Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:1

1 HEATHER MARIA JOHNSON (SB# 300960) hjohnson@aclusocal.org
2 BELINDA ESCOBOSA HELZER (SB# 214178) bescobosahelzer@aclusocal.org
3 ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Orange County Office
4 1851 E. First Street, Suite 450 Santa Ana, CA 92705
5 Telephone: (714) 450-3962 Facsimile: (714) 543-5240
6 GLENN D. DASSOFF (SB# 96809)
7 glenndassoff@paulhastings.com KRISTOPHER R. WOOD (SB# 284727)
8 kristopherwood@paulhastings.com PAUL HASTINGS LLP
9 695 Town Center Drive Seventeenth Floor
10 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1924 Telephone: (714) 668-6200
11 Facsimile: (714) 979-1921

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SOUTHERN DIVISION

16 Kenneth Glover, an individual; David
17 Sestini, an individual; Douglas Frederes Jr., an individual; Jeffrey
18 Aiken, an individual; and Katrina Aune, an individual,
19 Plaintiffs,
20 vs.
21 CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH; THE
22 LAGUNA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, a California charter
23 city

CASE NO. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and California Constitution, Art. I. sec. 7, 17

24

Defendants.

25

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 26 Page ID #:2

1

1. Plaintiffs, chronically homeless individuals who live in the City of

2 Laguna Beach and each of whom suffers from mental and/or physical disabilities,

3 bring this litigation against Defendants City of Laguna Beach (“City”) and Laguna

4 Beach Police Department (“LBPD”) for violation of Title II of the Americans with

5 Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12132), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29

6 U.S.C. §§ 706, 794), and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

7 States Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983). Defendants’ homelessness program –

8 which comprises the City’s policy and practice of maintaining limited shelter, often

9 inaccessible to those with disabilities, combined with heavy law enforcement,

10 harassment, and scrutiny of those who are forced to sleep outside because they

11 cannot access this shelter – discriminates against, criminalizes, and endangers

12 disabled, homeless persons and, in so doing, violates their civil rights.

13

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14

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

15 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (in that this case arises under the Constitution of the

16 United States); § 1343(a)(3) (in that it is brought to redress deprivations, under

17 color of state authority, of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United

18 States Constitution); § 1343(a)(4) (in that it seeks to secure equitable relief under an

19 Act of Congress, specifically under Title II of the ADA, Section 504 of the

20 Rehabilitation Act, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); and the Declaratory Judgment

21 Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202.

22

3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant City of Laguna

23 Beach (“Laguna Beach” or “the City”) because it is a political subdivision of the

24 State of California located in Orange County and Defendant Laguna Beach Police

25 Department (“LBPD”) because it operates in Orange County and enforces the

26 City’s laws.

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-1-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 26 Page ID #:3

1

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

2 1391(b). Defendants are located in the Central District and all of the acts and/or

3 omissions complained of herein have occurred or will occur in this District.

4

INTRODUCTION

5

5. Laguna Beach, one of the most affluent communities in the country, is

6 openly hostile to the plight of disabled, homeless individuals living in the City.

7 Rather than provide the permanent supportive housing (housing with supportive

8 services, such as mental health treatment and case management) necessary to meet

9 the needs of this population, the City’s policy and practice with respect to

10 homelessness is to maintain minimal shelter inaccessible to many of its disabled,

11 homeless inhabitants and far from the downtown area while, through the LBPD,

12 engaging in a strategy of increased law enforcement, harassment, and scrutiny of

13 those experiencing homelessness who cannot access this shelter.

14

6. The City’s policy and practice is intended to discourage homeless

15 individuals from remaining in the City – or, failing that, to discourage their visible

16 presence in the downtown area and nearby beaches. This strategy is not new –

17 earlier litigation brought by the ACLU against the City based on the same pattern of

18 law enforcement, harassment, and scrutiny resulted in a settlement limiting such

19 enforcement. It also led to the creation of a small emergency shelter (the “Alternate

20 Sleeping Location” or “ASL”). Because of its small size, the City prioritizes shelter

21 space for those it considers “local Laguna Beach homeless.” Others – including

22 some who have lived in Laguna Beach for years – must seek a spot at the shelter on

23 a nightly basis through a waitlist and lottery system. While appropriate for some

24 homeless persons living in Laguna Beach, this shelter is inaccessible to many

25 disabled, homeless persons. Further, because the needs of different members of the

26 homeless population differ and sometimes conflict, it is impossible for the ASL to

27 provide emergency shelter to all homeless persons in Laguna Beach, even aside

28 from capacity issues. Despite this, the City uses the existence of the ASL to justify

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-2-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 4 of 26 Page ID #:4

1 its heavy use of law enforcement against disabled, homeless persons as appropriate

2 and legally-permissible.

3

7. The City’s policy and practice places unique burdens on disabled,

4 homeless persons who live in the City, particularly those who suffer from disabling

5 mental illnesses. For such individuals, it can be extremely difficult, if not

6 impossible, to cope with the crowded, noisy, and chaotic environment of a

7 homeless shelter, such as the ASL. Some can only stay in this shelter environment

8 for a short period before they experience deterioration in their mental condition that

9 forces them to leave. Others are kicked out because their disabilities prevent them

10 from being able to conform to the behavioral requirements of the shelter. When

11 they cannot access this shelter, they are without any safe, legal place to sleep within

12 the City and are at risk of criminal citation for merely sleeping or lying down with

13 their belongings. The increased anxiety, fear, and paranoia associated with trying

14 to find a place to rest free from police scrutiny or harassment adds to the inherent

15 stress and dangers of living outdoors. As they remain unsheltered, their mental and

16 physical health worsens and it becomes even harder for them to cope with the

17 demands the City’s policy and practice places upon them and to secure the housing,

18 employment and/or benefits needed to escape homelessness. For such disabled,

19 homeless individuals the only effective way to get them off the streets is to provide

20 permanent supportive housing.

21

8. Despite knowing that the vast majority of homeless persons in Laguna

22 Beach are disabled and that many of these individuals require permanent supportive

23 housing, the City has not only failed to create this desperately-needed resource, it

24 has persisted in its strategy of heavy law enforcement. Numerous disabled,

25 homeless persons have been cited for sleeping or resting in public – innocent

26 activities they cannot avoid while they remain in Laguna Beach. LBPD uses a

27 variety of prohibitions to target those they find sleeping, including California Penal

28 Code (“Penal Code”) section 647(e) (prohibits “lodging” in public), and Laguna

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-3-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 5 of 26 Page ID #:5

1 Beach Municipal Code (“L.B.M.C.”) sections 8.30. 030 (prohibits “camping” in

2 public), 18.05.020 (beach curfew). Further, because of the fear of being found and

3 cited by police, homeless individuals turned away from the ASL often end up in

4 more precarious situations, such as traveling on foot along the dark, winding

5 roadway back to town or seeking refuge in the canyon around the shelter. Both of

6 these options are risky – in at least five high-profile incidents in the past several

7 years, homeless persons have been killed or seriously injured along this roadway or

8 in the canyon.

9

9. Because of this unlawful and unconstitutional conduct of the City and

10 the LBPD, Plaintiffs bring this action for preliminary and permanent injunctive

11 relief and declaratory relief. This action is based upon the rights secured to

12 Plaintiffs by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (the

13 “ADA”); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the “Rehabilitation Act”)

14 and under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

15 Constitution, and Article I, sections 7 and 17 of the California Constitution.

16

PARTIES

17

Plaintiffs

18

10. Plaintiffs are chronically homeless individuals who live in Laguna

19 Beach, each of whom suffers from mental and/or physical disabilities. Each

20 Plaintiff is “chronically homeless” in that he or she has either experienced

21 homelessness for an extended period or has repeatedly cycled in and out of

22 homelessness and has a disabling condition. As disabled, homeless individuals

23 living in Laguna Beach they face constant scrutiny as they try to navigate and cope

24 with the resources and restraints that comprise the City’s homelessness program,

25 including the limited, often inaccessible, shelter and risks of criminal citation when

26 they cannot access this shelter. The constant scrutiny often worsens their mental

27 and physical health.

28

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-4-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 6 of 26 Page ID #:6

1

11. Each Plaintiff needs permanent supportive housing, a resource that is

2 not currently available through Laguna Beach’s homelessness program. In addition

3 to seeking resources locally, some plaintiffs have also sought permanent supportive

4 housing or other assistance through countywide programs. However, they are not

5 sure if they meet the eligibility requirements for these programs or when, or if, they

6 will be placed.

7

12. Plaintiff KENNETH GLOVER is a forty-seven-year-old, chronically

8 homeless Orange County native. He was raised in Laguna Niguel and Dana Point,

9 but he has lived in Laguna Beach since 2011 and considers it his home. Glover was

10 employed as a commercial fisherman, but lost his job during the recent recession.

11 He has been diagnosed with depression and alcoholism.

12

13. Despite living in Laguna Beach since 2011, Glover is not considered a

13 “Laguna Beach homeless resident” by the City and can only sleep at the ASL when

14 he wins the lottery for an empty space. For several years, Glover tried to sleep at

15 the ASL and was able to win a space only about twice per week. While grateful

16 whenever he was permitted to stay, he found staying at the ASL very stressful and

17 experienced difficulty sleeping because of the noise and nightmares he often

18 suffered while staying there.

19

14. On nights when Glover did not get a space at the ASL, he had no legal

20 place to sleep. On one such night, September 6, 2012, Glover slept in the parking

21 lot of the ASL after having been turned away. He was discovered by police the

22 next morning and cited for violating Penal Code section 647(e). On another

23 occasion, he was discovered by police at around 9:30 p.m. after being put on the

24 “alternate” list for the ASL. The LBPD told Glover he had to leave town and

25 provided him with a bus pass to get to the Armory Shelter in Fullerton. However,

26 after the long bus ride from Laguna Beach to Fullerton, the Armory Shelter had

27 already closed its doors for the evening and Glover was forced to sleep outdoors in

28 an unfamiliar city. Since then, he has tried to avoid sleeping in the ASL parking

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-5-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 7 of 26 Page ID #:7

1 lot. Instead, Glover looks for spots on the beach or in surrounding areas where he

2 can avoid the police and local residents. In 2012, Glover was riding his bicycle

3 along Laguna Canyon Road after being unable to secure a shelter spot and was hit

4 by a car. He suffered a disabling injury to his right hand that has made it more

5 difficult to find work.

6

15. Glover continued to seek shelter and, on nights when he was

7 unsuccessful, was forced to make the two-and-a-half-mile journey along Laguna

8 Canyon Road by foot in the dark to find a place to sleep that is out of sight of the

9 police. Glover was not always successful in avoiding LBPD’s attention – he was

10 cited for sleeping on the beach in violation of L.B.M.C. section 18.05.020 on May

11 30, 2014, and June 7, 2014. In addition, he was cited for “camping” under

12 L.B.M.C. section 8.30.030 on March 22, 2014. During this period, an LBPD

13 officer asked if there was anything the officer could do to get Glover to leave the

14 City for good.

15

16. Glover desperately wants a safe, legal place he can sleep. He has

16 recently stopped seeking shelter because the extreme anxiety of the experience –

17 not knowing whether he will get a spot, having to travel back downtown to seek a

18 safe place to hide if he does not or having to cope with the noisy, crowded

19 environment if he does – has become unbearable and has caused a deterioration in

20 his mental health. Glover’s doctor recently prescribed him a stronger medication to

21 help him cope with this anxiety, but while taking it, Glover had trouble standing,

22 walking, and communicating. He discontinued this medication and continues to

23 suffer anxiety because he knows he will have to find a place to hide each night.

24

17. Plaintiff DAVID SESTINI (“Sestini”) is a fifty-three-year-old,

25 chronically homeless man who grew up in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. He

26 has lived in Laguna Beach since July 2012. He suffers from bipolar disorder,

27 depression, anxiety, alcoholism, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),

28 and heart spasms. In 2006 he received a traumatic head injury from a bicycle

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-6-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 8 of 26 Page ID #:8

1 accident, leaving him with cluster headaches/migraines and balance and memory

2 problems that continue today. Sestini became homeless four years ago after he left

3 a sober living facility because he could not tolerate the living environment. Sestini

4 has difficulty keeping work because of his physical and mental health issues and is

5 frequently hospitalized.

6

18. The City does not consider Sestini to be a Laguna Beach resident;

7 therefore, he can only sleep at the shelter when he wins a lottery spot. On the

8 nights he does not obtain a space at the shelter, he sleeps on local park benches. In

9 the cold winter months, Sestini travels to Fullerton to sleep at the Armory, but this

10 alternative is not available year round. On the morning of July 25, 2013, the LBPD

11 cited Sestini just outside the shelter for illegal lodging under Penal Code section

12 647(e), despite the fact that he had spent most of the night sleeping inside the

13 shelter. Sestini had moved outside at approximately 5:00 a.m. to avoid an argument

14 with another person staying there. The citing officer did not give Sestini any

15 alternatives or respond when Sestini told him why he was sleeping outside.

16

19. In the last year, Sestini has been kicked out of the shelter several times

17 because his bipolar disorder and anxiety make it difficult for him to control his

18 emotions around other people at the shelter and conform his behavior to that

19 required by the shelter. During these times, he suffered from the constant stress of

20 trying to find a place to sleep without attracting the attention of the LBPD, which

21 exacerbated his breathing and heart conditions. After being kicked out of the

22 shelter for two weeks during the fall of 2014, Sestini was overcome with worries

23 about losing his job, started having suicidal thoughts and was committed to an

24 inpatient psychiatric ward for several weeks.

25

20. Recently, Sestini was permanently banned from the shelter. Although

26 he still considers Laguna Beach his home, he has recently tried to obtain services

27 for his alcohol addiction in Huntington Beach. Sestini is not sure whether he will

28

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-7-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 9 of 26 Page ID #:9

1 be able to stay for a long period, especially since he has had problems tolerating

2 such programs in the past.

3

21. Plaintiff DOUGLAS FREDERES, JR. (“Frederes”) is a thirty-five-

4 year-old, chronically homeless man who grew up in South Orange County.

5 Frederes has lived in Laguna Beach for at least three years, with the exception of a

6 seven-month stint in Las Vegas after increasingly intense harassment from the

7 LBPD forced Frederes to leave town. Frederes was diagnosed with bipolar disorder

8 at the age of fourteen and spent several months in a mental health facility; he often

9 suffers from paranoia. As a result, he has a difficult time finding and keeping work.

10 In the past, he has performed work in carpentry, as a machinist, and in working

11 with granite and marble, but he has not held a paid position since 2009.

12

22. The City does not consider Frederes to be a Laguna Beach resident;

13 therefore, he can only sleep at the ASL when he wins a space in the nightly lottery.

14 Frederes used to sleep at the shelter often, but he finds the noisy and chaotic shelter

15 environment causes him significant stress and worsens his mental health symptoms.

16 In addition, Frederes has been kicked out of the shelter because of difficulties,

17 arising from his mental illness, getting along with the other homeless individuals

18 who frequent the shelter and conforming his behavior to that required by shelter

19 staff. As a result, Frederes frequently sleeps on the beach or elsewhere instead.

20 Frederes has been cited many times for beach curfew violations under L.B.M.C.

21 section 18.05.020 (March 27, 2013, April 16, 2014, April 25, 2013, August 10,

22 2013) and sleeping in public in violation of the L.B.M.C. section 8.30.030 (May

23 12, 2013 and January 20, 2014). In addition, LBPD members have been pressuring

24 Frederes to leave town again. Because Frederes has no income and no money, he

25 cannot afford transportation out of town, and in any case, there is nowhere else for

26 him to go.

27

23. Plaintiff JEFFREY AIKEN (“Aiken”) is a 54-year-old homeless

28 veteran who has lived in Laguna Beach for two years. He grew up in Orange

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-8-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 10 of 26 Page ID #:10

1 County, graduated from Orange Coast College in 1983, and served for 10 years in

2 the Air Force until he was discharged for disability in 1998. He has not had steady

3 employment since his discharge. Aiken suffers from mental disabilities including

4 depression and schizophrenia, and physical disabilities from a knee injury and from

5 a brain injury.

6

24. The City does not consider Aiken to be a Laguna Beach resident;

7 therefore, he can only sleep at the ASL when he wins a lottery spot. Aiken stays at

8 the shelter from time to time, but finds the environment stressful because some of

9 the other occupants are frequently agitated or intoxicated. When he cannot stay at

10 the shelter, Aiken sleeps in a location in Laguna Canyon that he keeps a closely

11 guarded secret, or on the beach. Because he is sometimes forced to sleep outside,

12 Aiken has been cited for beach curfew violations under L.B.M.C. section 18.05.020

13 and a violation of the L.B.M.C. section 8.30.030 for sleeping in public on April 15,

14 2014. More recently, he received a warning for sleeping in the ASL parking lot

15 after being turned away the evening of April 9, 2015.

16

25. Plaintiff KATRINA AUNE (“Aune”) is a thirty-five-year-old native of

17 Vancouver, Canada who has been homeless in Laguna Beach since late-2011 or

18 early-2012. Aune has two children, aged 9 and 12, both of whom have permanent

19 housing. Aune has been diagnosed with depression, and suffers from post-

20 traumatic stress disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder.

21

26. Aune briefly stayed in a transitional housing program but was forced

22 to leave because she did not follow directions, including taking the medications

23 prescribed by her doctor. Aune has been staying at the ASL intermittently for the

24 last three or four years, but because the City does not considered her a Laguna

25 Beach resident, she must rely on winning a lottery spot. Even on nights where

26 Aune is able to obtain a bed at the shelter, she finds it difficult to sleep because of

27 the noise and commotion. She also feels that she is harassed and threatened by

28 other shelter occupants. On nights that Aune does not win a spot, she sleeps in the

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-9-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 11 of 26 Page ID #:11

1 shelter parking lot or sometimes at the beach in the vicinity of others for safety.

2 Aune considers sleeping outside “torture” because the police frequently interrupt

3 her sleep. Aune has been ticketed by the LBPD for illegal lodging on at least one

4 occasion on September 15, 2013 and received a verbal warning for sleeping in the

5 shelter parking lot in early April 2015. Her emotional state is deteriorating from the

6 constant stress of sleeping at the shelter and outdoors.

7

27. Many of these experiences – including difficulties accessing shelter or

8 coping with the shelter environment, citation and harassment at the hands of the

9 police, and declining mental and physical health – are shared by other disabled,

10 homeless persons living in Laguna Beach.

11

Defendants

12

28. Defendant Laguna Beach is a municipal entity, organized as a charter

13 city under the laws of the State of California, with the capacity to sue and be sued.

14 Defendant Laguna Beach is the legal and political governmental entity responsible

15 for the actions of the LBPD, its officials, its agents, and its employees. Defendant

16 Laguna Beach is sued in its own right and on the basis of the acts of its officials,

17 agents, and employees, including the LBPD.

18

29. Defendant LBPD provides law enforcement services in Laguna Beach

19 and enforces Laguna Beach’s municipal code and the California Penal Code.

20

30. Each of the acts complained of was undertaken and each violation of

21 Plaintiffs’ rights occurred pursuant to the unlawful policies, practices, and customs

22 of Defendants.

23

31. Each Defendant was acting on behalf of Laguna Beach or at the

24 direction of another Defendant on Laguna Beach’s behalf.

25

32. The acts of each Defendant were authorized, ratified, and/or condoned

26 by the relevant policy makers for Defendant Laguna Beach and/or LBPD.

