3983 Fax: 213−640−3988 Email: smyers@lafla.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Elizabeth Sweetser Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP 11543 W. Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 310−396−0731 Fax: 310−399−7040 Email: csweetser@sshhlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colleen Marika Mullen Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP 11543 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 310−396−0731 Fax: 310−399−7040 Email: cmullen.sshh@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fernando Gaytan Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles 7000 South Broadway Los Angeles, CA 90003 213−640−3831 Fax: 213−640−3988 Email: fgaytan@lafla.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justine Marie Schneeweis Law Office of Carol A. Sobel 3110 Main Street Suite 210 Santa Monica, CA 90405 310−393−3055 Email: justine.schneeweis@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L Hoffman Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP 11543 W Olympic Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90064

Case: 2:16-cv-1750 As of: 01/24/2018 08:22 AM PST 2 of 14

310−396−0731 Fax: 310−399−7040 Email: hoffpaul@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel Carol A Sobel Law Offices 725 Arizona Avenue Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401 310−393−3055 Fax: 310−451−3858 Email: carolsobel@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Michael Escobedo as individual

represented by Shayla Renee Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Elizabeth Sweetser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colleen Marika Mullen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fernando Gaytan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justine Marie Schneeweis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Salvador Roque as individual

represented by Shayla Renee Myers (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Elizabeth Sweetser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colleen Marika Mullen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fernando Gaytan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:16-cv-1750 As of: 01/24/2018 08:22 AM PST 3 of 14

Justine Marie Schneeweis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Judy Coleman as individual

represented by Shayla Renee Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Elizabeth Sweetser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colleen Marika Mullen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fernando Gaytan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justine Marie Schneeweis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Los Angeles Catholic Worker

represented by Shayla Renee Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Elizabeth Sweetser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colleen Marika Mullen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fernando Gaytan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justine Marie Schneeweis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:16-cv-1750 As of: 01/24/2018 08:22 AM PST 4 of 14

Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Cangress as organization

represented by Shayla Renee Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Elizabeth Sweetser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colleen Marika Mullen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Fernando Gaytan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justine Marie Schneeweis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carol A Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
City of Los Angeles a municipal entity

represented by Felix Lebron Los Angeles City Attorneys Office Business and Complex Litigation Division 200 North Main Street Room 675 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−978−7559 Fax: 213−978−7011 Email: felix.lebron@lacity.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Surekha A Pessis Los Angeles City Attorneys Office City Hall East 200 North Main Street 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−978−7036 Fax: 213−978−8785 Email: surekha.pessis@lacity.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:16-cv-1750 As of: 01/24/2018 08:22 AM PST 5 of 14

Eric Brown Los Angeles City Attorneys Office 200 North Main Street Room 675 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−978−7559 Fax: 213−978−7011 Email: eric.brown@lacity.org TERMINATED: 06/16/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Lt. Andrew Mathis individua

represented by Eric Brown (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felix Lebron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Lt. Andrew Mathis official capacities

represented by Felix Lebron (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Brown (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Sgt. Richter individual

represented by Eric Brown (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felix Lebron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Sgt. Richter official capacities

represented by Felix Lebron (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Brown (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/14/2016
03/14/2016 03/14/2016 03/14/2016

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973−17460126 − Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Cangress. (Attorney Carol A Sobel added to party Cangress(pty:pla))(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Cangress. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff Cangress, (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 filed by plaintiff Cangress. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/14/2016)

Case: 2:16-cv-1750 As of: 01/24/2018 08:22 AM PST 6 of 14

03/14/2016 03/15/2016 03/15/2016 03/15/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016
03/24/2016
03/30/2016
03/30/2016
03/30/2016 03/30/2016 03/30/2016 03/30/2016 03/30/2016