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-10-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 12 of 26 Page ID #:12

1

33. Thus, each of the complained violations of law, were intentionally

2 committed by Defendants, their officials, agents, and employees, acting under color

3 of law.

4

STATEMENT OF FACTS

5

Chronic Homelessness in Laguna Beach

6

34. Unlike other areas in Orange County, the homeless population of

7 Laguna Beach is comprised of persons who are almost exclusively chronically

8 homeless, i.e. those “with a mental or physical disability who experience long-term

9 or repeated homelessness.” City of Laguna Beach Homeless Task Force Final

10 Recommendations at 3-4 (2008). Therefore, most homeless persons in Laguna

11 Beach suffer from some form of mental and/or physical disability. Id. Defendants

12 are aware that the vast majority of homeless persons living in Laguna Beach are

13 disabled. See id.; Christa Woodall, Addressing Laguna Beach’s Homeless, O.C.

14 Register, Sept. 5, 2007 (quoting Police Chief as estimating that half of City’s

15 homeless population “battle mental illness, most without acknowledging the

16 problem”); see also City of Laguna Beach’s Housing Element, 2013-2021

17 (“Individuals with a disability . . . comprise the greatest majority of Laguna’s

18 homeless at 80% . . . .”).

19

35. Mental and physical disabilities are both causes and consequences of

20 homelessness. While persons with disabilities have a greater risk of homelessness,

21 studies have also shown that the adversity and stress of homelessness can lead to

22 the development or exacerbation of mental illness. Further, unsheltered homeless

23 persons have a greater risk of experiencing violence and physical health problems,

24 which increases their likelihood of developing mental health problems.

25

36. For chronically homeless persons, the only effective way to address

26 their homelessness and their underlying or co-occurring disabilities is permanent

27 supportive housing (housing with wrap-around services including, but not limited

28

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-11-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 13 of 26 Page ID #:13

1 to, mental health and case management services). There is a growing recognition

2 that living in a shelter can be nearly impossible for some people with serious mental

3 and physical health issues. These chronically homeless individuals need to be

4 permanently and safely housed before they can meaningfully access and benefit

5 from treatment. Nationally – and in Orange County – chronically homeless persons

6 are significantly more likely than other homeless persons to be living in public

7 places because they cannot access and complete treatment while remaining in

8 temporary shelter. Meanwhile, the unhealthy and unsafe conditions associated with

9 prolonged homelessness worsen mental and physical health conditions – making

10 these individuals even less likely to be able to survive in temporary shelter and

11 creating a downward spiral of homelessness and mental or physical illness.

12

37. Permanent supportive housing is now considered by the federal

13 government and experts on homelessness as the best means of housing and treating

14 chronically homeless individuals, defined to include those experiencing extended or

15 repeated periods of homelessness who also suffer from a disabling condition. U.S.

16 Interagency Council on Homelessness, Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to

17 Prevent and End Homelessness 18 (2010) (“For people experiencing chronic

18 homelessness, the research is clear that permanent supportive housing using a

19 Housing First approach is the solution.”). Research has demonstrated that

20 permanent supportive housing is both effective at permanently reducing

21 homelessness and saves taxpayers money as compared to the costs of emergency

22 shelter and of cycling homeless persons through the criminal justice system. Id.

23 (reviewing results of 13 studies demonstrating that it is cheaper to provide

24 permanent supportive housing as compared to the costs of chronic homelessness,

25 including jail and health care costs).

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-12-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 14 of 26 Page ID #:14

1

History of Laguna Beach Homelessness Policy

2

Sipprelle Litigation and Settlement

3

38. The City, through LBPD, has a history of targeting disabled, homeless

4 persons for increased law enforcement, harassment, and scrutiny – and has been put

5 on notice that such conduct violates the rights of these disabled, homeless

6 individuals.

7

39. In December 2008, the ACLU of Southern California and co-counsel

8 filed suit on behalf of several disabled, homeless individuals challenging the City’s

9 policy and practice of enforcing Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“L.B.M.C.”) 10 section 18.04.0201 against disabled, homeless persons in a manner that criminalized

11 sleeping in all public places at night and conducting “sweeps” of beaches, parks,

12 and other public places at night and in the early morning to wake and harass

13 sleeping homeless persons, as well as other enforcement tactics that targeted

14 disabled, homeless individuals. Sipprelle v. City of Laguna Beach, No. 08-01447

15 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 23, 2008). The lawsuit sought injunctive and declaratory

16 relief and included claims for violating plaintiffs’ rights to due process, freedom

17 from cruel and unusual punishment, and under Title II of the ADA.

18

40. The case settled extremely quickly, without any decision from the

19 Court. In March 2009, the City of Laguna Beach repealed portions of L.B.M.C.

20 section 18.04.020 pertaining to camping and sleeping in public places. In the

21 settlement agreement, Defendants further agreed to limit enforcement of Penal

22 Code section 647(e) against homeless persons for camping or sleeping in public for

23 a period of two years.

24

25 1 L.B.M.C. section 18.04.020 provided that “No person shall pitch a tent or camp or 26 sleep upon any beach, park, public street, alley or passageway, or sleep in any
27 automobile parked at any place within the city; provided that between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m. it shall not be unlawful to sleep upon any beach within
28 the city.”

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-13-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 15 of 26 Page ID #:15

1

41. Despite the lawsuit and settlement, in November 2009, the City

2 enacted L.B.M.C. section 8.30.030, a new ordinance prohibiting camping and

3 sleeping in public areas, criminalizing the same involuntary activity as that

4 prohibited by the repealed L.B.M.C. section 18.04.020. LAGUNA BEACH, CAL.,

5 CODE § 8.30.030 (the “New Ordinance”). Specifically, the New Ordinance makes

6 it unlawful to sleep in public parks and beaches at night, on any public street or

7 sidewalk, or on City property and to camp in any public place. Camping is defined

8 broadly to include “residing in or using any public areas for living accommodation

9 or lodging purposes . . . with one’s possessions or while storing one’s possessions.”

10 LAGUNA BEACH, CAL., CODE § 8.30.020. While the definition of camping excludes

11 “merely sleeping outside or the use of a blanket, towel, or mat,” id., given the broad

12 language prohibiting residing in public areas with possessions and the extent of the

13 separate sleeping prohibition, it is impracticable for an unsheltered homeless

14 individual to sleep in compliance with the ordinance.

15

Creation of the Alternate Sleeping Location and

16

Need for Permanent Supportive Housing

17

42. At the same time the City enacted the New Ordinance, the City

18 authorized and funded the creation and operation of a small emergency shelter for

19 homeless individuals referred to as the “Alternate Sleeping Location” or “ASL.”

20 The City contends that the creation of the ASL allows it to legally enforce laws

21 prohibiting sleeping, camping, or lodging in public – despite its small size and

22 limited accessibility, especially for those with disabilities.

23

43. The ASL is currently operated by Friendship Shelter and funded by the

24 City (partially through federal Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”)

25 funds received through Orange County). It is located approximately two-and-a-half

26 miles outside of the downtown area, along Laguna Canyon Road—a twisting

27 roadway which runs from downtown Laguna Beach inland through Laguna Canyon

28 towards the City of Irvine. A van is provided to transport homeless individuals

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-14-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 16 of 26 Page ID #:16

1 from the downtown area to the ASL in the evening. Access to the ASL is limited –

2 on any given night 5-15 people are turned away because of a lack of capacity.

3

44. At the City’s behest, the ASL gives priority to those who can

4 demonstrate that they are “local Laguna Beach residents.” This residency

5 requirement for homeless individuals has an extremely high bar – individuals must

6 demonstrate that an immediate family member currently lives in Laguna Beach,

7 that they attended K-12 school in Laguna Beach, that they leased or paid utilities

8 for residential property in Laguna Beach, or that the LBPD knows them to have

9 been members of the Laguna Beach homeless community for at least 18 months.

10 However, these criteria are not applied evenly. Many disabled, homeless persons

11 who have lived in Laguna Beach for more longer than 18 months are not considered

12 “local Laguna Beach residents” by the City and/or the LBPD and are therefore less

13 likely to be able to access this shelter. This is in spite of the homeless persons’

14 multiple interactions with the LBPD over an 18-month period in some cases,

15 reflecting LBPD’s knowledge of the individuals’ local Laguna Beach resident

16 status under the operative definition.

17

45. An individual who does not meet this City residency requirement can

18 only receive shelter by appearing there in person each night and adding his or her

19 name to a waitlist. ASL staff members draw names from the waitlist to determine

20 who can stay at the shelter on that night. Individuals whose names are not selected

21 in this lottery cannot stay at the shelter, and there is no other legal place for them to

22 sleep within the City. In addition, the van does not transport individuals that are

23 turned away back to the downtown area, so such individuals typically end up

24 stranded two-and-a-half miles up Laguna Canyon Road. Their options are limited

25 to sleeping in the shelter parking lot, sleeping in the canyon near the shelter, or

26 undertaking the dangerous trek back to the downtown area and beaches to find a

27 place to sleep.

28

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-15-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 17 of 26 Page ID #:17

1

46. While the ASL was created to serve the needs of Laguna Beach’s

2 homeless population, almost entirely composed of those who are chronically

3 homeless, many individuals within this population cannot access the ASL because

4 they suffer from mental disabilities. As is typical of emergency shelter, the ASL is

5 extremely crowded, noisy, and chaotic. Chronically homeless individuals suffering

6 from certain mental health conditions – such as PTSD, bipolar disorder, severe

7 depression and anxiety, and schizophrenia – cannot tolerate this environment.

8 Some cannot stay at the shelter for even a night, while others can stay for a short

9 time before needing to leave. Still others try to stay at the ASL but are forced to

10 leave because their disabilities prevent them from being able to conform their

11 conduct to that required by ASL staff. Those who do stay at the ASL report not

12 being able to sleep because of the noise and the anxiety caused by the crowded,

13 chaotic environment, as well as worsening mental and physical health symptoms.

14

47. Shelter and housing options for chronically homeless persons with

15 disabilities are extremely limited in Laguna Beach. Although not part of Laguna’s

16 homelessness program, Friendship Shelter (the non-profit that manages the ASL)

17 also operates a transitional shelter that is constantly full with a waitlist and

18 otherwise is not appropriate for many chronically homeless persons. Friendship

19 Shelter also runs a small, scattered-site permanent supportive housing program that

20 serves the entire South Orange County area. This program caters to the needs of

21 disabled or chronically homeless persons; however, this program is typically full

22 with only rare openings.

23

48. Recognizing the dire need for permanent supportive housing to shelter

24 and treat Laguna Beach’s disabled, homeless population, Friendship Shelter and

25 several partner organizations have proposed creating a new permanent supportive

26 housing development. If built, this could significantly lower the number of

27 disabled, homeless persons who are unsheltered and untreated in Laguna Beach. In

28

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-16-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 18 of 26 Page ID #:18

1 addition, the proposed shelter is projected to result in cost-savings to the City,

2 overall. The City has not approved the proposal.

3

Renewed Enforcement

4

49. Soon after the expiration of the Sipprelle settlement agreement, the

5 City of Laguna Beach resumed its targeted harassment of disabled, homeless

6 individuals. LBPD officers routinely issue misdemeanor citations to disabled,

7 homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors – sometimes as violations of the New

8 Ordinance, but more commonly as violations of Penal Code section 647(e), which

9 defines disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, to include “lodg[ing] in any building,

10 structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the

11 owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it.”

12

50. Finally, the City imposes a beach curfew under which the beaches are

13 closed from 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. each night. LAGUNA BEACH, CAL., CODE §

14 18.05.010. Ostensibly, “no person shall enter, remain or stay on any city beach or

15 in any city park at any time when such beach or park is closed.” Id. § 18.05.020.

16 Yet, the L.B.M.C. also provides a number of exceptions for nearly every other

17 activity one would engage in at the beach—except sleeping. Id. § 18.05.040

18 (permitting walking, jogging, fishing, or grunion hunting, ... scuba diving, surfing,

19 or swimming in the ocean” while beaches are “closed”).

20

51. LBPD frequently enforces the New Ordinance and Penal Code section

21 647(e) against individuals who sleep outdoors because they cannot access the ASL

22 – either because the individuals failed to win a lottery spot or because the

23 individuals cannot tolerate the ASL due to their mental or physical disabilities.

24 Moreover, the City has relied more heavily on the beach curfew ordinances to

25 punish the same underlying conduct.

26

52. Individuals turned away from the ASL are stranded several miles out

27 of town and have limited options for lodging. None of those options complies with

28

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-17-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 19 of 26 Page ID #:19

1 the law. Individuals sleeping in the ASL parking lot have been cited by LBPD

2 officers even after explaining to the officers that they were turned away from the

3 ASL and had nowhere else to go. To avoid such citations, some individuals leave

4 the immediate area of the ASL and sleep in the brushy areas in the nearby canyon

5 instead. Others make their way back to the downtown or beach areas to seek a

6 hidden place to sleep. Both of these options are dangerous. In several high-profile

7 incidents in the last few years, homeless persons have died or been seriously injured

8 while traveling on the dark, winding stretch of Laguna Canyon Road between the

9 ASL and downtown or in the canyon. However, LBPD officers also seek out and

10 cite disabled, homeless persons for sleeping in the canyon area, downtown, or at the

11 beaches. No matter where they go, disabled, homeless persons cannot escape

12 punishment in Laguna Beach.

13

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

14

53. Plaintiffs seek to have a class certified under Rule 23(b)(2) of the

15 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

16

54. The class represented by the individual plaintiffs is defined as the class

17 of all persons who (a) are chronically homeless at the time judgment is entered; (b)

18 live in the City of Laguna Beach; and (c) suffer from a mental and/or physical

19 disability.

20

55. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.

21 Plaintiffs believe that currently between 40-100 disabled, homeless persons are

22 subject to Defendants’ unlawful policies, practices and customs. There are

23 questions of law and fact in common to all members of the class. The claims of the

24 representative parties are typical of the claims of the class members. The

25 representative parties will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.

26

56. Defendants’ policy or practice will affect all members of the class in

27 the same way, thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate to the

28 class as a whole.

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-18-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 20 of 26 Page ID #:20

1

57. The common questions of law to be determined are whether (a) the

2 City’s homelessness policy and practice denies benefits to, or otherwise

3 discriminates against, disabled, chronically homeless persons who require

4 permanent supportive housing to be stably housed and are subject to increased law

5 enforcement, harassment, and scrutiny because they cannot access existing shelter

6 in Laguna Beach because of their disabilities; (b) the issuance of criminal citations

7 to disabled, homeless persons forced to sleep outdoors because they cannot access

8 shelter or housing constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; and (c) the City’s

9 homelessness policy and practice violates disabled, homeless persons due process

10 rights by exposing them to an increased risk of danger. These questions of law are

11 common to all members of the class and predominate over any question affecting

12 individual class members.

13

58. The class representatives know of no conflict of interest among class

14 members. Plaintiffs are represented by the attorneys shown on the caption page,

15 including attorneys from the ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN

16 CALIFORNIA, who have experience litigating civil rights cases on behalf of

17 homeless and disabled plaintiffs, and private counsel from PAUL HASTINGS LLP,

18 all of whom will vigorously prosecute this action.

19

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

Violation of Title II of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12132)

21

59. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every

22 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 58 as though fully alleged herein.

23

60. In 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

24 U.S.C. §§ 12101 -12181 (“ADA”), in order to secure and advance the civil rights of

25 people with disabilities. The Congressional intent in enacting the ADA is “the

26 elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S. C. §

27 12101(b)(1). Congress thus found that “historically, society has tended to isolate

28 and segregate individuals with disabilities,” and that these forms of discrimination

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-19-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 21 of 26 Page ID #:21

1 “continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2).

2 Congress also determined that “the Nation’s proper goals regarding individuals

3 with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent

4 living, and economic sufficiency for such individuals.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(8).

5

61. Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a

6 disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be

7 denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be

8 subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

9

62. Each of the Plaintiffs is an individual with a mental or physical

10 disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and is subject to Defendants’

11 homelessness program by virtue of living in the City. Defendants’ homelessness

12 program – which comprises the City’s policy and practice of maintaining limited

13 shelter, often inaccessible to those with disabilities, combined with heavy law

14 enforcement (particularly under Penal Code section 647(e) and L.B.M.C. sections

15 8.30.030, 18.05.020), harassment, and scrutiny of those who are forced to sleep

16 outside because they cannot access this shelter – burdens disabled, homeless

17 persons in a manner different from and greater than the burdens experienced by

18 homeless persons who do not have disabilities.

19

63. Despite knowledge that the majority of homeless persons living in

20 Laguna Beach are chronically homeless and suffer from mental and/or physical

21 disabilities and that these individuals are frequently subject to citation or

22 harassment because they cannot access the ASL, Defendants have failed to modify

23 their homelessness program to accommodate Plaintiffs’ disabilities or the

24 disabilities of other homeless persons living in Laguna Beach. The provision of

25 permanent supportive housing and the cessation of heavy law enforcement,

26 harassment, and scrutiny, is necessary for many of the disabled, homeless persons

27 living in Laguna Beach, including Plaintiffs, and would constitute a reasonable

28 accommodation.

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-20-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 22 of 26 Page ID #:22

1

64. Further, despite knowing that the majority of homeless persons living

2 in Laguna Beach are chronically homeless and suffer from mental and/or physical

3 disabilities, Defendants often target such individuals with heightened law

4 enforcement, harassment, and scrutiny to discourage them from remaining in the

5 City.

6

65. The acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, including

7 devising and implementing a homelessness policy and practice combining minimal

8 shelter often inaccessible to disabled, homeless persons with heavy law

9 enforcement, harassment, and scrutiny of those who cannot access this shelter,

10 constitute discriminatory animus or deliberate indifference and violate the rights of

11 Plaintiffs under the ADA.

12

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

13

Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 706, 794)

14

66. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every

15 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 65 as though fully alleged herein.

16

67. Congress enacted the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 701 et

17 seq.) (the “Rehabilitation Act”) in order to “provid[e] individuals with disabilities

18 with the tools necessary to… achieve equality of opportunity, full inclusion and

19 integration in society, employment, independent living, and economic and social

20 self-sufficiency, for such individuals….”

21

68. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 706, 794) and

22 associated regulations (28 C.F.R. Parts 41 and 42) prohibit the exclusion of or

23 discrimination against an otherwise qualified disabled individual under any

24 program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

25

69. Defendants receive federal financial assistance within the meaning of

26 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. At minimum, Defendants’ homelessness

27 program is funded, in part, by CDBG funds received from the federal government

28 through the County of Orange.

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-21-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 23 of 26 Page ID #:23

1

70. Each of the Plaintiffs is an individual with a mental and/or physical

2 disability within the meaning of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and is subject

3 to Defendants’ homelessness program by virtue of living in the City. Defendants’

4 homelessness program – which comprises the City’s policy and practice of

5 maintaining limited shelter, often inaccessible to those with disabilities, combined

6 with heavy law enforcement (particularly under Penal Code section 647(e) and

7 L.B.M.C. sections 8.30.030, 18.05.020), harassment, and scrutiny of those who are

8 forced to sleep outside because they cannot access this shelter – burdens disabled,

9 homeless persons in a manner different from and greater than the burdens

10 experienced by homeless persons who do not have disabilities.

11

71. Despite knowledge that the majority of homeless persons living in

12 Laguna Beach are chronically homeless and suffer from mental and/or physical

13 disabilities and that these individuals are frequently subject to citation or

14 harassment because they cannot access the ASL, Defendants have failed to modify

15 their homelessness program to accommodate Plaintiffs’ disabilities or the

16 disabilities of other homeless persons living in Laguna Beach. The provision of

17 permanent supportive housing and cessation of heavy law enforcement, harassment,

18 and scrutiny, is necessary for many of the disabled, homeless persons living in

19 Laguna Beach, including Plaintiffs, and would constitute a reasonable

20 accommodation.

21

72. The acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, including

22 devising and implementing a homelessness policy and practice combining minimal

23 shelter often inaccessible to disabled, homeless persons with heavy law

24 enforcement, harassment, and scrutiny of those who cannot access this shelter,

25 constitute discriminatory animus or deliberate indifference and violate the rights of

26 Plaintiffs under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-22-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 24 of 26 Page ID #:24

1

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

3

and California Constitution §§ 7, 17 (Cruel and Unusual Punishment)

4

73. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every

5 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 72 as though fully alleged herein.

6

74. The acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, as described

7 herein, violate the rights of all plaintiffs to be free from actual or threatened cruel

8 and unusual punishment. By virtue of their involuntary status as homeless and

9 disabled, and the absence and insufficiency of shelter or housing in Laguna Beach,

10 Plaintiffs have no way to comply with the laws Defendants have sought and

11 continue to seek to enforce against them, in particular Penal Code section 647(e),

12 and L.B.M.C. sections 8.30.030, 18.05.020.

13

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

14

Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

15

and California Constitution § 7 (Substantive Due Process)

16

75. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every

17 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 74 as though fully alleged herein.

18

76. The acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, as described

19 herein, violate the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs under the Due Process Clause

20 of the United States Constitution. Defendants’ policy and practice of combining

21 minimal shelter, often inaccessible to those with disabilities with heavy law

22 enforcement (particularly under Penal Code section 647(e) and L.B.M.C. sections

23 8.30.030, 18.05.020), harassment, and threats against those who are forced to sleep

24 outside because they cannot access this shelter places Plaintiffs in a position of

25 increased physical danger. Defendants are aware of the danger because of several

26 high-profile incidents in which homeless individuals were killed or seriously

27 injured and have acted with deliberate indifference to this danger.

28

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-23-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 25 of 26 Page ID #:25

1

ACTUAL CONTROVERSY

2

77. There exists an actual controversy between Plaintiffs and Defendants

3 as to each and every Claim for Relief alleged herein. Plaintiffs have suffered and

4 will continue to suffer ongoing and continuous injuries so long as the City

5 continues its policy and practice of supporting only minimal shelter inaccessible to

6 and/or inappropriate for disabled, homeless persons while citing, harassing, and

7 threatening disabled, homeless persons who cannot access this shelter. These

8 controversies warrant judicial determinations. Absent relief from this Court,

9 Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury as a consequence of Defendants’

10 unconstitutional and illegal acts and omissions.

11

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

12

Plaintiffs request relief as follows:

13

1. A preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction, enjoining

14 Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees, from enforcing California Penal

15 Code section 647(e) and Laguna Beach Municipal Code sections 8.30.030,

16 18.05.020 against disabled, homeless individuals who have no practical way to

17 comply by virtue of their homelessness and disability;

18

2. A permanent injunction requiring Defendants to create and fund a

19 program to provide permanent supportive housing within the Laguna Beach city

20 limits sufficient to house the City’s disabled, homeless population;

21

3. For a declaration that Defendants’ past, present, and threatened future

22 actions deny Plaintiffs the benefits of the City’s Homelessness Program or subject

23 them to discrimination on the basis of their disabilities in violation of Title II of the

24 ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act;

25

4. For a declaration that Defendants’ past, present, and threatened future

26 actions violate Plaintiffs’ rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under

27 the Constitution of the United States and the California Constitution;

28

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-24-

Case 8:15-cv-01332 Document 1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 26 of 26 Page ID #:26

1

5. For a declaration that Defendants’ past, present, and threatened future

2 actions violate Plaintiffs’ rights to be free from due process violations under the

3 Constitution of the United States and the California Constitution;

4

6. For costs of suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988,

5 as well as the analogous provisions of California law;

6

7. For attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

7

8. For such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

8

9 DATED: August 20, 2015
10

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and PAUL HASTINGS LLP

11

12

By: /s/ Heather Maria Johnson

HEATHER MARIA JOHNSON 13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

-25-

 
 Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 99 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:1303

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-1332 AG (DFMx)

Date February 10, 2016

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

ANDREW J. GUILFORD

Lisa Bredahl Deputy Clerk

Not Present Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings:

[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs Katrina Aune, Jeffrey Aiken, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, and David Sestini are a group of homeless, disabled persons suing Defendants City of Laguna Beach (“the City”) and its police department (“LBPD”) for claims relating to their homelessness program. Plaintiffs seek to represent a provisional class of homeless, disabled persons living in Laguna Beach. Pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Prelim. Inj. Motion, Dkt. No. 29.) Plaintiffs also bring a Motion for Provisional Class Certification, where they seek to certify a provisional class of homeless, disabled persons living in Laguna Beach for the limited purpose of seeking a preliminary injunction. (Provisional Class Cert. Motion, Dkt. No. 30.)

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Thus, the Court need not address Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Class Certification brought for the sole purpose of seeking a preliminary injunction.

In denying Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction Motion, the Court is keenly aware of the stakes of this case. On one hand, the plight of the homeless cannot be ignored. A community’s moral and ethical values may be best reflected in how it treats its most vulnerable. Providing
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 13

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 99 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:1304

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-1332 AG (DFMx)

Date February 10, 2016

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

a roof and a warm meal to those in need reflects true human goodness. But the other hand carries an equally heavy burden — whether the judiciary can impose a legal obligation on a city to address problems affecting the homeless. Imposing such an obligation implicates both federalism and separation of powers, the underpinnings of our legal system. Weighing these two countervailing burdens requires more factual development and legal analysis than is present before the Court at this early stage of the case.
1. BACKGROUND
First, some background. Plaintiffs are homeless persons living in Laguna Beach who have been diagnosed with mental or physical disabilities, such as bipolar disorder, depression, and schizophrenia. (Aiken Decl. ¶ 3; Sestini Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3.)
Plaintiffs challenge the City’s homelessness program. The current program’s origins date back to 2008, when the City was sued for alleged violations of due process, the Eighth Amendment, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) relating to the City’s treatment of homeless, disabled persons in Laguna Beach. (See Johnson Decl., Ex. D ¶ 6 (Complaint in Siprelle v. City of Laguna Beach, No. 08-01447 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 23, 2008)).) The parties quickly settled. (Johnson Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. E.) As part of the settlement, the City repealed certain municipal ordinances prohibiting camping and sleeping in public places. (Id. at 2–3.) The City also agreed to limit its enforcement of California Penal Code Section 647(e) against homeless persons for two years. (Id.) Section 647(e) makes it a misdemeanor to “lodge[] in any building, structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it.” Cal. Penal Code § 647(e).
After that lawsuit settled, the City created the homelessness program that Plaintiffs challenge here. The program has a few moving parts. Two are especially relevant for this Motion.
First, in October 2008, the City enacted Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020, which prohibit camping and sleeping in public areas, such as public parks, beaches, or sidewalks (collectively with Section 647(e), the “anti-camping provisions”).
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 13

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 99 Filed 02/10/16 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:1305

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-1332 AG (DFMx)

Date February 10, 2016

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

The City also issued a bulletin to LBPD officers stating that “the City can effectively reinstitute its enforcement of [Section] 647(e) . . . when a person claims to be residing on or occupying public property out of necessity.” (Johnson Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. H at 1.) LBPD issued 160 misdemeanor citations in 2011 and 225 citations between January 2012 and June 2014 for violation of the anti-camping provisions. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 14, Ex. L, M)
Second, in November 2009, the City opened a permanent emergency shelter, also called the “Alternative Sleeping Location” or “ASL.” (Johnson Decl., Ex. G.) The ASL can shelter 45 people per night. (Id.) The City gives priority to Laguna Beach locals who meet certain residency criteria. (Id. ¶ 11, Ex. I.) If someone doesn’t meet the residency criteria, they must enter a lottery to get a spot at the ASL for the night. (See Aiken Decl. ¶ 6; Sestini Decl. ¶ 5.)
Plaintiffs criticize the City’s homelessness program from multiple angles, including that the City doesn’t correctly apply the ASL residency criteria, that the ASL environment is intolerable to disabled persons, and that the ASL improperly bans persons whose disabilities make it difficult for them to conform to the rules. (See, e.g., Prelim. Inj. Motion at 12–13.) Setting the specifics aside, Plaintiffs’ core argument is that “Defendants have designed a homelessness program that denies disabled individuals a safe, legal alternative to police enforcement by only offering a single emergency shelter with too little capacity and in a form known and intended to be inaccessible to many disabled homeless persons.” (Id. at 12.)
In the pending Motion, Plaintiffs seek the following preliminary relief.
The City of Laguna Beach and the Laguna Beach Police Department, and their agents, servants, employees, and those in active concert or participation with them (collectively “Defendants”), are restrained and enjoined pending trial of this action from enforcing or threatening to enforce — either through written citation and/or written or verbal warnings, and/or threats — California Penal Code section 647(e) and Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 for merely sleeping, resting, or lying down with their belongings, against disabled, homeless individuals in public outdoor places, where their disability and homelessness is either: (1) known to Defendants; or (2) reasonably apparent to Defendants. Defendants are restrained and
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 3 of 13

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 99 Filed 02/10/16 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:1306

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-1332 AG (DFMx)

Date February 10, 2016

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

enjoined from enforcing these laws in the manner described in the City of Laguna Beach between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., except at the Alternative Sleeping Location (“ASL”) where Defendants are restrained and enjoined from enforcing these laws in a manner described at any time of day.
(Preliminary Injunction Reply at 23.)
2. STANDING AND EVIDENTIARY MATTERS
2.1 Named Plaintiffs Seeking Relief
Since filing their Motion, some named Plaintiffs — including Katina Aune, Lisa Holbrook, and John Miller — have received housing. (Prelim. Inj. Reply, Dkt. No. 81 at 1 n.1.) Those Plaintiffs no longer seek a preliminary injunction on behalf of a provisional class. (Class Cert. Reply, Dkt. No. 80 at 1 n.1.) That leaves only Plaintiffs David Sestini and Jeffrey Aiken who seek a preliminary injunction. (Id.) Both Sestini and Aiken have been cited for sleeping outdoors. (Aiken Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. A (citation for LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020); Sestini Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. A (citation for Penal Code Section 647(e)).) Both Plaintiffs therefore have standing at this time to challenge the City’s enforcement of those respective ordinances.
2.2 Objections
Both sides cite multiple objections to each others’ evidence. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ declarations that Plaintiffs were diagnosed with mental health disabilities as hearsay. (See Dkt. No. 48 at 2 (objecting to Aiken’s declaration); id. at 18 (objecting to Sestini’s declaration).) But “[a] district court may . . . consider hearsay in deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction.” Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1083 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, Defendants’ objections to those declarations are OVERRULED.
Defendants also object to Plaintiffs’ declarations that the ASL is a “high stress environment” and that its conditions worsen their mental health as improper expert testimony. (See Dkt. No. 48, at 3–4 (objecting to Aiken’s declaration); id. at 19–20 (objecting to Sestini’s
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 4 of 13

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 99 Filed 02/10/16 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:1307

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-1332 AG (DFMx)

Date February 10, 2016

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

declaration).) Those objections are granted in part and denied in part. The objections to the declarations that are based on Plaintiffs’ personal perceptions of the ASL’s conditions are OVERRULED because they are proper lay opinion under Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The objections to the declarations that ASL’s conditions worsen Plaintiffs’ mental health are GRANTED as improper expert testimony by lay witnesses under Rule 701.
The Court reviewed and analyzed each of Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ remaining objections. Those objections are MOOT because the Court did not rely on the evidence under objection. See Burch v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. , 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1118, 1122 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (concluding that “the court will [only] proceed with any necessary rulings on defendants’ evidentiary objections”). At the hearing on this Order, the parties didn’t contest the Court’s rulings on their objections.
4. LEGAL STANDARD
Preliminary injunctions are “extraordinary” provisional remedies issued before the final disposition of a case. Brown v. Chote, 411 U.S. 452, 456 (1973). They generally serve to maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable loss of rights before judgment. See Sierra OnLine, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiffs have a steep climb to show a preliminary injunction is warranted. Specifically, Plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctions must show that they are likely to succeed on the merits, they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in their favor, and an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see also Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (applying the Winter four-element test). When the government is the opposing party, the final two factors merge. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). Because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, issued before the parties engage in motions practice or complete discovery, a district court should only issue one “upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 7.
Plaintiffs’ climb becomes steeper when they seek to enjoin government activity. As the Supreme Court has stated, “[w]hen a plaintiff seeks to enjoin the activity of a government
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 5 of 13

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 99 Filed 02/10/16 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:1308

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-1332 AG (DFMx)

Date February 10, 2016

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

agency, even within a unitary court system, his case must contend with the well-established rule that the Government has traditionally been granted the widest latitude in the dispatch of its own internal affairs.” Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378–79 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs face an even steeper climb when Plaintiffs request a federal court to enjoin local government activity. Id. (“[F]ederal courts must be constantly mindful of the ‘special delicacy of the adjustment to be preserved between federal equitable power and State administration of its own law.’” (citations omitted)).
5. ANALYSIS
5.1 Likelihood of Success on the Merits of Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment Claim
The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” It limits the criminal process in three ways: (1) “it limits the kinds of punishment that can be imposed on those convicted of crimes,” (2) “it proscribes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime,” and (3) “it imposes substantive limits on what can be made criminal and punished as such.” Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 667 (1977). The third limitation — that is the basis of Plaintiffs’ challenge to the City’s enforcement efforts — is “to be applied sparingly.” Id.
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by criminalizing “the status of being disabled and homeless in Laguna Beach.” (Prelim. Inj. Motion at 11.) In Reply, Plaintiffs qualify that argument by asserting that Defendants acted unconstitutionally by criminalizing “the status of being disabled and homeless in Laguna Beach when adequate alternative shelter is lacking.” (Prelim. Inj. Reply at 11.) Even with that qualification, the Court is not convinced at this stage that the law or facts show that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Eighth Amendment claim.
Legally, Plaintiffs cite no authority that persuades the Court to find at this stage that criminalizing the acts of sleeping or camping in public places unconstitutionally criminalizes the status of being homeless and disabled in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiffs
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 6 of 13

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 99 Filed 02/10/16 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:1309

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-1332 AG (DFMx)

Date February 10, 2016

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

cite Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), for the proposition that it is cruel and unusual to criminalize a person’s status. (Prelim. Inj. Motion at 11.) In Robinson, the Supreme Court held that a statute criminalizing the status of being a narcotic addict was cruel and unusual. Robinson, 370 U.S. at 667. Plaintiffs rely on Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006) vacated, 505 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2007), to argue that the City’s enforcement of the anticamping provisions unconstitutionally criminalizes the status of being homeless and disabled under Robinson.
In Jones, the Ninth Circuit held that the City of Los Angeles violated the Eighth Amendment by criminalizing “the unavoidable act of sitting, lying, or sleeping at night while being involuntarily homeless.” Id. at 1132. The Jones majority analyzed the Supreme Court’s decision in Robinson and the concurring and dissenting opinions in Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968), to “stand for the proposition that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the state from punishing an involuntary act or condition if it is the unavoidable consequence of one’s status or being.” Id. at 1135. From this proposition, the Jones majority found that Los Angeles’ anti-camping ordinance violated the Eighth Amendment by criminalizing homeless persons who “are in a chronic state [of homelessness] that may have been acquired innocently or involuntarily.” Id. at 1136 (internal quotation marks omitted).
For at least two reasons, Plaintiffs’ reliance on Jones fails to persuade the Court at this stage that the reasoning or facts of Robinson extends to Plaintiffs’ claim. First, the Ninth Circuit later vacated its decision in Jones. It therefore is not binding authority. See Durning v. Citibank, N.A., 950 F.2d 1419, 1424 n.2 (9th Cir. 1991) (“A decision may be reversed on other grounds, but a decision that has been vacated has no precedential authority whatsoever.” (citing O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 578 n.2 (1975) (“Of necessity our decision vacating the judgment of the Court of Appeals deprives that court’s opinion of precedential effect, leaving this Court’s opinion and judgment as the sole law of the case.”))).
Second, the reasoning of Jones is not persuasive enough to show that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim. Indeed, Judge Rymer dissented in Jones and criticized the majority for relying on “dissenting opinions and dicta in the concurring opinion in Powell.” 444 F.3d at
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 7 of 13

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 99 Filed 02/10/16 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:1310

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-1332 AG (DFMx)

Date February 10, 2016

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

1139 (Rymer, J., dissenting). Judge Rymer wrote that “[n]either the Supreme Court nor any other circuit court of appeals has ever held that conduct derivative of a status may not be criminalized.” Id. Other courts in this Circuit have also questioned the persuasiveness of Jones in similar factual settings. See Lehr v. City of Sacramento, 624 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1231 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (criticizing the analysis in Jones as “tenuous at best,” rejecting the logic of the majority, and accepting the dissent as “more persuasive and well-reasoned”). Thus, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Eighth Amendment claim based on their legal theory that criminalizing an involuntary act of sleeping or camping in a public place is “inseparable from Plaintiffs’ status or condition of being homeless.” (Prelim. Inj. Motion at 15.)
Factually, the Court is also not persuaded that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim. Even if the Court was persuaded by the reasoning in Jones, the Court isn’t convinced that Jones shows that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed. In Jones, there was “substantial and undisputed evidence that the number of homeless persons in Los Angeles far exceeds the number of available shelter beds at all times.” Jones, 444 F.3d at 1132. Other circuit courts have also held that “Powell at the least contemplates a heavy burden of proof” for someone to escape liability because she was compelled to act in a way that violated the law. Watson v. United States, 439 F.2d 442, 451 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Marshall v. United States, 414 U.S. 417 (1974).
Plaintiffs argue that “Plaintiffs have no choice but to sleep in public because they cannot access or tolerate the ASL.” (Prelim. Inj. Motion at 14.) But, unlike Jones, Plaintiffs here have not presented “substantial and undisputed evidence” to support that argument. For instance, Plaintiffs assert that “Laguna Beach’s homelessness population far exceeds 44 people,” but don’t provide persuasive evidence in support. (Prelim. Inj. Reply at 5.) Defendants suggest that the number is below 20. (Opp’n at 8 n.1 (citing Farris Decl. ¶ 24).) The parties’ dispute may stem from their different definitions of who qualifies as a “Laguna Beach resident.” (See, e.g., Prelim. Inj. Reply at 5 (characterizing Defendant’s estimates of the “local” homeless population as “skewed”).) In light of such disputed evidence on a critical fact — whether the Plaintiffs lack a “safe, legal place to sleep” because the ASL is too small — the Court isn’t persuaded that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Eighth Amendment claim. See Dymo
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 8 of 13

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 99 Filed 02/10/16 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:1311

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-1332 AG (DFMx)