5 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 Cangress. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge S. James Otero and Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth. (et) (Entered: 03/15/2016)
7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT−DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) (Entered: 03/15/2016)
8 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 as to Defendants City of Los Angeles, Andrew Mathis(individua), Andrew Mathis(official capacities), Richter(individual), Richter(official capacities). (et) (Entered: 03/15/2016)
9 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against plaintiff All Plaintiffs amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 , filed by plaintiff Carl Mitchell(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
10 INITIAL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge S. James Otero. (vcr) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
11 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: First Amended Complaint 9 . The following error(s) was found: Caption of document is incomplete/incorrect. See title page. The name of the parties are not listed in the caption. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
12 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Shayla Renee Myers counsel for Plaintiffs Cangress, Judy Coleman, Michael Escobedo, Los Angeles Catholic Worker, Carl Mitchell, Salvador Roque. Adding Shayla R. Myers as counsel of record for Plaintiffs for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Cangress, Judy Coleman, Michael Escobedo, Los Angeles Catholic Worker, Carl Mitchell, Salvador Roque. (Myers, Shayla) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
13 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction filed by plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Declaration Carl Mitchell, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Mitchell, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Mitchell, # 6 Declaration Salvador Roque, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 3 Roque, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 4 Roque) (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
14 DECLARATION of Eric Ares in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
15 DECLARATION of Salvador Roque in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 8A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 8B)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
16 DECLARATION of Gabby Cervantes in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
17 DECLARATION EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 10)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
18 DECLARATION of Michael Escobedo EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
19 EXHIBIT Exhibit 11 to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/30/2016)

Case: 2:16-cv-1750 As of: 01/24/2018 08:22 AM PST 7 of 14

03/30/2016 03/30/2016 03/30/2016 03/30/2016
03/30/2016 03/31/2016 03/31/2016 03/31/2016 03/31/2016
03/31/2016 03/31/2016
03/31/2016 03/31/2016

20 EXHIBIT Exhibit 12 to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
21 EXHIBIT to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 Exhibit 13 filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
22 DECLARATION of Steve Richardson in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
23 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Declaration (Motion related) 16 , Exhibit to Motion 21 , Declaration (Motion related) 22 , Exhibit to Motion 20 , Declaration (Motion related) 17 , Declaration (Motion related) 18 , Declaration (Motion related), 15 , Declaration (Motion related), 14 . The following error(s) was found: Title page and its required LR 11−3.8 case, court, document information is missing. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
24 EXHIBIT Exhibit 5 to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
25 Amendment to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 Corrected Caption re Notice of Deficiencies filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
26 Amendment to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 Corrected Caption re Notice of Deficiencies Part II filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
27 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 14−03 (Related Case) filed. Transfer of case declined by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, for the reasons set forth on this order. Related Case No. 2:11−cv−02874 PSG(AJWx) (rn) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
28 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File opposition to plaintiffs' TRO filed by defendants City of Los Angeles, Andrew Mathis(individua), Andrew Mathis(official capacities), Richter(individual), Richter(official capacities). (Attorney Eric Brown added to party City of Los Angeles(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Brown added to party Andrew Mathis(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Brown added to party Andrew Mathis(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Brown added to party Richter(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Brown added to party Richter(pty:dft)) (Brown, Eric) Modified on 3/31/2016 (lc). (STRICKEN PER 3/31/16 ORDER) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
29 OPPOSITION OPPOSITION re: REQUEST for Extension of Time to File opposition to plaintiffs' TRO 28 filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
30 ORDER by Judge S. James Otero: the following document(s) be STRICKEN for failure to comply with the Local Rules, General Order and/or the Courts Case Management Order: REQUEST for Extension of Time to File opposition to plaintiffs' TRO 28 , for the following reasons: Proposed Document was not submitted as separate attachment.; Proposed Document was not submitted as separate attachment. (lc) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
31 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell of EXHIBIT 14 DVD. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
32 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File to oppose plaintiffs' TRO filed by defendants City of Los Angeles, Andrew Mathis(individua), Andrew Mathis(official capacities), Richter(individual), Richter(official capacities). (Brown, Eric) (STRICKEN PER 4/1/16 ORDER)Modified on 4/1/2016 (lc). (Entered: 03/31/2016)