Date February 10, 2016

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

Indus., Inc. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964) (“[O]n application for preliminary injunction the court is not bound to decide doubtful and difficult questions of law or disputed questions of fact.”). Nor have Plaintiffs persuaded the Court that Plaintiffs lack a “safe, legal place to sleep” because some cannot tolerate the ASL’s conditions or because the ASL’s safety rules are overly strict.
Legally and factually, Plaintiffs have not persuaded the Court that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their Eighth Amendment claim. Plaintiffs may persuade the Court at a future point that the law and the facts justify a limitation on substantive criminal law — a limitation that the Supreme Court says is “to be applied sparingly.” Ingraham, 430 U.S. at 667. But, at this early stage, the Court agrees with Defendants that restricting the City’s enforcement of a state statute and municipal ordinances “should occur only after a rigorous review of a robust and complete evidentiary record.” (Prelim. Inj. Opp’n at 10.)
5.2 Likelihood of Success on the Merits of Plaintiffs’ ADA and Rehabilitation
Act Claim
Plaintiffs have also not met their burden to show that they are likely to prevail on their ADA and Rehabilitation Act claim.
5.2.1 Legal Standard
Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Title II protects individuals not only from intentional discrimination or policies that have a disparate impact on disabled persons, but also from policies where public entities can make “reasonable accommodations that are necessary to level the playing field.” McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1267 (9th Cir. 2004).
To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, Plaintiffs must prove that (1) they are
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 9 of 13

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 99 Filed 02/10/16 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:1312

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-1332 AG (DFMx)

Date February 10, 2016

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

individuals with disabilities, (2) they are “otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of some public entity’s services, programs, or activities,” (3) they were “either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the public entity’s services, programs, or activities, or otherwise discriminated against by the public entity,” and (4) “such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of [their] disabilit[ies].” McGary, 386 F.3d at 1265 (citation omitted). A violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, requires the same showings, plus a showing that the program providing the benefits or services receives federal financial assistance. Id.
“[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the elements of the prima facie case, including — if needed — ‘the existence of a reasonable accommodation’ that would enable him to participate in the program, service, or activity at issue. The public entity may then rebut this by showing that the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration or would produce an undue burden.” Pierce v. Cty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1217 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(a)(3)) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
5.2.2 Plaintiffs’ Claim
Plaintiffs identify the “benefit” denied to them by the City in violation of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act as “the provision of a safe, legal place to sleep.” (Prelim. Inj. Motion at 18.) They argue that the City has denied this benefit because the ASL is either “an inaccessible or inappropriate place for them to sleep.” (Id. at 19.) Plaintiffs propose a two-pronged “reasonable accommodation” to enable them to participate in the homelessness program’s benefit — for the City to provide “permanent supportive housing” and to stop enforcing the anti-camping provisions against disabled, homeless persons. (Id. at 21.) The Court has a few concerns with this theory.
For instance, the Court is concerned that “the provision of a safe, legal place to sleep” is not focused enough to amount to a “benefit” under the ADA. See Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 303 (1985) (finding that plaintiffs failed to identify a particular service as the “benefit” provided under Medicaid, but rather identified an amorphous general aim of providing “adequate health care”); see also Rodriguez v. City of New York, 197 F.3d 611, 618 (2d Cir. 1999)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 10 of 13

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 99 Filed 02/10/16 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:1313

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-1332 AG (DFMx)

Date February 10, 2016

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

(finding that appellees failed to focus on “particular services provided by appellants”). Plaintiffs’ lengthy list of grievances with the City’s homelessness program, however wellfounded, reaffirm that Plaintiffs are not likely focusing their ADA claim on any particular service provided by the City, but instead on the amorphous aim of “the provision of a safe, legal place to sleep.” The Court isn’t persuaded that this identified “benefit” is specific and focused enough to be actionable under the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Even if “the provision of a safe, legal place to sleep” was a benefit actionable under the ADA, the Court isn’t convinced that Plaintiffs have identified a “reasonable accommodation” that would enable them “to participate in the program, service, or activity at issue.” Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1217. To start, Plaintiffs identify “permanent supportive housing” as one prong of their proposed “reasonable accommodation.” Defendants argue that providing permanent supportive housing would “fundamentally alter the nature of the service provided by the City and force the City to create an entirely new service.” (Prelim. Inj. Opp’n at 11, 15.) The Ninth Circuit seems to support Defendants’ argument. It stated that “[i]t is clear from the language of Title II and the integration regulation that public entities are not required to create new programs that provide heretofore unprovided services to assist disabled persons.” Townsend v. Quasim, 328 F.3d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 2003). “Nor, ordinarily, must public entities make modifications that would fundamentally alter existing programs and services administered pursuant to policies that do not facially discriminate against the disabled.” Id. (citing 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)). Indeed, the Northern District of California found that transforming an emergency adult shelter into long-term housing for persons with disabilities was a “fundamental alteration” under the ADA. Rose v. Rhorer, No. 13-cv-03502-WHO, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64550, at *12–13 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2014) (granting summary judgment on plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief under the ADA). Defendants’ argument that permanent supportive housing is not a “reasonable accommodation” is persuasive enough at this stage to cast doubt on the likelihood that Plaintiffs will succeed on their ADA claim.
Further, the Court isn’t persuaded that enjoining the City from enforcing the anti-camping provisions will allow Plaintiffs to access the benefits of the City’s homelessness program. In
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 11 of 13

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 99 Filed 02/10/16 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:1314

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-1332 AG (DFMx)

Date February 10, 2016

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

their Motion, Plaintiffs focus their ADA claim on their grievances with the ASL. They argue that the ASL “environment does not accommodate their disabilities” because Plaintiffs “cannot tolerate the conditions by reason of their disability” or because Plaintiffs are banned from the ASL due to its “strict and overprotective rules and policies” that don’t accommodate Plaintiffs’ disabilities. (See Prelim. Inj. Reply at 14–15; see also Prelim. Inj. Motion at 20–21.) They also provide supporting declarations to show that directing Plaintiffs to nearby Armories after they don’t receive a spot at the ASL doesn’t accommodate their disabilities. (See, e.g., Henwood Supp. Decl. (declaring that navigating the bus system to an armory may worsen homeless persons’ mental disabilities); see also Holbrook Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7 (declaring that she never heard about guaranteed admission passes to the Armories or that the ASL would have too few bus passes to reach the Armories).)
It seems that the thrust of Plaintiffs’ ADA claim hinges not on the City’s enforcement of the anti-camping provisions, but on whether the City has made reasonable accommodations for disabled persons to access the ASL. Despite detailing all of their grievances with the ASL’s conditions and policies, Plaintiffs “are not requesting that Defendants alter the ASL.” (Prelim. Inj. Reply at 17.) Instead, they insist that their focus is on seeking permanent supportive housing and stopping the City from enforcing the anti-camping provisions. But Plaintiffs don’t show how enjoining the City from enforcing the anti-camping provisions would make the ASL more accessible or appropriate for disabled persons. Nor do they show how such relief would help Plaintiffs access another “safe, legal place to sleep.” The Court doesn’t assume that Plaintiffs are suggesting that sleeping on the streets is their proposed “safe, legal” alternative, as Plaintiffs’ own declarations describe the stress of living on the streets. (See Sestini Decl. ¶ 9 (“Sleeping outside is also very stressful . . . .”).)
The disconnect between Plaintiffs’ requested relief and their ADA claim provides another grounds to deny the Motion. In their Motion, Plaintiffs request that the Court preliminarily enjoin Defendants from enforcing the anti-camping provisions. They don’t request a preliminary injunction to provide permanent supportive housing, as that relief would be by definition permanent and not provisional. Plaintiffs have not shown, however, how granting only one prong of their identified two-prong “reasonable accommodation” will effectively remedy their ADA claim. It is a “settled rule that in federal equity cases ‘the nature of the
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 12 of 13

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 99 Filed 02/10/16 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:1315

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-1332 AG (DFMx)

Date February 10, 2016

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

violation determines the scope of the remedy.’” Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 378. In Plaintiffs’ words, plaintiffs cannot seek “a remedy that [is] aligned with the nature of the violation.” (Prelim. Inj. Reply at 4 (interpreting Rizzo).) Similarly here, Plaintiffs’ requested relief — a preliminary injunction to stop enforcing the anti-camping provisions — is not aligned with the nature of the alleged ADA violation. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to show that the preliminary injunction will effectively remedy their ADA claim. See Va. Ry. Co. v. Sys. Fed’n No. 40, 300 U.S. 515, 550 (1937) (“[A] court of equity may refuse to give any relief when it is apparent that which it can give will not be effective or of benefit to the plaintiff.”).
Those concerns, among others, show that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of their ADA claim and that a preliminary injunction is not warranted at this time. Because Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the claims, the Court need not consider whether Plaintiffs have satisfied the additional requirements for a preliminary injunction. But the Court notes that these may provide additional bases to deny the Motion.
6. DISPOSITION
The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

Initials of Preparer lmb

:0

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 13 of 13

 
 Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 34 Page ID #:1396

1 BELINDA ESCOBOSA HELZER (SB# 214178) bescobosahelzer@aclusocal.org
2 ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Orange County Office
3 1851 E. First Street, Suite 450 Santa Ana, CA 92705
4 Telephone: (714) 450-3962 Facsimile: (714) 543-5240
5 DAVID M. HERNAND (SB# 162733)
6 davidhernand@paulhastings.com ANDREW B. GROSSMAN (SB# 211546)
7 andrewgrossman@paulhastings.com KATHERINE F. MURRAY (SB# 211987)
8 katherinemurray@paulhastings.com PAUL HASTINGS LLP
9 515 South Flower Street Twenty-Fifth Floor
10 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 683-6000
11 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SOUTHERN DIVISION

16

17

Kenneth Glover; David Sestini; Douglas Frederes Jr.; Jeffrey Aiken;

CASE NO. 8:15-CV-01332-AG-DFM

18

Katrina Aune; John Miller; Lisa Holbrook, Richard Owens, James Scott

CLASS ACTION

19

Rudolph, and Michael Newman, individually, and on behalf of all others

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND

20 similarly situated

DECLARATORY RELIEF

21

Plaintiffs,

22

vs.

23

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH; THE LAGUNA BEACH POLICE

24

DEPARTMENT, a California charter city

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and California Constitution, Art. I. sec. 7, 17 Judge: Hon. Andrew J. Guilford Ctrm: 10D

25

Defendants.

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 34 Page ID #:1397

1

1. Plaintiffs, chronically homeless individuals with disabilities who live

2 in the City of Laguna Beach, bring this litigation against Defendants City of Laguna

3 Beach (“City”) and Laguna Beach Police Department (“LBPD”) for violation of

4 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12132), Section 504 of

5 the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 706, 794), the Eighth and Fourteenth

6 Amendments to the United States Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983); and Article I,

7 sections 7 and 17 of the California Constitution. Defendants’ homelessness

8 program primarily consists of: an isolated congregate shelter facility that is

9 inaccessible to many homeless individuals with disabilities, and that lacks capacity

10 to serve all of the homeless individuals with disabilities who need shelter; and

11 heavy law enforcement scrutiny and periodic incarceration of individuals who are

12 forced to sleep outside because they cannot access the City’s homelessness

13 program. In operating its homelessness program, Defendants have made funding

14 choices that prioritize law enforcement supervision and detention of homeless

15 individuals with disabilities over services that would divert these individuals from

16 criminal justice involvement and would enable them to live safely in the

17 community. By their actions and inactions, Defendants are discriminating against,

18 criminalizing, and endangering disabled, homeless persons and, in so doing,

19 violating their civil rights.

20

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

21

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

22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (in that this case arises under the Constitution of the

23 United States); § 1343(a)(3) (in that it is brought to redress deprivations, under

24 color of state authority, of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United

25 States Constitution); § 1343(a)(4) (in that it seeks to secure equitable relief under an

26 Act of Congress, specifically under Title II of the ADA, Section 504 of the

27 Rehabilitation Act, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); and the Declaratory Judgment

28 Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202.

PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

-1-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 3 of 34 Page ID #:1398

1

3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant City of Laguna

2 Beach (“Laguna Beach” or “the City”) because it is a political subdivision of the

3 State of California located in Orange County and Defendant Laguna Beach Police

4 Department (“LBPD”) because it operates in Orange County and enforces the

5 City’s laws.

6

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

7 1391(b). Defendants are located in the Central District and all of the acts and/or

8 omissions complained of herein have occurred or will occur in this District.

9

INTRODUCTION

10

5. Laguna Beach, one of the most affluent communities in the country,

11 operates a homelessness program that is inaccessible to many homeless individuals

12 with disabilities living in the City, that lacks capacity to shelter countless homeless

13 residents with disabilities, and that relies upon law enforcement scrutiny and

14 harassment of homeless individuals with disabilities who have no option other than

15 to sleep outside. Without accessible shelter, and subject to hostile police

16 interactions, these homeless individuals with disabilities experience deteriorating

17 mental and physical health and related behavioral challenges. The funding choices

18 made by Laguna Beach prioritize law enforcement supervision and detention of

19 homeless individuals with disabilities over services that would divert these

20 individuals from criminal justice involvement and would allow them to live safely

21 in the community.

22

6. Earlier litigation brought by the ACLU against the City based on the

23 same pattern of law enforcement harassment and scrutiny resulted in a settlement

24 limiting such enforcement. It also led to the creation of an “Alternate Sleeping

25 Location” (“ASL”), a congregate shelter-like facility, which sleeps 45 individuals

26 on the floor on thin mats. The ASL is inaccessible to many homeless individuals

27 with disabilities, and lacks capacity to serve all who need shelter. Despite this, the

28 City uses the existence of the ASL to justify its heavy use of law enforcement

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-2-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 4 of 34 Page ID #:1399

1 against disabled, homeless persons, based on their status, as appropriate and legally

2 permissible.

3

7. Many homeless individuals with disabilities cannot access the City’s

4 homelessness program. Many cannot tolerate the crowded, noisy, and chaotic

5 environment of the ASL. Some can only stay in the ASL environment for a short

6 period before they experience deterioration in their mental condition that forces

7 them to leave. Others are kicked out because their disabilities prevent them from

8 being able to conform to the ASL’s requirements. Sometimes there are no spots left

9 in the ASL. When homeless individuals with disabilities cannot access the ASL,

10 they have no safe, legal place to sleep within the City, and are at risk of criminal

11 citation for merely sleeping or lying down with their belongings. The risk of

12 criminal sanctions adds increased anxiety and fear to the inherent stress and dangers

13 of living outdoors. And as individuals remain unsheltered, their mental and

14 physical health worsens. Without shelter or other supports, many become

15 incarcerated.

16

8. Despite knowing that the vast majority of homeless persons in Laguna

17 Beach have disabilities and that many of these individuals cannot access the ASL

18 because of their disabilities, the City has failed to create safe accessible sleeping

19 alternatives, and has persisted in its strategy of heavy law enforcement. Numerous

20 disabled, homeless persons who cannot access or who have been excluded from the

21 City’s homelessness program, have been cited for sleeping or resting in public –

22 innocent activities they cannot avoid while they remain in Laguna Beach. LBPD

23 uses a variety of prohibitions to target those they find sleeping in public outdoor

24 spaces, including California Penal Code (“Penal Code”) section 647(e) (prohibits

25 “lodging” in public), and Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“L.B.M.C.”) sections

26 8.30. 030 (prohibits “camping” in public), 18.05.020 (beach curfew). Many

27 disabled, homeless individuals who receive these citations are unable to pay the fine

28 and/or are unable to travel to appear in court. Therefore, many of these citations go

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-3-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 5 of 34 Page ID #:1400

1 to warrant, exposing disabled, homeless individuals living in Laguna Beach to more

2 fines, which they have no means to pay, and/or jail time.

3

9. Homeless individuals who are unable to access the ASL often travel

4 dangerous routes to avoid interactions with the police which may result in

5 harassment or citation. For example, individuals may travel on foot along the dark,

6 winding roadway back to town or seek refuge in the canyon around the shelter.

7 These options are risky – in at least five high-profile incidents in the past several

8 years, homeless persons have been killed or seriously injured along this roadway or

9 in the canyon.

10

10. Because of this discriminatory, unlawful and unconstitutional conduct

11 of the City and the LBPD, Plaintiffs bring this action for preliminary and permanent

12 injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and nominal damages. This action is based

13 upon the rights secured to Plaintiffs by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities

14 Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (the “ADA”); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

15 (the “Rehabilitation Act”) and under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

16 United States Constitution, and Article I, sections 7 and 17 of the California

17 Constitution.

18

PARTIES

19

Plaintiffs

20

11. Plaintiffs are chronically homeless individuals with disabilities who

21 live in Laguna Beach. Each Plaintiff has either experienced homelessness for an

22 extended period or has repeatedly cycled in and out of homelessness, and each has a

23 disability. As disabled, homeless individuals living in Laguna Beach, Plaintiffs

24 face constant scrutiny as they try to navigate and cope with the resources and

25 restraints that comprise the City’s homelessness program, including the limited,

26 often inaccessible, ASL and risks of criminal citation when they cannot access this

27 shelter. The constant scrutiny often worsens their mental and physical health. Each

28 Plaintiff needs an accessible alternative to the ASL.

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-4-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 6 of 34 Page ID #:1401

1 Kenneth Glover

2

12. Plaintiff KENNETH GLOVER is a forty-seven-year-old, chronically

3 homeless Orange County native. He was raised in Laguna Niguel and Dana Point,

4 but moved to Laguna Beach in 2011 and considers it his home. Glover was

5 employed as a commercial fisherman, but lost his job during the recession. He has

6 been diagnosed with depression and alcoholism.

7

13. Despite living in Laguna Beach for four years, Glover is not

8 considered a “Laguna Beach homeless resident” by the City. While currently 9 housed through a county program,1 when he used the ASL he could only sleep there

10 when he won the lottery for an empty space. For several years, Glover used the

11 lottery system to obtain sleeping space about twice per week. Plaintiff Glover

12 found staying at the ASL very stressful; he experienced difficulty sleeping there

13 because of the noise and commotion, and often had nightmares while staying there.

14

14. On nights when he did not get a space at the ASL, Plaintiff Glover had

15 no legal place to sleep. On September 6, 2012, Glover slept in the parking lot of

16 the ASL after having been turned away. He was discovered by police the next

17 morning and cited for violating Penal Code section 647(e). On another occasion, he

18 was discovered by police at around 9:30 p.m. after being put on the “alternate” list

19 for the ASL. The LBPD told Glover he had to leave town and provided him with a

20 bus pass to get to the Armory Shelter in Fullerton. However, after the long bus ride

21 from Laguna Beach to Fullerton, the Armory Shelter had already closed its doors

22 for the evening and Glover was forced to sleep outdoors in an unfamiliar city.

23 After that, Glover tried to avoid sleeping in the ASL parking lot. Instead, Glover

24 would journey two and a half miles along Laguna Canyon Road by foot or bike in

25 the dark to find a place to sleep on the beach or in surrounding areas where he could

26 avoid the police and local residents. In 2012, Glover was riding his bicycle along

27 1 Soon after this action was filed, Glover was placed in housing by Orange County
28 through a one-time, limited-funded grant.

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-5-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 7 of 34 Page ID #:1402

1 Laguna Canyon Road after being unable to secure a spot at the ASL and was hit by

2 a car. As a result of the accident, he acquired a disabling injury to his right hand

3 that has made it more difficult to find work.

4

15. Glover was not always successful in avoiding LBPD’s attention – he

5 was cited for sleeping on the beach in violation of L.B.M.C. section 18.05.020 on

6 May 30, 2014, and June 7, 2014. In addition, he was cited for “camping” under

7 L.B.M.C. section 8.30.030 on March 22, 2014. During this period, an LBPD

8 officer asked Glover whether there was anything the officer could do to get Glover

9 to leave the City for good.

10

16. Shortly before the inception of this action, Glover stopped seeking

11 shelter at the ASL because the extreme anxiety of the experience – not knowing

12 whether he would get a spot, having to travel back downtown to seek a safe place to

13 hide if he did not or having to cope with the noisy, crowded environment if he did –

14 became unbearable and caused a deterioration in his mental health. Plaintiff Glover

15 has sought medical treatment for his increased anxiety related to finding a place to

16 hide and sleep each night.

17 David Sestini

18

17. Plaintiff DAVID SESTINI (“Sestini”) is a fifty-three-year-old,

19 chronically homeless man who grew up in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. He

20 has lived in Laguna Beach since July 2012. He has bipolar disorder, depression,

21 anxiety, alcoholism, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and heart

22 spasms. In 2006 he received a traumatic head injury from a bicycle accident,

23 leaving him with cluster headaches and balance and memory problems that

24 continue today. Sestini became homeless four years ago after he left a sober living

25 facility because he could not tolerate the living environment. Sestini has difficulty

26 keeping work because of his physical and mental health issues and is frequently

27 hospitalized.

28

18. The City does not consider Sestini to be a Laguna Beach resident;

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-6-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 8 of 34 Page ID #:1403

1 therefore, he can only sleep at the ASL when he wins a lottery spot. On the nights

2 he does not obtain a space at the shelter, he sleeps on local park benches. In the

3 cold winter months, Sestini travels to Fullerton to sleep at the Armory, but this

4 alternative is not available year round.

5

19. On the morning of July 25, 2013, the LBPD cited Sestini just outside

6 the shelter for illegal lodging under Penal Code section 647(e). Plaintiff Sestini had

7 slept spent most of the night sleeping inside the shelter, but had moved outside at

8 approximately 5:00 a.m. to avoid an argument with another person staying there.

9 The citing officer did not give Sestini any alternatives or respond when Sestini told

10 him why he was sleeping outside.

11

20. In the last year, Sestini has been kicked out of the ASL several times

12 because he experiences difficulty related to his bipolar disorder and anxiety

13 controlling his emotions and conforming his behavior within the stressful shelter

14 environment. When kicked out of the ASL, Plaintiff Sestini experienced extreme

15 stress looking for a place to sleep without attracting the attention of the LBPD; the

16 stress exacerbated his breathing and heart conditions. After being kicked out of the

17 shelter for two weeks during the fall of 2014, Sestini was overcome with worries

18 about losing his job, started having suicidal thoughts and was committed to an

19 inpatient psychiatric ward for several weeks.

20

21. Recently, Sestini was permanently banned from the shelter. Sestini

21 has no safe, legal place to sleep.

22 Douglas Frederes

23

22. Plaintiff DOUGLAS FREDERES, JR. (“Frederes”) is a thirty-five-

24 year-old, chronically homeless man who grew up in South Orange County.

25 Currently incarcerated, Frederes lived in Laguna Beach for at least three years, with

26 the exception of a seven-month stint in Las Vegas when he was forced to leave

27 town due to intense harassment by the LBPD. Frederes was diagnosed with bipolar

28 disorder at the age of fourteen and spent several months in a mental health facility;

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-7-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 9 of 34 Page ID #:1404

1 he often has paranoia. As a result, he has a difficult time finding and keeping work.

2 In the past, he has performed work in carpentry, as a machinist, and in working

3 with granite and marble, but he has not held a paid position since 2009.

4

23. The City never considered Frederes to be a Laguna Beach resident;

5 therefore, he could only sleep at the ASL when he won a space in the nightly

6 lottery. Frederes slept at the shelter often, but eventually stopped using the ASL

7 because he found that its noisy and chaotic environment caused him significant

8 stress and worsened his mental health symptoms. In addition, Frederes has been

9 kicked out of the shelter because of difficulties arising from his mental illness,

10 getting along with the other homeless individuals who use the shelter and

11 conforming his behavior to that required by shelter staff. As a result, Frederes

12 frequently slept on the beach or elsewhere instead. Frederes has been cited at least

13 14 times while sleeping outdoors in Laguna Beach, including three times under

14 L.B.M.C. section 8.30.030 (May 12, 2013, July 20, 2013, and January 20, 2014),

15 six times under L.B.M.C. section 18.05.020 (July 13, 2013, January 27, 2014,

16 February 4, 2014, February 15, 2014, August 13, 2014, and July 15, 2015), four

17 times under California Penal Code section 647(e) (March 27, 2013. April 16, 2013,

18 April 25, 2013, and August 10, 2013), and once under L.B.M.C. section 18.04.020 19 (July 31, 2015), an ordinance not in force at the time of the citation.2 In addition,

20 LBPD members recently pressured Frederes to leave town again. Because Frederes

21 had no income and no money, he could not afford transportation out of town, and in

22 any case, there was nowhere else for him to go.

23 Jeffrey Aiken

24

24. Plaintiff JEFFREY AIKEN (“Aiken”) is a 54-year-old homeless

25 veteran who has lived in Laguna Beach for two years. He grew up in Orange

26 County, graduated from Orange Coast College in 1983, and served for 10 years in

27 2 Provisions of this ordinance were repealed in March 2009, following an earlier
28 legal challenge. See infra ¶¶ 43-44.

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-8-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 10 of 34 Page ID #:1405

1 the Air Force until he was discharged for disability in 1998. He has not had steady

2 employment since his discharge. Aiken has mental disabilities including

3 depression and schizophrenia, and physical disabilities including a knee injury and

4 a brain injury.

5

25. While currently housed,3 Aiken slept the ASL when he won a lottery

6 spot, as the City did not consider him to be a Laguna Beach resident. Aiken found

7 the environment stressful because some of the other occupants were frequently

8 agitated or intoxicated. When he could not stay at the shelter, Aiken slept in a

9 location in Laguna Canyon that he keeps a closely guarded secret, or on the beach.

10 Because he was sometimes forced to sleep outside, Aiken has been cited for beach

11 curfew violations under L.B.M.C. section 18.05.020 and a violation of the

12 L.B.M.C. section 8.30.030 for sleeping in public on April 15, 2014. More recently,

13 he received a warning for sleeping in the ASL parking lot after being turned away

14 the evening of April 9, 2015.

15 Katrina Aune

16

26. Plaintiff KATRINA AUNE (“Aune”) is a thirty-five-year-old native of

17 Vancouver, Canada who has been homeless in Laguna Beach since late-2011 or

18 early-2012. Aune has two children, aged 9 and 12, both of whom have permanent

19 housing. Aune has depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and obsessive

20 compulsive disorder.

21

27. While currently housed through a county program,4 Aune stayed at the

22 ASL intermittently for the last three or four years. Because the City did not consider

23 her a Laguna Beach resident, she had to rely on winning a lottery spot. Even on

24 nights where Aune was able to obtain a spot at the shelter, she found it difficult to

25 sleep because of the noise and commotion. She also felt harassed and threatened by

26 3 Plaintiff Aiken was placed in housing by Orange County through a one-time,
27 limited-funded grant in March 2016. 4 Soon after Plaintiffs’ filed a motion for preliminary injunction, Aune was placed in
28 housing by Orange County through a one-time, limited-funded grant.

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-9-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 11 of 34 Page ID #:1406

1 other shelter occupants. On nights that Aune did not win a spot, she slept in the

2 shelter parking lot or sometimes at the beach in the vicinity of others for safety.

3 Aune considers sleeping outside “torture” because the police frequently interrupted

4 her sleep. Aune has been ticketed by the LBPD for illegal lodging on at least one

5 occasion on September 15, 2013 and received a verbal warning for sleeping in the

6 shelter parking lot in early April 2015. Her emotional state was deteriorating from

7 the constant stress of sleeping at the shelter and outdoors.

8 John Miller

9

28. Plaintiff JOHN MILLER (“Miller”) is a 50-year-old man who attended

10 high school in Laguna Beach and lived and worked in Laguna Beach after high

11 school. Miller has not worked since 2002 due to his disabilities, and has received

12 disability benefits from the Social Security Administration for the past twelve

13 years. Nevertheless, his modest income is not enough to enable him to obtain

14 housing, and he was homeless in Laguna Beach for three to five years. Miller has

15 been diagnosed with clinical depression, as well as several chronic health

16 conditions including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, chronic back pain,

17 neuropathy, and early onset Parkinson’s Disease. In addition, he has Post-

18 Traumatic Stress Disorder. Further, Miller has been prescribed medications, one of

19 which incapacitates him and makes him vulnerable to victimization.

20

29. While currently housed through a county program,5 Miller previously

21 slept at the ASL. Often, he found that the noise, chaos and unsanitary conditions at

22 the ASL aggravated his mental health and forced him to sleep elsewhere.

23 Sometimes being at the ASL caused him to be severely depressed to the point that

24 he could not engage in self-care activities, such as eating, and had suicidal thoughts.

25 5 Soon after Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, Miller was placed in
26 housing by Orange County through a one-time limited-funded grant.
27 6 Soon after Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, Holbrook was placed in housing provided by Orange County through a one-time, limited-funded
28 grant.

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-10-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 12 of 34 Page ID #:1407

1 When Miller could not tolerate the ASL, he had no safe, legal place to sleep and

2 had to sleep outside in Laguna Beach, where he risked scrutiny from the LBPD. He

3 received a ticket under Penal Code section 647(e) on October 5, 2015, after this

4 action was filed.

5 Lisa Holbrook

6

30. Plaintiff LISA HOLBROOK (“Holbrook”) is a 49-year-old woman

7 who has been homeless in Laguna Beach for four years. She first became homeless

8 after ovarian cancer in her twenties and thirties left her disabled and unable to work.

9 She was diagnosed with anxiety ten years ago and with bipolar disorder two years

10 ago.

11

31. The City of Laguna Beach does not consider Holbrook to be a resident.

12 While currently housed through a county program,6 Plaintiff Holbrook has slept in

13 the ASL using the lottery system. Even when Holbrook was able to win a spot in

14 the ASL lottery, she experienced difficulty coping with the noisy, chaotic

15 conditions at the ASL which aggravated the symptoms of her anxiety and bipolar

16 disorder. She was sometimes harassed by other residents or by the LBPD in the

17 parking lot. These experiences made her irritable and anxious, worsened her

18 insomnia, and triggered panic attacks. Other times, she was kicked out of the ASL

19 because her symptoms made it difficult to stay calm. On nights where she could

20 not stay in the ASL environment due to her disabilities, Holbrook was forced to

21 sleep outside, which terrified her, and where she ran the risk of being cited by the

22 LBPD for sleeping in public.

23 James Scott Rudolph

24

32. Plaintiff JAMES SCOTT RUDOLPH lives in Laguna Beach and first

25 became homeless in 2007. He has depression, anxiety, and takes prescribed

26 6 Soon after Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, Holbrook was
27 placed in housing provided by Orange County through a one-time, limited-funded
28 grant.

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-11-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 13 of 34 Page ID #:1408

1 medication to manage his symptoms. Because of his psychiatric disability, Plaintiff

2 Rudolph finds it extremely difficult to be around a lot of people. He also has

3 physical disabilities for which he has been hospitalized, including hepatitis C. He

4 has limited use of his right hand, which has hindered his ability to work.

5

33. Plaintiff Rudolph has stayed at the ASL one time, but he found the

6 crowd and noise too intimidating and as a result he experienced extreme anxiety.

7 He has never returned to the ASL to sleep.

8

34. Mr. Rudolph has received citations for sleeping outdoors in public

9 spaces.

10 Richard Owens

11

35. Plaintiff RICHARD OWENS is in his 40s and grew up in South

12 Orange County around Laguna Beach. He has been homeless for seven years. He

13 has bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, and seizures. He has been involuntarily

14 hospitalized in psychiatric units. He has also been diagnosed with COPD. He has

15 had two strokes.

16

36. The City of Laguna Beach does not consider Owens to be a “resident,”

17 so he has to enter a lottery to obtain a spot at the ASL. He usually stays at the ASL

18 two times a week. Because of his disabilities, Owens has difficulty staying at the

19 ASL because the environment makes it very difficult for him to manage his mental

20 health symptoms. The crowded conditions of ASL make him feel anxious and

21 stressed out.

22

37. The ASL’s rules and regulations are also difficult for Owens because

23 of his disabilities. For example, no one is allowed to leave the ASL after 8 p.m.

24 and ASL staff lock the gate. Owens feels “caged in” and is unable to get away from

25 a situation that is triggering the symptoms of his disabilities. He once left the ASL

26 after he won a space through the lottery because he needed to go outside the ASL

27 for a while to get some distance between him and another person at the ASL who

28 he was having trouble with. ASL staff would not let him go out and then come back

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-12-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 14 of 34 Page ID #:1409

1 in, so he just left. He has also been banned temporarily from using the ASL

2 because he had a disagreement with another resident at the ASL.

3

38. As a “non-resident” homeless individual, under the City’s

4 homelessness program, Plaintiff Owens is not permitted to store his heavy camping

5 backpack at the ASL. As a result Owens must constantly carry his belongings to

6 and from the ASL, exacerbating his COPD. He feels like he is going to run out of

7 breath, which increases his anxiety.

8 Michael Newman

9

39. Plaintiff MICHAEL NEWMAN is 52 years old. Before becoming

10 homeless in 2009, he lived in Laguna Beach for ten years. He has been diagnosed

11 with clinical depression and also has sleep apnea, a hernia and a lower back

12 condition.

13

40. Newman often sleeps at the ASL, but finds that the crowded and

14 unsanitary conditions and chaotic environment at the ASL contributes to his

15 depression and suicidal ideation. Also, because he is made to sleep on the floor on a

16 thin mat at the ASL, his physical disabilities make it difficult for him to get up and

17 down to sleep unless he supplements it with additional padding such as a mattress

18 pad that he rolls up and wraps in a sleeping bag. He has to carry his heavy bedding

19 and additional private property to and from the storage bin behind the ASL

20 building, which can aggravate his hernia and lower back condition.

21

41. Newman has been banned or threatened to be banned from the ASL on

22 a few occasions because his disabilities make it difficult for him to conform to the

23 rules, which are strict, ever-changing, and arbitrarily enforced. Many of these

24 experiences – including difficulties accessing shelter or coping with the shelter

25 environment, citation and harassment at the hands of the police, and declining

26 mental and physical health – are shared by other disabled, homeless persons living

27 in Laguna Beach.

28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-13-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 15 of 34 Page ID #:1410

1

Defendants

2

42. Defendant Laguna Beach is a municipal entity, organized as a charter

3 city under the laws of the State of California, with the capacity to be sued.

4 Defendant Laguna Beach is the legal and political governmental entity responsible

5 for the actions of the LBPD, its officials, its agents, and its employees. Defendant

6 Laguna Beach is sued in its own right and on the basis of the acts of its officials,

7 agents, and employees, including the LBPD.

8

43. Defendant LBPD provides law enforcement services in Laguna Beach

9 and enforces Laguna Beach’s municipal code and the California Penal Code.

10

44. Each of the acts complained of was undertaken and each violation of

11 Plaintiffs’ rights occurred pursuant to the unlawful policies, practices, and customs

12 of Defendants.

13

45. Each Defendant was acting on behalf of Laguna Beach or at the

14 direction of another Defendant on Laguna Beach’s behalf.

15

46. The acts of each Defendant were authorized, ratified, and/or condoned

16 by the relevant policy makers for Defendant Laguna Beach and/or LBPD.

17

47. Thus, each of the complained violations of law, were intentionally

18 committed by Defendants, their officials, agents, and employees, acting under color

19 of law.

20

STATEMENT OF FACTS

21

Chronic Homelessness in Laguna Beach

22

48. The homeless population of Laguna Beach is comprised of persons

23 who are almost exclusively individuals with disabilities who are chronically

24 homeless, i.e. those “with a mental or physical disability who experience long-term

25 or repeated homelessness.” City of Laguna Beach Homeless Task Force Final

26 Recommendations at 3-4 (2008). Defendants are aware that the vast majority of

27 homeless persons living in Laguna Beach are disabled. See id.; Christa Woodall,

28 Addressing Laguna Beach’s Homeless, O.C. Register, Sept. 5, 2007 (quoting Police

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-14-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 16 of 34 Page ID #:1411

1 Chief as estimating that half of City’s homeless population “battle mental illness,

2 most without acknowledging the problem”); see also City of Laguna Beach’s

3 Housing Element, 2013-2021 (“Individuals with a disability . . . comprise the

4 greatest majority of Laguna’s homeless at 80% . . . .”).

5

49. Mental and physical disabilities are both causes and consequences of

6 homelessness. While persons with disabilities have a greater risk of homelessness,

7 studies also show that the adversity and stress of homelessness can lead to the

8 development or exacerbation of disabilities. Further, unsheltered homeless persons

9 have a greater risk of experiencing violence and physical health problems, which

10 can cause or exacerbate psychiatric and other disabilities.

11

50. Living in a shelter is impossible for some chronically homeless people

12 with mental and physical disabilities. Nationally and in Orange County,

13 chronically homeless persons are significantly more likely than other homeless

14 persons to be living in public places rather than in a homeless shelter. Meanwhile,

15 the unhealthy and unsafe conditions associated with prolonged homelessness

16 worsen the symptoms of mental and physical disabilities, making it even less likely

17 for individuals to access shelter facilities.

18

51. For chronically homeless persons with disabilities, the most effective

19 way to address their homelessness is to provide permanent housing with wrap-

20 around services such mental health care and case management services. Permanent

21 supportive housing using a “Housing First” approach is recognized by the federal

22 government and experts as the best means of housing and stabilizing individuals

23 experiencing extended or repeated periods of homelessness who also have a

24 disabling condition. U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, Opening Doors:

25 Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness 18 (2010) (“For people

26 experiencing chronic homelessness, the research is clear that permanent supportive

27 housing using a Housing First approach is the solution.”). Research has

28 demonstrated that permanent supportive housing is both effective at permanently

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-15-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 17 of 34 Page ID #:1412

1 reducing homelessness and saves taxpayers money as compared to the costs of

2 emergency shelter and of cycling homeless persons through the criminal justice

3 system. Id. (reviewing results of 13 studies demonstrating that it is cheaper to

4 provide permanent supportive housing as compared to the costs of chronic

5 homelessness, including jail and health care costs).

6

Laguna Beach Homelessness Program

7

Sipprelle Litigation and Settlement

8

52. The City, through LBPD, has a history of targeting disabled, homeless

9 persons for increased law enforcement, harassment, and scrutiny – and has been put

10 on notice that such conduct violates the rights of these disabled, homeless

11 individuals.

12

53. In December 2008, the ACLU of Southern California and co-counsel

13 filed suit on behalf of several disabled, homeless individuals challenging the City’s

14 policy and practice of enforcing Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“L.B.M.C.”) 15 section 18.04.0207 against disabled, homeless persons in a manner that criminalized

16 sleeping in all public places at night and conducting “sweeps” of beaches, parks,

17 and other public places at night and in the early morning to wake and harass

18 sleeping homeless persons, as well as other enforcement tactics that targeted

19 disabled, homeless individuals. Sipprelle v. City of Laguna Beach, No. 08-01447

20 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 23, 2008). The lawsuit sought injunctive and declaratory

21 relief and included claims for violating plaintiffs’ rights to due process, freedom

22 from cruel and unusual punishment, and under Title II of the ADA.

23

54. The case settled extremely quickly, without any decision from the

24 Court. In March 2009, the City of Laguna Beach repealed portions of L.B.M.C.

25 7 L.B.M.C. section 18.04.020 provided that “No person shall pitch a tent or camp or
26 sleep upon any beach, park, public street, alley or passageway, or sleep in any
27 automobile parked at any place within the city; provided that between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m. it shall not be unlawful to sleep upon any beach within
28 the city.”