Case: 2:16-cv-1750 As of: 01/24/2018 08:22 AM PST 8 of 14

03/31/2016
04/01/2016 04/01/2016
04/01/2016 04/05/2016 04/06/2016 04/07/2016 04/07/2016 04/07/2016 04/08/2016 04/08/2016 04/08/2016

33 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: REQUEST for Extension of Time to File to oppose plaintiffs' TRO 32 . The following error(s) was found: Missing Proposed order which was not submitted as separate attachment. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
34 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File opposition to plaintiffs' TRO filed by defendants City of Los Angeles, Andrew Mathis(individua), Andrew Mathis(official capacities), Richter(individual), Richter(official capacities). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Brown, Eric) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
35 ORDER by Judge S. James Otero: the following document(s) be STRICKEN for failure to comply with the Local Rules, General Order and/or the Courts Case Management Order: REQUEST for Extension of Time to File to oppose plaintiffs' TRO 32 , for the following reasons: Proposed Document was not submitted as separate attachment; FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES, L.R. 7−20 Orders on Motions and Applications, and L.R. 5−4.4 Submission of Proposed Orders, Judgments, or Other Proposed Documents That Require a Judges Signature (lc) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
36 ORDER GRANTING CITY DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR TIME TO FILE WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 34 by Judge S. James Otero: Defendant City of Los Angeles Opposition to Plaintiffs Temporary Restraining Order is now due by 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 4, 2016; Reply shall be filed by 10:00 a.m., Friday, April 8, 2016 (lc) Modified on 4/1/2016 (lc). (Entered: 04/01/2016)
37 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Complaint filed by defendants City of Los Angeles, Andrew Mathis(individua), Andrew Mathis(official capacities), Richter(individual), Richter(official capacities). Motion set for hearing on 5/9/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Proposed Order) (Brown, Eric) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
38 Opposiiton to re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Andrew Mathes, # 2 Declaration of Steven Pedersen, # 3 Objections to Evidence, # 4 Notice of Lodging, # 5 Proposed Order)(Brown, Eric) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
40 (Brown, Eric) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
41 CITY OF LOS ANGELES' CLARIFICATION TO PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE MOTION TO STRIKE UNDER SEAL; DECLARATION OF ERIC BROWN re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Brown, Eric) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
42 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to file document EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STRIKE AND/OR SEAL PUBLICLY FILED DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL under seal 39 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Brown, Eric) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
43 REPLY in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Supplemental Ares Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 18 A−E, # 3 Declaration Carol Sobel, # 4 Declaration Shayla Myers)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
44 SUPPLEMENT to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 Response to Evidentiary Objections by City filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
45 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 19, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 20, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 21, #

Case: 2:16-cv-1750 As of: 01/24/2018 08:22 AM PST 9 of 14

04/08/2016 04/08/2016 04/08/2016
04/11/2016
04/11/2016 04/13/2016
04/18/2016 04/25/2016 04/28/2016
05/02/2016 05/03/2016