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-16-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 18 of 34 Page ID #:1413

1 section 18.04.020 pertaining to camping and sleeping in public places. In the

2 settlement agreement, Defendants further agreed to limit enforcement of Penal

3 Code section 647(e) against homeless persons for camping or sleeping in public for

4 a period of two years.

5

55. Despite the terms of the settlement, in November 2009, the City

6 adopted its current homelessness program that combines tough police enforcement

7 of newly enacted sleeping bans with operating a small shelter for homeless

8 individuals referred to as the “Alternative Sleeping Location” or “ASL.”

9

Renewed Enforcement

10

56. Soon after the expiration of the Sipprelle settlement agreement, the

11 City of Laguna Beach resumed its targeted harassment of disabled, homeless

12 individuals. The City enacted L.B.M.C. section 8.30.030, a new ordinance

13 criminalizing camping and sleeping in public areas. LAGUNA BEACH, CAL., CODE §

14 8.30.030 (the “New Ordinance”). Like the prior ordinance, the New Ordinance

15 makes it unlawful to sleep in public parks and beaches at night, on any public street

16 or sidewalk, or on City property and to camp in any public place. Camping is

17 defined broadly to include “residing in or using any public areas for living

18 accommodation or lodging purposes . . . with one’s possessions or while storing

19 one’s possessions.” LAGUNA BEACH, CAL., CODE § 8.30.020. It is impracticable

20 for an unsheltered homeless individual to sleep in compliance with the ordinance.

21

57. LBPD officers routinely issue misdemeanor citations to disabled,

22 homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors -- sometimes as violations of the New

23 Ordinance, but more commonly as violations of Penal Code section 647(e), which

24 defines disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, to include “lodg[ing] in any building,

25 structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the

26 owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it.”

27

58. The City also enforces a beach curfew under which the beaches are

28 closed from 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. each night. LAGUNA BEACH, CAL., CODE §

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-17-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 19 of 34 Page ID #:1414

1 18.05.010. Ostensibly, “no person shall enter, remain or stay on any city beach or

2 in any city park at any time when such beach or park is closed.” Id. § 18.05.020.

3 Yet, the L.B.M.C. also provides a number of exceptions for nearly every other

4 activity one would engage in at the beach – except sleeping. Id. § 18.05.040

5 (permitting walking, jogging, fishing, or grunion hunting, . . .scuba diving, surfing,

6 or swimming in the ocean” while beaches are “closed”).

7

59. LBPD frequently enforces the New Ordinance and Penal Code section

8 647(e) against individuals who sleep outdoors because they cannot access the ASL

9 – either because the individuals failed to win a lottery spot or because the

10 individuals cannot tolerate the ASL due to their mental or physical disabilities.

11 Moreover, the City has relied more heavily on the beach curfew ordinances to

12 punish the same underlying conduct.

13

Alternative Sleeping Location

14

60. At the same time the City enacted the New Ordinance, the City

15 authorized and funded the creation and operation of the ASL, a small shelter-like

16 congregate living facility. The City contends that the existence of the ASL allows it

17 to legally enforce laws prohibiting sleeping, camping, or lodging in public – despite

18 its limited sleeping capacity (45) and its accessibility problems.

19

61. The ASL is operated by Friendship Shelter and funded by the City

20 (partially through federal Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) funds

21 received through Orange County). It is located approximately two-and-a-half miles

22 outside of the downtown area, along Laguna Canyon Road – a dark, twisting two-

23 lane roadway which runs from downtown Laguna Beach inland through Laguna

24 Canyon towards the City of Irvine. A van is provided to transport homeless

25 individuals from the downtown area to the ASL in the evening. Access to the ASL

26 is limited – on any given night 5-15 people are turned away because of a lack of

27 capacity. The City-funded van does not transport homeless individuals back to the

28 downtown area, or anywhere else, if they are turned away from the ASL.

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-18-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 20 of 34 Page ID #:1415

1

62. The ASL is housed in a mobile modular unit. It sleeps forty-five

2 individuals in one room. Individuals sleep on the floor on thin mats, which makes

3 it difficult, if not impossible, for disabled, homeless individuals with physical

4 disabilities from getting up and down from the floor to sleep or go to the bathroom.

5 ASL staff often does not assist disabled, homeless individuals up and down, either

6 because they lack the desire, training, or authority, which often results in disabled,

7 homeless individuals urinating on themselves where they lay.

8

63. The ASL has three bathrooms, including one with a roll-in shower

9 designated for individuals with physical disabilities. Shelter staff restricts the

10 amount of time a homeless individual can be in the bathroom to use the facilities

11 and/or shower. Time restrictions are arbitrarily determined and enforced, and often

12 do not account for the needs of disabled, homeless individuals.

13

64. At the City’s behest, the ASL gives priority to those who can

14 demonstrate that they are “local Laguna Beach residents.” To meet the residency

15 requirement, homeless individuals must demonstrate that an immediate family

16 member currently lives in Laguna Beach, that they attended K-12 school in Laguna

17 Beach, that they leased or paid utilities for residential property in Laguna Beach, or

18 that the LBPD knows them to have been members of the Laguna Beach homeless

19 community for at least 18 months. However, these criteria are not applied evenly

20 and LBPD officers, generally, and the LBPD’s “Community Outreach Officer,”

21 specifically, is given full discretion to determine who is a “local Laguna Beach

22 resident.” Many disabled, homeless persons who have lived in Laguna Beach for

23 longer than 18 months are nevertheless deemed not to be “local Laguna Beach

24 residents” and are therefore less likely to be able to access the ASL. Homeless

25 individuals have been deemed to be non-residents even when they have multiple

26 interactions with the LBPD over an 18-month period.

27

65. An individual who does not meet this City residency requirement can

28 only receive shelter by appearing at the ASL in person each night and adding his or

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-19-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 21 of 34 Page ID #:1416

1 her name to a waitlist. ASL staff members conduct a lottery using the names from

2 the waitlist to determine who can stay at the shelter on that night. Individuals

3 whose names are not selected in this lottery cannot stay at the ASL, and there is no

4 other legal place for them to sleep within the City. In addition, because the City-

5 funded van does not transport individuals that are turned away back to the

6 downtown area, individuals typically end up stranded two-and-a-half miles up the

7 dark and isolated Laguna Canyon Road. Their options are limited to sleeping in the

8 shelter parking lot, sleeping in the canyon near the shelter, undertaking the

9 dangerous trek back to the downtown area and beaches to find a place to sleep, or

10 attempt to navigate public transportation to unfamiliar places, a task many disabled,

11 homeless individuals are unable to do because of their disabilities.

12

66. The ASL is extremely crowded, noisy, and chaotic. Chronically

13 homeless individuals who have certain mental health conditions – such as PTSD,

14 bipolar disorder, severe depression and anxiety, and schizophrenia – cannot tolerate

15 this environment. Some cannot stay at the shelter for even a night, while others can

16 stay for a short time before needing to leave. Still others try to stay at the ASL but

17 are forced to leave because their disabilities prevent them from being able to

18 conform their conduct to that required by ASL staff. Those who do stay at the ASL

19 report not being able to sleep because of the noise and the anxiety caused by the

20 crowded, chaotic environment, as well as worsening mental and physical health

21 symptoms.

22

67. Those who come to try the lottery must wait outside. However, there

23 are no accessible portable toilets, drinking water, picnic tables, mats, chairs,

24 benches or awnings for shade or shelter from the rain in the area outside of the 25 ASL.8 There are portable toilets, benches, and drinking fountains at the City’s dog

26

27 8 There are at least two water supplies located in the parking lot of the ASL. The City has caged and/or locked the valves to these water supplies so they are
28 inaccessible to homeless individuals.

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-20-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 22 of 34 Page ID #:1417

1 park, which is located right next to the ASL parking lot, but it is difficult for

2 disabled, homeless individuals to access them. There is a gate that goes directly

3 from the ASL parking lot to the dog park, but shortly after the ASL was opened, the

4 gate was padlocked, preventing easy access. In order to access these amenities, a

5 disabled, homeless individual must walk a long distance around the dog park to

6 enter from the farthest side from the ASL. These barriers around the ASL make it

7 more difficult for homeless individuals with disabilities to participate in the lottery

8 or to wait for a shelter spot.

9

68. Recently, Defendants prohibited homeless individuals from being

10 around the ASL when the ASL is closed during the day, and discontinued allowing

11 “non-resident” homeless persons to store their personal property at the ASL. These

12 restrictions make it difficult for “non-resident” disabled, homeless individuals, and

13 especially those with mobility impairments, to access the ASL.

14

69. Shelter and housing options for chronically homeless persons with

15 disabilities are extremely limited in Laguna Beach. Friendship Shelter (the non-

16 profit that manages the ASL) also operates a transitional shelter that is constantly

17 full with a waitlist and otherwise is not appropriate for many chronically homeless

18 persons. Friendship Shelter also runs a small, scattered-site permanent supportive

19 housing program that serves the entire South Orange County area. This program

20 caters to the needs of disabled or chronically homeless persons; however, this

21 program is typically full with only rare openings.

22

70. Recognizing the dire need for permanent supportive housing to shelter

23 and treat Laguna Beach’s disabled, homeless population, Friendship Shelter and

24 several partner organizations have proposed creating a new permanent supportive

25 housing development. If built, this could significantly lower the number of

26 disabled, homeless persons who are unsheltered and untreated in Laguna Beach. In

27 addition, the proposed shelter is projected to result in cost-savings to the City,

28 overall. The City has not approved the proposal.

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-21-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 23 of 34 Page ID #:1418

1

71. Individuals turned away from the ASL are stranded several miles out

2 of town and have limited options for lodging. None of those options complies with

3 the law. Individuals sleeping in the ASL parking lot have been cited by LBPD

4 officers even after explaining to the officers that they were turned away from the

5 ASL and had nowhere else to go. To avoid such citations, some individuals leave

6 the immediate area of the ASL and sleep in the brushy areas in the nearby canyon

7 instead. Others make their way back to the downtown or beach areas to seek a

8 hidden place to sleep. Both of these options are dangerous. In several high-profile

9 incidents in the last few years, homeless persons have died or been seriously injured

10 while traveling on the dark, winding stretch of Laguna Canyon Road between the

11 ASL and downtown or in the canyon. However, LBPD officers also seek out and

12 cite, warn, threaten, and intimidate disabled, homeless persons for sleeping in the

13 canyon area, downtown, or at the beaches. No matter where they go, disabled,

14 homeless persons cannot escape punishment and discrimination in Laguna Beach.

15

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

16

72. Plaintiffs seek to have a class certified under Rule 23(b)(2) of the

17 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

18

73. The class represented by the individual plaintiffs is defined as the class

19 of all persons who (a) are chronically homeless at the time judgment is entered; (b)

20 live in the City of Laguna Beach; and (c) have a mental and/or physical disability.

21

74. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.

22 Plaintiffs believe that currently between 40-100 disabled, homeless persons are

23 subject to Defendants’ unlawful policies, practices and customs. There are

24 questions of law and fact in common to all members of the class. The claims of the

25 representative parties are typical of the claims of the class members. The

26 representative parties will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.

27

75. Defendants’ policy or practice will affect all members of the class in

28 the same way, because each class member has been discriminated against, as well

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-22-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 24 of 34 Page ID #:1419

1 as been, and continues to be denied the benefit of a safe, legal place to sleep by the

2 City’s homelessness program, and has been subjected to law enforcement efforts

3 for engaging in the necessary activity of sleeping in public. Injunctive relief

4 requiring the creation of an alternative accessible safe and legal place to sleep,

5 which is free from discrimination by reason of a person’s disability, and a cessation

6 of enforcement, as well as declaratory relief declaring the City’s enforcement of

7 anti-sleeping and anti-camping laws unconstitutional would remedy these problems

8 class-wide, and is therefore appropriate to the class as a whole.

9

76. The common questions of law to be determined are whether: (a) the

10 City’s homelessness policy and practice denies benefits to, or otherwise

11 discriminates against chronically homeless persons who cannot access the ASL

12 based on disability and who are subject to increased law enforcement, harassment,

13 and scrutiny; (b) the issuance, or threat of issuance, of criminal citations to

14 disabled, homeless persons forced to sleep outdoors because they cannot access

15 shelter or housing constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; and (c) the City’s

16 homelessness policy and practice violates the due process rights of disabled,

17 homeless persons by exposing them to an increased risk of danger. These questions

18 of law are common to all members of the class and predominate over any question

19 affecting individual class members.

20

77. The common questions of fact to be determined include whether: (a)

21 Defendants’ homelessness program is inaccessible to many class members; (b)

22 alternative housing and a cessation of enforcement would alleviate these access

23 barriers; (c) alternative housing and a cessation of enforcement would cause a

24 fundamental alteration to Defendants’ homelessness program under the ADA and

25 Rehabilitation Act.

26

78. No notice is required under for a class certified under Federal Rule of

27 Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) unless the Court directs that such notice be given.

28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-23-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 25 of 34 Page ID #:1420

1

79. The claims of the class representatives are typical of the claims of the

2 class members, because (1) all class members have physical or mental disabilities

3 and have been deprived of the benefits of the City’s homelessness program (i.e., a

4 safe, legal place to sleep) in violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, (2) all

5 class members have been subjected to citation or the threat of citation, or risk such

6 citation, for sleeping in public even when they have no safe, legal alternative in

7 violation of the Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and the California

8 Constitution, and (3) all class members are subject to an increased risk of danger

9 due to the City’s homelessness program, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment

10 and the California Constitution.

11

80. The class representatives know of no conflict of interest among class

12 members. Plaintiffs are represented by the attorneys shown on the caption page,

13 including attorneys from the ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN

14 CALIFORNIA, who have experience litigating civil rights cases on behalf of

15 homeless and disabled plaintiffs, and private counsel from PAUL HASTINGS LLP,

16 all of whom will vigorously prosecute this action.

17

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

18

Violation of Title II of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12132)

19

81. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every

20 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 81 as though fully alleged herein.

21

82. In 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

22 U.S.C. §§ 12101 -12181 (“ADA”), in order to secure and advance the civil rights of

23 people with disabilities. The Congressional intent in enacting the ADA is “the

24 elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S. C. §

25 12101(b)(1). Congress thus found that “historically, society has tended to isolate

26 and segregate individuals with disabilities,” and that these forms of discrimination

27 “continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2).

28 Congress also determined that “the Nation’s proper goals regarding individuals

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-24-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 26 of 34 Page ID #:1421

1 with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent

2 living, and economic sufficiency for such individuals.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(8).

3

83. Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a

4 disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be

5 denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be

6 subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

7

84. The regulations implementing Title II of the ADA provide that:

8

a. “A public entity may not, directly or through contractual or

9 other arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration – (i) That have the

10 effect of subjecting qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the

11 basis of disability; (ii) That have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially

12 impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the public entity's program with

13 respect to individuals with disabilities; or (iii) That perpetuate the discrimination of

14 another public entity if both public entities are subject to common administrative

15 control or are agencies of the same State.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3).

16

b. “A public entity may not, in determining the site or location of a

17 facility, make selections – (i) That have the effect of excluding individuals with

18 disabilities from, denying them the benefits of, or otherwise subjecting them to

19 discrimination; or (ii) That have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially

20 impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the service, program, or activity

21 with respect to individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(4).

22

c. “A public entity shall not impose or apply eligibility criteria that

23 screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of

24 individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any service, program,

25 or activity, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of

26 the service, program, or activity being offered.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(8).

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-25-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 27 of 34 Page ID #:1422

1

d. “A public entity shall administer services, programs, and

2 activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified

3 individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d).

4

e. “A public entity shall operate each service, program, or activity

5 so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily

6 accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(a).

7

85. Each of the Plaintiffs is an individual with a mental or physical

8 disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and is subject to Defendants’

9 homelessness program by virtue of living in the City. Defendants’ homelessness

10 program – which comprises the City’s policy and practice of maintaining limited

11 shelter and services, often inaccessible to those with disabilities, combined with

12 heavy law enforcement (particularly under Penal Code section 647(e) and L.B.M.C.

13 sections 8.30.030, 18.05.020), harassment, and scrutiny of those who are forced to

14 sleep outside because they cannot access this shelter – burdens disabled, homeless

15 persons and denies them their rights under Title II of the ADA.

16

86. Defendants utilize criteria or methods of administration in the creation

17 and implementation of their homelessness program that have the effect of

18 subjecting Plaintiffs to discrimination on the basis of disability. 28 C.F.R. §

19 35.130(b)(3).

20

87. Defendants’ choices in the site and location of the shelter services and

21 their homelessness program function to exclude individuals with disabilities and to

22 substantially impair the benefits and objectives of Defendants’ homelessness

23 program and services with respect to individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. §

24 35.130(b)(4).

25

88. Defendants have imposed or applied eligibility criteria that screen out

26 or tend to screen out Plaintiffs from fully and equally enjoying its homelessness

27 program. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(8).

28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-26-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 28 of 34 Page ID #:1423

1

89. Defendants, in the creation and implementation of its homelessness

2 program, have failed to provide the services of its homelessness program in the

3 most integrated setting appropriate, and have instead isolated and segregated

4 Plaintiffs. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d).

5

90. Defendants’ homelessness program, when viewed in its entirety, is not

6 readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. §

7 35.150(a).

8

91. Despite knowledge that the majority of homeless persons living in

9 Laguna Beach are chronically homeless and have mental and/or physical

10 disabilities and that these individuals are frequently subject to citation or

11 harassment because they cannot access the ASL, Defendants have failed to ensure

12 that its homelessness program is accessible to individuals with disabilities. The

13 provision of alternative accessible legal places to sleep, and the cessation of heavy

14 law enforcement, harassment, and scrutiny, is necessary for Plaintiffs to access the

15 homelessness program.

16

92. Despite knowing that the majority of homeless persons living in

17 Laguna Beach are chronically homeless and have mental and/or physical

18 disabilities, Defendants often target such individuals with heightened law

19 enforcement, harassment, and scrutiny to discourage them from remaining in the

20 City.

21

93. The acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, including

22 devising and implementing a homelessness program comprised of minimal shelter

23 and services that are inaccessible to disabled, homeless persons coupled with heavy

24 law enforcement, harassment, and scrutiny of those who cannot access this shelter,

25 constitute discriminatory animus or deliberate indifference and violate the rights of

26 Plaintiffs under the ADA.

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-27-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 29 of 34 Page ID #:1424

1

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 706, 794)

3

94. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every

4 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 94 as though fully alleged herein.

5

95. Congress enacted the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 701 et

6 seq.) (the “Rehabilitation Act”) in order to “provid[e] individuals with disabilities

7 with the tools necessary to… achieve equality of opportunity, full inclusion and

8 integration in society, employment, independent living, and economic and social

9 self-sufficiency, for such individuals….”

10

96. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 706, 794) and its

11 implementing regulations prohibit the exclusion of or discrimination against an

12 otherwise qualified disabled individual under any program or activity receiving

13 federal financial assistance.

14

97. The regulations implementing the Rehabilitation Act provide that:

15

a. “A recipient may not, directly or through contractual or other

16 arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration: (i) That have the effect

17 of subjecting qualified handicapped persons to discrimination on the basis of

18 handicap, (ii) That have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing

19 accomplishment of the objectives of the recipient's program with respect to

20 handicapped persons, or (iii) That perpetuate the discrimination of another recipient

21 if both recipients are subject to common administrative control or are agencies of

22 the same state.” 28 C.F.R. § 41.51(b)(3).