4 Exhibit Exhibit 22)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
46 OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
47 NOTICE OF LODGING filed of DVDs Containing Exhibits 23 and 24 in Support of Plaintiffs' re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin property destruction 13 (Myers, Shayla) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
48 REPLY In Support Of EX PARTE APPLICATION to file document EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STRIKE AND/OR SEAL PUBLICLY FILED DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL under seal 39 filed by Plaintiffs Cangress, Judy Coleman, Michael Escobedo, Los Angeles Catholic Worker, Carl Mitchell, Salvador Roque. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Shayla Myers ISO Plaintiffs' Reply ISO Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Strike and/or Seal Publically Filed Documents)(Sweetser, Catherine) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
49 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information (G−06) 40 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (ak) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
50 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Surekha A Pessis counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles. Adding SUREKHA A. PESSIS as counsel of record for CITY OF LOS ANGELES for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES. (Attorney Surekha A Pessis added to party City of Los Angeles(pty:dft))(Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
51 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge S. James Otero: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 13 . THE CITY AND ITS AGENTS ARE ENJOINED ( RE PROPERTY IN SKID ROW OR SURROUNDING AREAS− SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFIC DETAILS AND REQUIREMENTS THEREIN ). The Court concludes that it is appropriate to waive the requirement that Plaintiffs file an injunctivebond in this instance. (lc) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
52 OPPOSITION OPPOSITION re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Complaint 37 filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration and Exhibits A−D)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/18/2016)
53 REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Complaint 37 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Brown, Eric) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
54 The Court finds the following motion suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacates the hearing re the MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Complaint filed by defendants City of Los Angeles, Andrew Mathis(individua), Andrew Mathis(official capacities), Richter(individual), Richter(official capacities). [#37], set for hearing on May 9, 2016. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). No appearance is required. The briefing schedule remains as set by Local Rule. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vcr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/28/2016)
55 REQUEST TO WITHDRAW ATTORNEY Shayla R. Myers and Fernando Gaytan as counsel of record for Plaintiff Salvador Roque filed by Plaintiff Salvador Roque. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff Salvador Roque Request for Withdrawal of Counsel) (Myers, Shayla) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
56 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF SALVADOR ROQUES REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OFCOUNSEL 55 by Judge S. James Otero: Court grants Shayla Myers and Fernando Gaytan, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, who are Retained Counsel, to withdraw from representation of Plaintiff Roque. No substitution is necessary because Plaintiff Roque is already represented by Carol A. Sobel, Colleen

Case: 2:16-cv-1750 As of: 01/24/2018 08:22 AM PST 10 of 14

05/06/2016 05/11/2016 05/11/2016 05/13/2016
05/20/2016 05/20/2016 06/02/2016 06/03/2016
06/30/2016 06/30/2016 07/22/2016 07/26/2016
08/22/2016

Mullen, and Justine Schneeweis, Law Office of Carol A. Sobel, and Paul L. Hoffman and Catherine Sweetser, Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman. (lc) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
57 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge S. James Otero: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 37 . Plaintiffs' causes of action for false arrest and conversion are DISMISSED without leave to amend. (lc) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
58 NOTICE filed by defendants City of Los Angeles, Andrew Mathis(individua), Richter(individual). OF MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1, # 2 Exhibit Attachment 2, # 3 Declaration of Scott Marcus)(Brown, Eric) Modified on 5/16/2016 (lc). (Entered: 05/11/2016)
59 Proposed Order re: Notice (Other), 58 (Brown, Eric) (Entered: 05/11/2016)
60 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice (Other), 58 Miscellaneous Document 59 , Pdfs were the Motion for clarification and the proposed order. The following error(s) was found: Hearing information is missing and the motion was not set on Judge's motion calendar due to Incorrect event selected.. The correct event is: Motion: order, follow prompts to set date, time and Judge. The Proposed order should have been submitted as a separate attachment, to the motion. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 05/13/2016)
61 ANSWER to Amended Complaint/Petition 9 JURY DEMAND. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles.(Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
62 CITY OF LOS ANGELES CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles, (Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
63 STIPULATION to Continue hearing on City's motion for clarification of order from June 27, 2016 to July 25, 2016 Re: for Order 58 filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, Andrew Mathis(individua), Richter(individual). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brown, Eric) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
64 ORDER ON STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER 63 by Judge S. James Otero. The hearing date of the City of Los Angeles' Motion for Clarification of Order is continued from June 27, 2016 to July 25, 2016. The time for hearing remains the same, 10 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom) (Entered: 06/03/2016)
65 Second STIPULATION to Continue Motion for Clarification of Order from 07/25/16 to 08/15/16 Re: for Order 58 filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, Andrew Mathis(individua), Richter(individual). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brown, Eric) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
66 ORDER ON SECOND STIPULATION 65 TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE OF THE CITY OFLOS ANGELES MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER 58 TO AUGUST 15, 2016 10:00 AM by Judge S. James Otero (lc) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
67 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Motion Hearing Date from August 15, 2016 to September 12, 2016 Re: for Order 58 filed by plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
68 ORDER RE: JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 67 by Judge S. James Otero. Accordingly, the Court orders that Defendants' Motion for Clarification 58 is continued from the present date of August 15, 2016 to September 12, 2016. (lom) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
69 Fourth STIPULATION to Continue Motion hearing from September 12, 2016 to October 24, 2016 Re: for Order 58 filed by plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 08/22/2016)