23

b. “A recipient may not, in determining the site or location of a

24 facility, make selections: (i) That have the effect of excluding handicapped persons

25 from, denying them the benefits of, or otherwise subjecting them to discrimination

26 under any program or activity that receives or benefits from federal financial

27 assistance or (ii) That have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially

28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-28-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 30 of 34 Page ID #:1425

1 impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the program or activity with

2 respect to handicapped persons.” 28 C.F.R. § 41.51(b)(4).

3

c. “Recipients shall administer programs and activities in the most

4 integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified handicapped persons.” 28

5 C.F.R. § 41.51(d).

6

d. “A recipient shall operate each program or activity so that the

7 program or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable

8 by handicapped persons.” 28 C.F.R. § 41.57(a).

9

98. Defendants receive federal financial assistance within the meaning of

10 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, including community development block

11 grant funds received from the federal government through the County of Orange.

12

99. Each of the Plaintiffs is an individual with a mental and/or physical

13 disability within the meaning of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and is subject

14 to Defendants’ homelessness program by virtue of living in the City. Defendants’

15 homelessness program – which comprises the City’s policy and practice of

16 maintaining limited shelter, often inaccessible to those with disabilities, combined

17 with heavy law enforcement (particularly under Penal Code section 647(e) and

18 L.B.M.C. sections 8.30.030, 18.05.020), harassment, and scrutiny of those who are

19 forced to sleep outside because they cannot access this shelter – burdens disabled,

20 homeless persons and denies them their rights under the Rehabilitation Act.

21

100. Defendants, a public entity, directly and through their contract with

22 Friendship Shelter and other non-profit organizations, utilize criteria or methods of

23 administration in the creation and implementation of its homelessness program and

24 services that have the effect of subjecting Plaintiffs to discrimination on the basis of

25 disability. 28 C.F.R. § 41.51(b)(3).

26

101. Defendants’ choices in the site and location of the shelter services of

27 their homelessness program function to exclude individuals with disabilities and to

28 substantially impair the benefits and objectives of Defendants’ homelessness

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-29-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 31 of 34 Page ID #:1426

1 program and services with respect to individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. §

2 41.51(b)(4).

3

102. Defendants, in the creation and implementation of its homelessness

4 program, have failed to provide the services of its homelessness program in the

5 most integrated setting appropriate, and have instead have isolated and segregated

6 Plaintiffs. 28 C.F.R. § 41.51(d).

7

103. Defendants’ homelessness program, when viewed in its entirety, is not

8 readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.

9

104. Despite knowledge that the majority of homeless persons living in

10 Laguna Beach are chronically homeless and have mental and/or physical

11 disabilities and that these individuals are frequently subject to citation or

12 harassment because they cannot access the ASL, Defendants have failed to ensure

13 that its homelessness program is accessible to individuals with disabilities. The

14 provision of alternative accessible legal places to sleep, and the cessation of heavy

15 law enforcement, harassment, and scrutiny, is necessary for Plaintiffs to access the

16 homelessness program.

17

105. Despite knowing that the majority of homeless persons living in

18 Laguna Beach are chronically homeless and have mental and/or physical

19 disabilities, Defendants often target such individuals with heightened law

20 enforcement, harassment, and scrutiny to discourage them from remaining in the

21 City.

22

106. The acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, including

23 devising and implementing a homelessness policy and practice combining minimal

24 shelter and services often inaccessible to disabled, homeless persons with heavy

25 law enforcement, harassment, and scrutiny of those who cannot access this shelter,

26 constitute discriminatory animus or deliberate indifference and violate the rights of

27 Plaintiffs under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-30-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 32 of 34 Page ID #:1427

1

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

3

and California Constitution §§ 7, 17 (Cruel and Unusual Punishment)

4

107. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every

5 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 107 as though fully alleged herein.

6

108. The acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, as described

7 herein, violate the rights of all plaintiffs to be free from actual or threatened cruel

8 and unusual punishment. By virtue of their involuntary status as homeless and

9 disabled, and the absence and insufficiency of shelter or housing in Laguna Beach,

10 Plaintiffs have no way to comply with the laws Defendants have sought and

11 continue to seek to enforce against them, in particular Penal Code section 647(e),

12 and L.B.M.C. sections 8.30.030, 18.05.020.

13

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

14

Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

15

and California Constitution § 7 (Substantive Due Process)

16

109. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every

17 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 109 as though fully alleged herein.

18

110. The acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, as described

19 herein, violate the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs under the Due Process Clause

20 of the United States Constitution. Defendants’ policy and practice of combining

21 minimal shelter, often inaccessible to those with disabilities, with heavy law

22 enforcement (particularly under Penal Code section 647(e) and L.B.M.C. sections

23 8.30.030, 18.05.020), harassment, and threats against those who are forced to sleep

24 outside because they cannot access this shelter places Plaintiffs in a position of

25 increased physical danger. Defendants are aware of the danger because of several

26 high-profile incidents in which homeless individuals were killed or seriously

27 injured and have acted with deliberate indifference to this danger. In addition, the

28 exacerbation of Plaintiffs’ existing physical and mental disabilities that results from

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-31-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 33 of 34 Page ID #:1428

1 Defendants’ policy and practice places Plaintiffs in a position of increased risk of

2 danger.

3

ACTUAL CONTROVERSY

4

111. There exists an actual controversy between Plaintiffs and Defendants

5 as to each and every Claim for Relief alleged herein. Plaintiffs have suffered and

6 will continue to suffer ongoing and continuous injuries so long as the City

7 continues its policy and practice of discrimination and violation of Plaintiffs’

8 constitutional rights, including supporting only minimal shelter and services

9 inaccessible to and/or inappropriate for disabled, homeless persons while citing,

10 harassing, and threatening disabled, homeless persons who cannot access this

11 shelter. These controversies warrant judicial determinations. Absent relief from

12 this Court, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury as a consequence of Defendants’

13 unconstitutional, discriminatory, and illegal acts and omissions.

14

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

15

Plaintiffs request relief as follows:

16

1. A preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction, enjoining

17 Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees, from enforcing California Penal

18 Code section 647(e) and Laguna Beach Municipal Code sections 8.30.030,

19 18.05.020 against disabled, homeless individuals who have no practical way to

20 comply by virtue of their homelessness and disability;

21

2. A permanent injunction requiring Defendants to provide, create, and/or

22 fund alternative accessible legal places to sleep, such as permanent supportive

23 housing within the Laguna Beach city limits sufficient to house the City’s disabled,

24 homeless population;

25

3. For a declaration that Defendants’ past, present, and threatened future

26 actions deny Plaintiffs the benefits of the City’s Homelessness Program or subjects

27 them to discrimination on the basis of their disabilities in violation of Title II of the

28 ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act;

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-32-

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 109 Filed 05/04/16 Page 34 of 34 Page ID #:1429

1

4. For a declaration that Defendants’ past, present and threatened future

2 actions violate Plaintiffs’ rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under

3 the Constitution of the United States and the California Constitution;

4

5. For a declaration that Defendants’ past, present, and threatened future

5 actions violate Plaintiffs’ rights to be free from due process violations under the

6 Constitution of the United States and the California Constitution;

7

6. For nominal damages;

8

7. For costs of suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988,

9 as well as the analogous provisions of California law;

10

8. For attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

11

9. For such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

12 DATED: May 4, 2016 13

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and PAUL HASTINGS LLP

14

15

By: /s/ Belinda Escobosa Helzer

16

BELINDA ESCOBOSA HELZER Attorneys for All Plaintiffs

17

18

PAUL HASTINGS LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-33-

 
 Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 203 Filed 06/23/17 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:4725

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-01332 AG (DFMx)

Date June 23, 2017

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

Present: The Honorable ANDREW J. GUILFORD

Lisa Bredahl Deputy Clerk

Not Present Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings:

[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

David Sestini, Michael Newman, and Richard Owens (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are all homeless and disabled persons in Laguna Beach. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are suing the City of Laguna Beach (the “City”) and the Laguna Beach Police (collectively, “Defendants”) for claims relating to their homelessness program. Plaintiffs have now filed a motion to certify this case as a class action.
Homelessness has become a very important issue in our community, generating voluminous filings in this case (and conversation in the public arena). There have been significant filings in this case, as recently as June 20, 2017, and issues raised in those recent filings are discussed in this Order.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (Dkt. No. 112.)
1. LEGAL STANDARD
The class action is an exception to the way litigation usually goes: typically, lawsuits are litigated just by the individual named parties. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 348 (2011). This exception is only justified if certain requirements are met.

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 9

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 203 Filed 06/23/17 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:4726

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-01332 AG (DFMx)

Date June 23, 2017

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

First, a plaintiff seeking class certification must show that a proposed class satisfies the four elements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a): (1) numerosity; (2) commonality; (3) typicality; and (4) adequacy of representation by the class representatives and class counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). All of these elements must be satisfied for a class to be certified.
Second, a plaintiff seeking class certification must show that a proposed class satisfies the requirements of at least one of three subsections of Rule 23(b). Those three subsections provide: (1) that prosecuting separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications; (2) that the party opposing class certification has acted or failed to act on grounds that apply generally to the class; or (3) questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action is superior to other available methods for adjudicating the dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)–(3). Only one of these factors needs to be satisfied for a class to be certified.
As a final note, these requirements aren’t just pleading standards. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350. A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate that these requirements have been met, and survive a rigorous analysis that may dip into an evaluation of the case’s merits. Id. at 350–51.

2. BACKGROUND
In 2009, a group of disabled, homeless individuals sued Defendants, challenging the Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) section 18.04.020, then effective, which criminalized sleeping at night in public places. (Dkt. No. 112-1 at 7.) The parties in that case settled and, as part of the settlement, the City repealed portions of LBMC section 18.04.020 and agreed to limit enforcement of California Penal Code section 647(e) against homeless people for two years. (Id.)
A few months later, the City enacted LBMC sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020, prohibiting camping on public property and sleeping in beaches and parks. (Id.) Around the same time, the City also opened a temporary emergency shelter called the Alternative Sleeping Location (“ASL”). (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that disabled, homeless people cannot tolerate conditions associated with the ASL. (Id. at 8.) So Plaintiffs argue that disabled, homeless people are “left
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 9

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 203 Filed 06/23/17 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:4727

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-01332 AG (DFMx)

Date June 23, 2017

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

with the difficult choice of subjecting themselves to the intolerable conditions of the ASL, or intolerable treatment by LBPD” under Defendants’ homelessness policy. (Id.)
Plaintiffs now ask the Court to certify the following class:
[a]ll homeless persons who reside or will reside in the geographic area of Laguna Beach who have a mental and/or physical disability as defined under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act and who have been, or are likely to be, cited for violations of California Penal Code section 647(e), Laguna Beach Municipal Code section 8.30.030 and/or Laguna Beach Municipal Code section 18.05.020
(“Proposed Class”). (Id. at 9:1–6.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated “Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (‘ADA’), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as analogous provisions of California’s Constitution.” (Id. at 8.)

3. PRELIMINARY ISSUES
First, Defendants have many evidentiary objections to documents and declarations of various witnesses. (Dkt. Nos. 113–116.) Some of these objections would be more appropriate either at trial or when the Court is doing an analysis of a motion that requires much closer examination of the substance of the claims. It is true that a class certification motion may dip into the merits of a claim, but the Court did not rely on the documents and statements that Defendants object to in making its ruling on the class certification motion. For example, Defendants object to Exhibit A, which is offered to prove that the City enforced anticamping laws after the ASL opened. (Dkt. No. 115 at 2.) This timing issue has nothing to do with whether the elements of class certification are satisfied. Another example is one of Defendants’ objection to statements from a Proposed Class representative. One of the Plaintiffs talks about his diagnosis and Defendants object on grounds of hearsay. (Dkt. No. 113 at 2.) This plaintiff’s other non-hearsay and general assertions that he is mentally disabled are sufficient for the allegations in this motion for class certification. The Court has also considered the recent objection and reply and has only considered appropriate matters from
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 3 of 9

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 203 Filed 06/23/17 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:4728

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-01332 AG (DFMx)

Date June 23, 2017

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

the recent supplemental briefing. (Dkt. Nos. 201 & 202.) No further action is required on the objections.
Second, the parties have filed some recent supplemental briefing. The first set of supplemental briefing is about the current status of one of the proposed class representatives, Owens. (Dkt. Nos. 181, 182, & 183.) Owens recently pled guilty to nonviolent offenses and has been sentenced to incarceration for one year. But he will likely be in jail for six months under state law providing good time credits. Cal. Penal Code § 4019. Defendants argue that Owen shouldn’t be a class representative because he doesn’t meet the commonality, typicality, or adequacy requirements. Defendants’ arguments aren’t convincing. Owens will most likely be released months before the trial date. The second set of supplemental briefing is about the current status of another proposed class representative, Newman. (Dkt. Nos. 196 & 200.) According to Defendants, Newman’s claims are moot because he has recently retained permanent housing, partially through the assistance of the Friendship Shelter, Inc. staff that manage the ASL and so Newman is no longer homeless. But Mr. Newman’s individual claims are not moot because they are “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” See S. Pac. Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 514–515 (1911). Further, the relation-back doctrine applies here. See, e.g., Wade v. Kirkland, 118 F.3d 667, 669 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that the relation-back doctrine applies where the purported class members have transitory claims.) Both of these plaintiffs will remain as class representatives.
Finally, the Court finds it unnecessary to address ascertainability. See Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017).

4. ANALYSIS

4.1 Rule 23(a)(1)—Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that a class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). “[I]mpracticability does not mean impossibility,” but simply that joinder of all class members must be difficult or inconvenient. Harris v. Palm Springs Alpine Estates, Inc., 329 F.2d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 1964).

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 4 of 9

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 203 Filed 06/23/17 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:4729

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-01332 AG (DFMx)

Date June 23, 2017

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

A proposed class of at least forty members may satisfy the numerosity requirement. See Jordan v. Los Angeles County, 669 F.2d 1311, 1319 (9th Cir. 1982), vacated on other grounds by County of Los Angeles v. Jordan, 459 U.S. 810 (1982). According to Plaintiffs, there are at least 100 homeless people in Laguna Beach. (Dkt. No. 112-1 at 13:13.) The City has estimated that 80% of the homeless population in Laguna Beach is disabled. (Id at 13:16.) Therefore, Plaintiffs estimate that the number of putative class members is approximately 80. (Id. at 13:19.)
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s evidence for the number of homeless people in Laguna Beach is not reliable because it is based on data from 2009. (Id. at 16–17.) Defendants also argue that the homeless population lives in a small geographical area so joinder of all members is not impracticable. (Id. at 17.) But Plaintiffs point out the difficulty in identifying potential future Proposed Class members and how these Proposed Class members would be especially unlikely to pursue their claims individually because of their disabilities. (Dkt. No. 112-1 at 21–22.)
Numerosity is satisfied.
4.2 Rule 23(a)(2)—Commonality
Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be “questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). But there must be a “common contention” that is “of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350. (2011).
Plaintiff argues that Defendants systematically denied access to the ASL and discriminated against all class members. Plaintiffs allege that four common questions show the existence of shared legal issues: “(a) whether Defendants’ homelessness policy discriminates against putative class members; (b) whether alternative housing and cessation of enforcement would alleviate these access barriers; (c) whether the City has an obligation under the ADA to provide reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities in the ASL; and (d) whether
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 5 of 9

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 203 Filed 06/23/17 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:4730

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-01332 AG (DFMx)

Date June 23, 2017

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

alternative housing and a cessation of enforcement would cause a fundamental alteration to Defendants’ homelessness policy.” (Dkt. No. 112-1 at 23.) Defendants argue that these questions cannot be answered on a class-wide basis. (Dkt. No. 117, 13:15.) The Court disagrees.
It is true that Proposed Class members suffer from a wide variety of mental or physical disabilities. But the overarching issue for each member is identical. All are allegedly adversely affected by Defendants’ homelessness policy. Defendants cite Wal-Mart v. Dukes and point out that for commonality to be met, the Proposed Class must suffer the same injury, not just violation of the same law. (Dkt. No. 117 at 19.) Proposed Class members, according to Defendants, each allegedly experienced different harms. For example, one individual was allegedly harmed physically from having to sleep on the ASL’s floor matts while another individual suffered from anxiety allegedly exacerbated by conditions at the ASL. (Id. at 20.) But this level of similarity of harm goes too deep. Proposed Class members all allegedly suffered the injury of having their rights violated due to their disabilities. So the harmed suffered by Proposed Class members is also common.
Defendants argue that when determining whether the ASL discriminates on the basis of disabilities, the analysis is individualized and the appropriate relief is directly tied to that disability. (Dkt. No. 117, 16:14.) Therefore, there is no common answer to drive the resolution of litigation. (Id. at 17:10.) The Court disagrees. All Proposed Class members want the same injunctive relief—“equal access to a safe, legal place to sleep.” (Dkt. No. 1121, 17:20.)

Plaintiffs’ analogies to other cases where courts found commonality despite differences in the disabilities of class members is also convincing to the Court. (Dkt. No. 135 at 12–13.) The Ninth Circuit has affirmed the certification of a class of prisoners with various disabilities who claimed that some of their prison’s policies violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001). The Ninth Circuit found commonality despite the defendant’s arguments that the class members’ individual disabilities were too varied. Id at 868.

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 6 of 9

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 203 Filed 06/23/17 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:4731

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-01332 AG (DFMx)

Date June 23, 2017

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

Defendants also argue that not all Proposed Class members have even tried accessing the ASL. Even if this is true, certifying this class would still resolve the issue of accessibility and legality of the City’s shelter in “one stroke.”
One of Defendants’ arguments—that Plaintiffs have failed to even allege commonality for their eighth amendment and substantive due process violations claims—is convincing to the Court. This Court assesses the commonality issue for each claim individually. See Polanco v. Schneider Nat. Carriers, Inc., No. CV 10-4565-GHK JEMX, 2012 WL 10717265 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2012). Commonality has not been established for the eighth amendment and substantive due process violations claims, and it has not been established for “analogous provisions of the California Constitution.” Class certification is denied as to these claims. Commonality is satisfied as to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims.

4.3 Rule 23(a)(3)—Typicality
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3) requires the plaintiff’s claims to be “typical” of the claims of the class members. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). “[R]epresentative claims are ‘typical’ if they are reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998).
The “commonality and typicality requirements . . . tend to merge. Both serve as guideposts for determining whether under the particular circumstances maintenance of a class action is economical and whether the named plaintiff’s claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350, n. 5 (2011) (quoting General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157–158, n. 13 (1982)).
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ “difficulties” in accessing the ASL stem from factors unrelated to their disabilities and instead related to their behavioral problems. (Dkt. No. 117 at 25–26.) But Plaintiffs are alleging that those behavioral problems stem from their disabilities. Typicality has a “permissive” standard. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. The “typicality inquiry involves comparing the injury asserted in the claims raised by the named plaintiffs with those of the rest of the class.” Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 869. Just like in Armstrong, the
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 7 of 9

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 203 Filed 06/23/17 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:4732

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-01332 AG (DFMx)

Date June 23, 2017

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

injuries here are identical. The Proposed Class “all suffer a refusal or failure to afford them accommodations . . . and are objects of discriminatory treatment on account of their disabilities.” Id.
Typicality is satisfied.