Case: 2:16-cv-1750 As of: 01/24/2018 08:22 AM PST 11 of 14

08/22/2016 09/26/2016 09/27/2016 10/28/2016 10/31/2016 11/01/2016
11/23/2016 11/29/2016 01/23/2017 01/24/2017
02/27/2017 03/01/2017

70 ORDER RE FOURTH STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE OF THE CITY OFLOS ANGELES MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER 69 by Judge S. James Otero: The hearing on Defendants Motion for Clarification is continued on theCourts calendar to October 24, 2016 @ 10:00 a.m. (vv) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
71 Fifth STIPULATION to Continue Motion Hearing Date from October 17, 2016 to November 21, 2016 Re: for Order 58 filed by plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
72 ORDER Re: Fifth Stipulation to Continue Hearing Date of the City of Los Angeles Motion for Clarification of Order 71 by Judge S. James Otero the Fifth Stipulation is granted. The hearing on the Motion for Clarification 58 is continued from 10/17/2016 to 11/21/2016 at 10:00 AM. (jp) (Entered: 09/27/2016)
73 Sixth STIPULATION to Continue motion hearing from November 21, 2016 to December 19, 2016 Re: for Order 58 filed by plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
74 ORDER RE:SIXTH STIPULATION 73 CONTINUES THE HEARING DATE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION TO DECEMBER 19, 2016 10:00 AM 58 by Judge S. James Otero (lc) (Entered: 10/31/2016)
75 NOTICE TO PARTIES by District Judge S. James Otero. Effective November 7, 2016, Judge Otero will be located at the 1st Street Courthouse, COURTROOM 10C on the 10th floor, located at 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. All Court appearances shall be made in Courtroom 10C of the 1st Street Courthouse, and all mandatory chambers copies shall be hand delivered to the judge's mail box outside the Clerk's Office on the 4th floor of the 1st Street Courthouse. The location for filing civil documents in paper format exempted from electronic filing and for viewing case files and other records services remains at the United States Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Room G−8, Los Angeles, California 90012. The location for filing criminal documents in paper format exempted from electronic filing remains at Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Room 178, Los Angeles, California 90012. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/01/2016)
76 STIPULATION to Continue Motion Hearing Date from December 19, 2016 to February 13, 2017 Re: for Order 58 filed by plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
77 ORDER RE: SIXTH STIPULATION 76 THE HEARING DATE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELESMOTION FOR CLARIFICATION IS CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 13,2017 10:00 AM 58 by Judge S. James Otero (lc) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
78 Eighth STIPULATION to Continue motion hearing from February 13, 2017 to March 20, 2017 Re: for Order 58 filed by plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
79 ORDER RE: EIGHTH STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER 78 by Judge S. James Otero. The Court finds good cause to grant the requested continuation of the motion to give the parties an opportunity to reach consensus on the issues underlying themotion. Accordingly, the Stipulation is hereby granted. Defendants Motion forClarification is continued to March 20, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. See order for details. (jy) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
80 Ninth STIPULATION to Continue Motion Hearing Date from March 20, 2017 to April 24, 2017 Re: for Order 58 filed by plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
81 ORDER RE:NINTH STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES'MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER 80 by Judge S. James Otero. The Court finds good cause to grant the requested continuation of the motion to give the parties an opportunity to reach consensus on the issues underlying the motion. Accordingly, the Stipulation is hereby granted. Defendant's Motion forClarification is continued to April 24, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. See order for

Case: 2:16-cv-1750 As of: 01/24/2018 08:22 AM PST 12 of 14

03/03/2017 03/03/2017 03/07/2017
03/15/2017 04/03/2017 04/04/2017 04/04/2017 04/04/2017 05/22/2017 05/24/2017

details. (jy) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
82 NOTICE of Change of address by Catherine Elizabeth Sweetser attorney for Plaintiffs Cangress, Judy Coleman, Michael Escobedo, Los Angeles Catholic Worker, Carl Mitchell, Salvador Roque. Changing attorneys address to 11543 W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064. Filed by Plaintiffs Cangress, Judy Coleman, Michael Escobedo, Los Angeles Catholic Worker, Carl Mitchell, Salvador Roque. (Sweetser, Catherine) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
83 NOTICE of Change of address by Paul L Hoffman attorney for Plaintiffs Cangress, Judy Coleman, Michael Escobedo, Los Angeles Catholic Worker, Carl Mitchell, Salvador Roque. Changing attorneys address to 11543 W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064. Filed by Plaintiffs Cangress, Judy Coleman, Michael Escobedo, Los Angeles Catholic Worker, Carl Mitchell, Salvador Roque. (Hoffman, Paul) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
84 Effective March 13, 2017, Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth will be located at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building, COURTROOM 680 on the 6th floor, located at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. All Court appearances shall be made in Courtroom 680 of the Roybal Federal Building, and all mandatory chambers copies shall be hand delivered to the judge's mail box located outside the Clerk's Office on the 1st floor of the Roybal Federal Building. The location for filing civil documents in paper format exempted from electronic filing and for viewing case files and other records services remains at the United States Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Room G−8, Los Angeles, California 90012. The location for filing criminal documents in paper format exempted from electronic filing remains at the Roybal Federal Building, 255 East Temple Street, Room 178, Los Angeles, California 90012. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/07/2017)
85 NOTICE of Change of firm name and address by Colleen Marika Mullen attorney for Plaintiffs Cangress, Judy Coleman, Michael Escobedo, Los Angeles Catholic Worker, Carl Mitchell, Salvador Roque. Changing firm name to Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP and address to 11543 W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064. Filed by Plaintiffs Cangress, Judy Coleman, Michael Escobedo, Los Angeles Catholic Worker, Carl Mitchell, Salvador Roque. (Mullen, Colleen) (Entered: 03/15/2017)
86 Unopposed Request to Continue re: for Order 58 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
87 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Miscellaneous Document 86 (pdf is a request to continue motion hearing). The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Request: continue; or Request: order. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 04/04/2017)
88 ORDER RE: UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER 86 by Judge S. James Otero. GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Court grants the unopposed request. The hearing on Defendants' Motion for Clarification is continued to June 5, 2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. See order for further details. (jy) (Entered: 04/04/2017)
89 ORDER SEALING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STRIKE AND/OR SEAL PUBLICLY FILED DOCUMENTS by Judge S. James Otero (lc) Modified on 4/5/2017 (lc). (Entered: 04/05/2017)
90 Tenth STIPULATION to Continue the Hearing date of the City of Los Angeles' Motion For Clarification from June 5, 2017 to July 24, 2017 filed by Plaintiffs Cangress, Judy Coleman, Michael Escobedo, Los Angeles Catholic Worker, Carl Mitchell, Salvador Roque. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sweetser, Catherine) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
91 ORDER RE: TENTH STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER by Judge

Case: 2:16-cv-1750 As of: 01/24/2018 08:22 AM PST 13 of 14

06/16/2017 06/28/2017
06/29/2017 07/03/2017 08/03/2017
08/21/2017 08/21/2017 08/22/2017
08/28/2017 09/06/2017

S. James Otero, re Stipulation to Continue, 90 . The the Stipulation is hereby granted. Defendants Motion forClarification is continued to July 24, 2017 @ 10:00 a.m. before Judge S. James Otero. (smo) (Entered: 05/24/2017)
92 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Eric Brown counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles. ERIC BROWN is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by defendant Eric Brown. (Brown, Eric) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
93 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Felix Lebron counsel for Defendants City of Los Angeles, Andrew Mathis, Richter. Adding Felix Lebron as counsel of record for defendants for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by defendants Felix Lebron. (Attorney Felix Lebron added to party City of Los Angeles(pty:dft), Attorney Felix Lebron added to party Andrew Mathis(pty:dft), Attorney Felix Lebron added to party Richter(pty:dft))(Lebron, Felix) (Entered: 06/28/2017)
94 Eleventh STIPULATION to Continue Motion for Clarification from 7/24/17 to 9/11/17 filed by defendants City of Los Angeles, Andrew Mathis(individua), Richter(individual). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lebron, Felix) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
95 ORDER ON STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES'MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER 94 by Judge S. James Otero. The Court orders as follows. The hearing date of the City of Los Angeles' Motion for Clarification of Order is continued from July 24, 2017 to September 11, 2017, at 10 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom) (Entered: 07/03/2017)
96 Effective August 7, 2017, Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth will be located at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building, COURTROOM 690 on the 6th Floor, located at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. All court appearances shall be made in Courtroom 690 of the Roybal Federal Building, and all mandatory chambers copies shall be hand delivered to the judge's mailbox located outside the Clerk's Office on the 12th Floor of the Roybal Federal Building. The location for filing civil documents in paper format exempted from electronic filing and for viewing case files and other records services remains at the United States Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Room G−8, Los Angeles, California 90012. The location for filing criminal documents in paper format exempted from electronic filing remains at the Roybal Federal Building, 255 East Temple Street, Room 178, Los Angeles, California 90012. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/03/2017)
97 OPPOSITION to for Order 58 for Clarification filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
98 OPPOSITION to for Order 58 Motion for Clarification filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
99 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Opposition to Motion for Clarification 97 . The following error(s) was/were found: Caption of document is incomplete/incorrect. Case number is incorrect or missing. A corrected document has already been filed as docket entry 98. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
100 REPLY in support of for Order 58 for Clarification filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, Andrew Mathis, Andrew Mathis, Richter, Richter. (Attorney Felix Lebron added to party Andrew Mathis(pty:dft), Attorney Felix Lebron added to party Richter(pty:dft))(Lebron, Felix) (Entered: 08/28/2017)
101 The Court finds the following motions suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacates the hearing re the MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER filed by defendants City of Los Angeles [#58], set for hearing on September 11, 2017. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). No appearance is required. The briefing schedule remains as set by Local Rule. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.

Case: 2:16-cv-1750 As of: 01/24/2018 08:22 AM PST 14 of 14

09/25/2017 10/20/2017 10/23/2017 11/21/2017 11/21/2017
12/04/2017
12/04/2017

(vcr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/06/2017)
102 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge S. James Otero: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER 58 . (lc) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
103 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge S. James Otero. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 11/20/2017. Scheduling Conference set for 12/4/2017 at 08:30 AM before Judge S. James Otero.(vcr) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
104 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge S. James Otero. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 11/20/2017. Scheduling Conference set for 12/4/2017 at 08:30 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (vcr) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
105 SCHEDULING REPORT of Rule 26 filed by Plaintiff Carl Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Chart of Scheduling Dates)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
106 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Report 105 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: Joint Report Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan. Other error(s) with document(s): Note: To assist in a search for correct events, please use the "SEARCH" option for a "key word" to narrow the selection process. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
107 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge S. James Otero The Court sets the following schedule: last date to amend: 1/4/18; discovery cutoff: 7/9/18 ; motion hearing cutoff: 8/6/18 10:00 AM; pretrial conference: 10/1/18 9:00 AM; Jury trial: 10/9/18 9:00 AM; Settlement is referred to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Program for all furtherproceedings. All discovery dispute to be brought before the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case; parties reminded of requirements of FRCP 26−1(a); counsel are advised all pretrial documents (as listed) must be filed in compliance with Courts Initial Standing order. Court Reporter: Carol Zurborg. (lc) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
108 ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 2 by Judge S. James Otero. Case ordered to Court Mediation Panel for mediation. (lc) (Entered: 12/04/2017)