4.4 Rule 23(a)(4)—Adequacy
Finally, Plaintiff has shown adequacy of representation by the class representatives and class counsel. There are two questions to consider for this requirement: “(1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020.
Plaintiffs have shown adequacy of class representatives and class counsel and Defendants do not oppose this. Adequacy is satisfied.

4.5 Rule 23(b)(2)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), class certification is appropriate when “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” F. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants have acted in a manner that fails to consider the needs of its disabled, homeless population, and in so doing, have acted with respect to class members generally.” (Dkt. No. 112-1 at 29.) Plaintiffs seek a uniform injunctive and declaratory relief from the City’s policies that are applicable to the Proposed Class.
Defendants argue that individualized injunctions are necessary for each individual Proposed Class member. “Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class.” Id. It is true that “claims for individualized relief . . . do not satisfy [] Rule[23(b)(2)].” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 360. But Plaintiffs are not seeking individualized injunctions. Instead, Plaintiffs seek “permanent supportive housing
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 8 of 9

Case 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM Document 203 Filed 06/23/17 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:4733

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SACV 15-01332 AG (DFMx)

Date June 23, 2017

KENNETH GLOVER ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ET AL.

paired with a case manager.” (Dkt. No. 135 at 20.) According to Plaintiffs, issues of access to services for individual Proposed Class members could just be determined by a case worker, without the need to individual hearings. (Id.)
“‘Civil rights cases against parties charged with unlawful, class-based discrimination are prime examples’ of what (b)(2) is meant to capture.” Id. at 361 (quoting Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614 (1997)). This class-based discrimination claim satisfies Rule 23(b)(2).

5. DISPOSITION

The Court appoints the ACLU-SC and the law firm of Paul Hastings LLP as class counsel of the Proposed Class, and the named plaintiffs as class representatives.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (Dkt. No. 112.)

Initials of Preparer

:0 lmb

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 9 of 9

 
 EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 1

 
 Alerts not yet Supported for this Docket ACCO,(DFMx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,MANADR,PROTORD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Southern Division - Santa Ana)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM

Kenneth Glover et al v. City of Laguna Beach et al Assigned to: Judge Andrew J. Guilford Referred to: Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick Demand: $0 Cause: 42:12101 Americans With Disabilities Act

Date Filed: 08/20/2015 Date Terminated: 03/29/2018 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Kenneth Glover an individual

represented by Glenn D Dassoff Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP 2050 Main Street Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 949-567-6700 Fax: 949-567-6710 Email: gdassoff@orrick.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Benjamin Grossman Paul Hastings LLP 695 Town Center Drive 17th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1924 714-668-6200 Fax: 714-979-1921 Email: andrewgrossman@paulhastings.com (Inactive) TERMINATED: 06/16/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Belinda Escobosa Helzer ACLU Foundation of Southern California 721 North Harbor Boulevard Fullerton, CA 92832 714-879-5770 Fax: 714-879-5771 Email: bescobosahelzer@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S Lim Paul Hastings LLP 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714-668-6217 Fax: 174-668-6317 Email: daniel.lim@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 04/18/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Mark Hernand Paul Hastings LLP 515 South Flower Street 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-683-6000 Fax: 213-683-5920 Email: davidhernand@paulhastings.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Maria Johnson ACLU of Southern California 1851 East First Street Suite 450 Santa Ana, CA 92705 714-450-3962 Fax: 714-543-5240 Email: HJohnson@ACLUSOCAL.ORG TERMINATED: 01/14/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian Matthew Kysel ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1851 East First Street Suite 450 Santa Ana, CA 92705 213-977-9500 Fax: 714-543-5240 Email: ikysel@aclusocal.org TERMINATED: 07/19/2019
Julia Devanthery ACLU of Southern California 1313 West 8th Street Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-977-9500 x 131 Fax: 213-977-5299 Email: jdevanthery@aclusocal.org

Plaintiff
David Sestini an individual

TERMINATED: 08/10/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Katherine Frenck Murray Browne George Ross O'Brien Annaguey and Ellis LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310-274-7100 Fax: 310-275-5697 Email: katherinemurray@paulhastings.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg ACLU of Southern California 1313 West 8th Street Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-977-9500 Fax: 213-977-5299 Email: peliasberg@aclusocal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristopher Ray Wood Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP 2050 Main Street Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614-8256 949-852-7722 Fax: 949-567-6710 Email: kristopher.wood@orrick.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Glenn D Dassoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Benjamin Grossman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Searles Kaewert Paul Hastings LLP 515 South Flower Street 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-683-6279 Fax: 213-996-3279 Email: briankaewert@paulhastings.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Marie Parker ACLU Fountation of Southern California 1313 West 8th Street Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-977-9500 Fax: 213-977-5299 Email: cparker@aclusocal.org TERMINATED: 10/11/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Lim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/18/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Mark Hernand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Maria Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian Matthew Kysel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2019
Julia Devanthery (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Katherine Frenck Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Douglas Frederes Jr an individual

Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristopher Ray Wood (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Glenn D Dassoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Benjamin Grossman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Lim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/18/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Mark Hernand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Maria Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Devanthery (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Katherine Frenck Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jeffrey Aiken an individual

Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristopher Ray Wood (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Glenn D Dassoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Benjamin Grossman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Lim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/18/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Mark Hernand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Maria Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Devanthery (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Katherine Frenck Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Katrina Aune an individual

Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristopher Ray Wood (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Glenn D Dassoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Benjamin Grossman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Lim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/18/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Mark Hernand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Maria Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Devanthery (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Katherine Frenck Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff John Miller
Plaintiff Lisa Holbrook

Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristopher Ray Wood (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Lim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/18/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Maria Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Devanthery (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Lim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/18/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Maria Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2016

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Devanthery (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2020 PRO HAC VICE

Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Richard Owens individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Andrew Benjamin Grossman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Searles Kaewert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine Marie Parker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/11/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Mark Hernand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ian Matthew Kysel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2019

Julia Devanthery (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2020 PRO HAC VICE

Katherine Frenck Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

James Scott Rudolph individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Andrew Benjamin Grossman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Mark Hernand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Devanthery (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2020 PRO HAC VICE

Katherine Frenck Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Michael Newman individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Andrew Benjamin Grossman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Searles Kaewert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant City of Laguna Beach

Christine Marie Parker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/11/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Mark Hernand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian Matthew Kysel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2019
Julia Devanthery (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Katherine Frenck Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ajit Singh Thind Rutan and Tucker LLP 611 Anton Boulevard Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1931 714-641-5100 Fax: 714-546-9035 Email: athind@rutan.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher S Whittaker Email: Christopher.whittaker@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
The Laguna Beach Police Department a California charter city

Douglas J Dennington Rutan and Tucker LLP 18575 Jamboree Road Suite 9th Floor Irvine, CA 92612 714-641-5100 Fax: 714-546-9035 Email: ddennington@rutan.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael G Yoder O'Melveny and Myers LLP 610 Newport Center Drive 17th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660-6429 949-760-9600 Fax: 949-823-6994 Email: myoder@omm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip D Kohn Rutan and Tucker LLP 611 Anton Boulevard 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1931 714-641-5100 Fax: 714-546-9035 Email: pkohn@rutan.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ajit Singh Thind (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher S Whittaker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas J Dennington (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael G Yoder

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip D Kohn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/20/2015
08/20/2015 08/20/2015 08/20/2015 08/20/2015 08/21/2015 08/21/2015 08/21/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-16301859 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiffs Kenneth Glover, Jeffrey Aiken, Douglas Frederes, Jr, David Sestini, Katrina Aune. (Attorney Kristopher R Wood added to party Jeffrey Aiken(pty:pla), Attorney Kristopher R Wood added to party Katrina Aune(pty:pla), Attorney Kristopher R Wood added to party Douglas Frederes, Jr(pty:pla), Attorney Kristopher R Wood added to party Kenneth Glover(pty:pla), Attorney Kristopher R Wood added to party David Sestini(pty:pla))(Wood, Kristopher) (Entered: 08/20/2015)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes, Jr, Kenneth Glover, David Sestini. (Wood, Kristopher) (Entered: 08/20/2015)
3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes, Jr, Kenneth Glover, David Sestini. (Wood, Kristopher) (Entered: 08/20/2015)
4 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes, Jr, Kenneth Glover, David Sestini, (Wood, Kristopher) (Entered: 08/20/2015)
5 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes, Jr, Kenneth Glover, David Sestini. Related Case(s): 8:08-01447, 8:12-cv-00501, 8:14-cv-01890, 14-56079 (9th Cir.) (Wood, Kristopher) (Entered: 08/20/2015)
6 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),, 1 as to Defendants City of Laguna Beach and The Laguna Beach Police Department. (lwag) (Entered: 08/21/2015)
7 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Andrew J. Guilford and Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. (lwag) (Entered: 08/21/2015)
8 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lwag) (Entered: 08/21/2015)

08/26/2015 08/28/2015
08/28/2015
08/31/2015 09/09/2015 09/25/2015

9 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 14-03 (Related Case) filed. Transfer of case declined by Judge Cormac J. Carney, for the reasons set forth on this order. Related Case No. SACV08-01447 CJC (AGRx). (rrp) (Entered: 08/26/2015)
10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Kenneth Glover, Jeffrey Aiken, Douglas Frederes Jr, David Sestini, Katrina Aune, upon Defendant The Laguna Beach Police Department served on 8/26/2015, answer due 9/16/2015. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon The Laguna Beach Police Department, a California Charter City in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity.Original Summons NOT returned. (Wood, Kristopher) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Kenneth Glover, Jeffrey Aiken, Douglas Frederes Jr, David Sestini, Katrina Aune, upon Defendant City of Laguna Beach served on 8/26/2015, answer due 9/16/2015. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon City of Laguna Beach in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity.Original Summons NOT returned. (Wood, Kristopher) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
12 NOTICE of Errata re Proofs of Service (Dkts. 10, 11) filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, David Sestini. Corrected Proper Service Date (Wood, Kristopher) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
13 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),, 1 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department.(Attorney Philip D Kohn added to party City of Laguna Beach(pty:dft), Attorney Philip D Kohn added to party The Laguna Beach Police Department(pty:dft))(Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
14 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Michael G Yoder counsel for Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Adding Michael G. Yoder as counsel of record for City of Laguna Beach and Laguna Beach Police Department for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by defendants City of Laguna Beach and Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attorney Michael G Yoder added to party City of Laguna Beach(pty:dft), Attorney Michael G Yoder added to party The Laguna Beach Police Department(pty:dft))(Yoder, Michael) (Entered: 09/25/2015)

09/25/2015 09/28/2015 09/28/2015
10/16/2015 10/16/2015 10/26/2015
10/26/2015
10/30/2015

15 ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),, 1 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department.(Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
16 ORDER RE EARLY MEETING OF PARTIES AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Scheduling Conference set for 11/30/2015 at 9:00 am. (lb) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
17 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Ajit Singh Thind counsel for Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Adding Ajit S. Thind as counsel of record for City of Laguna Beach and Laguna Beach Police Department for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach and Laguna Beach Police Department. (Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
18 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendant City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),, 1 , filed by Plaintiff Kenneth Glover, Jeffrey Aiken, Douglas Frederes Jr, David Sestini, Katrina Aune(Johnson, Heather) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
19 Amended CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs All Plaintiffs, (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Johnson, Heather) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
20 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Kristopher Ray Wood counsel for Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, David Sestini. Changing firm name and address to Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 2050 Main Street, Suite 1100, Irvine, CA 92614. Changing e-mail to kristopher.wood@orrick.com. Filed by Plaintiffs Kenneth Glover, David Sestini, Douglas Frederes Jr., Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune. (Wood, Kristopher) (Entered: 10/26/2015)
21 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Glenn D Dassoff counsel for Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, David Sestini. Changing firm name and address to Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 2050 Main Street, Suite 1100, Irvine, CA 92614. Changing e-mail to gdassoff@orrick.com. Filed by Plaintiffs Kenneth Glover, David Sestini, Douglas Frederes Jr., Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune. (Dassoff, Glenn) (Entered: 10/26/2015)
22 ANSWER to Amended Complaint/Petition, 18 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department.(Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 10/30/2015)

11/06/2015 11/06/2015 11/12/2015 11/13/2015 11/19/2015

23 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Katherine Frenck Murray on behalf of Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, David Sestini (Attorney Katherine Frenck Murray added to party Jeffrey Aiken(pty:pla), Attorney Katherine Frenck Murray added to party Katrina Aune(pty:pla), Attorney Katherine Frenck Murray added to party Douglas Frederes Jr(pty:pla), Attorney Katherine Frenck Murray added to party Kenneth Glover(pty:pla), Attorney Katherine Frenck Murray added to party David Sestini(pty:pla))(Murray, Katherine) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
24 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Daniel S Lim on behalf of Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, David Sestini (Attorney Daniel S Lim added to party Jeffrey Aiken(pty:pla), Attorney Daniel S Lim added to party Katrina Aune(pty:pla), Attorney Daniel S Lim added to party Douglas Frederes Jr(pty:pla), Attorney Daniel S Lim added to party Kenneth Glover(pty:pla), Attorney Daniel S Lim added to party David Sestini(pty:pla))(Lim, Daniel) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
25 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File to Move for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, David Sestini, John Miller, Lisa Holbrook. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Attorney Heather Maria Johnson added to party John Miller(pty:pla), Attorney Heather Maria Johnson added to party Lisa Holbrook(pty:pla))(Johnson, Heather) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
26 **NOTE CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT** ORDER Approving Stipulation to Extend Time to Move For Class Certification 25 by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: For the reasons stated in the Stipulation and for good cause shown, the Court hereby APPROVES the Stipulation and vacates the November 19, 2015 deadline to move for class certification. Counsel shall submit a proposed schedule for class certification for the November 30, 2015 Scheduling Conference. (lwag) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
27 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney David Mark Hernand on behalf of Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, David Sestini (Attorney David Mark Hernand added to party Jeffrey Aiken(pty:pla), Attorney David Mark Hernand added to party Katrina Aune(pty:pla), Attorney David Mark Hernand added to party Douglas Frederes Jr(pty:pla), Attorney David Mark Hernand added to party Kenneth Glover(pty:pla), Attorney David Mark Hernand added to party David Sestini(pty:pla))(Hernand, David) (Entered: 11/19/2015)

11/19/2015 11/23/2015 11/23/2015 11/23/2015 11/23/2015 11/23/2015 11/23/2015

28 JOINT RULE 26(f) AND LOCAL RULE 26-1 REPORT filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. (Murray, Katherine) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
29 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. Motion set for hearing on 12/21/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Proposed Order) (Johnson, Heather) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
30 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. Motion set for hearing on 12/21/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Proposed Order) (Johnson, Heather) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
31 DECLARATION of Heather Maria Johnson in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. (Johnson, Heather) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
32 DECLARATION of Benjamin F. Henwood in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. (Johnson, Heather) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
33 DECLARATION of Katrina Aune in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. (Johnson, Heather) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
34 DECLARATION of David Sestini in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION

11/23/2015 11/23/2015 11/23/2015 11/23/2015 11/23/2015 11/23/2015

AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. (Johnson, Heather) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
35 DECLARATION of Jeffrey Aiken in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. (Johnson, Heather) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
36 DECLARATION of John Miller in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. (Johnson, Heather) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
37 DECLARATION of Lisa Holbrook in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. (Johnson, Heather) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
38 DECLARATION of Kenneth Glover in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. (Johnson, Heather) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
39 DECLARATION of Douglas Frederes Jr. in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. (Johnson, Heather) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
40 DECLARATION of Joshua Oldham in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030

11/23/2015 11/24/2015
11/25/2015 11/30/2015 11/30/2015

and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. (Johnson, Heather) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
41 DECLARATION of Pati Donaldson in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. (Johnson, Heather) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
42 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File as to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Stipulation to Revise Briefing Schedule for Opp. & Reply Papers)(Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
43 ORDER Granting Stipulation to Revise Briefing Schedule for Opposition 42 by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: Defendants' opposition papers as to both motions shall be due on or before December 4, 2015; Plaintiff's reply papers as to both motions shall be due on or before December 11, 2015; and The hearings on both motions remain set for December 21, 2015. (lwag) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
44 SCHEDULING ORDER SPECIFYING PROCEDURES: Discovery cut-off 8/15/2016. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/23/2017 at 8:30 am. Bench Trial set for 2/7/2017 at 9:00 am. (lb) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
45 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge Andrew J. Guilford: Cause is called for hearing and counsel make their appearances. Court and counsel confer. The Court sets the following dates: A Final Pretrial Conference is set for January 23, 2017, at 8:30 a.m.; A Court Trial is set for February 7, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. Court sets the length of the trial at 10 days. Counsel stipulate to and the Court orders ADR Procedure No. 1 before the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. 29] and Plaintiffs' Motion for Provisional Class Certification [Dkt. 30] are continued to January 25, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. Oppositions are due on January 6, 2016 and replies are due January 15, 2016. See document for further dates and information.Court Reporter: Miriam Baird. (lwag) (Entered: 12/04/2015)

01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016
01/06/2016
01/06/2016
01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016

46 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
47 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
48 Defendants' Evidentiary Objections to Declarations in Support of Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
49 Defendants' Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Benjamin F Henwood PhD opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
50 DECLARATION of John Pietig In Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
51 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
52 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 2 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
53 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 3 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)

01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016

54 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 4 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
55 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 5 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
56 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 6 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
57 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 7 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
58 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 8 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
59 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 9 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
60 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 10 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
61 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 11 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
62 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 12 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
63 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 13 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
64 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 14 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
65 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 15 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)

01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016
01/06/2016
01/06/2016
01/06/2016

66 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 16 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
67 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 17 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
68 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 18 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
69 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 19 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
70 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Exhibit 20 as to Declaration (Motion related), 50 . (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
71 DECLARATION of Chief of Police Laura Farinella In Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
72 DECLARATION of Jason Kravetz In Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
73 DECLARATION of Jason Farris In Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
74 DECLARATION of Wade Brown In Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/07/2016

for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
75 DECLARATION of Emma Ferreira In Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
76 DECLARATION of Lawrence G. Haynes, Jr. In Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
77 Defendants' Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Heather Maria Johnson opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
78 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Exhibit (non-trial) 51 , Exhibit (non-trial) 69 , Exhibit (non-trial) 66 , Exhibit (non-trial) 55 , Exhibit (non-trial) 64 , Exhibit (non-trial) 65 , Exhibit (non-trial) 56 , Exhibit (non-trial) 57 , Exhibit (non-trial) 70 , Exhibit (non-trial) 62 , Exhibit (non-trial) 63 , Exhibit (non-trial) 60 , Exhibit (non-trial) 58 , Exhibit (non-trial) 53 , Exhibit (non-trial) 68 , Exhibit (non-trial) 52 , Exhibit (non-trial) 67 , Exhibit (non-trial) 61 , Exhibit (non-trial) 54 , Exhibit (non-trial) 59 . The following error(s) was found: Title page is missing.: The Title Page is missing on docket entries #51 thru #70. 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. (lwag) (Entered: 01/07/2016)

01/14/2016
01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016

79 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Belinda Escobosa Helzer counsel for Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. Heather Maria Johnson is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Kenneth Glover et. al.. (Attorney Belinda Escobosa Helzer added to party Lisa Holbrook(pty:pla), Attorney Belinda Escobosa Helzer added to party John Miller(pty:pla))(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
80 REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, David Sestini. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
81 REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, David Sestini. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
82 DECLARATION of Belinda Escobosa Helzer in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, David Sestini. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
83 DECLARATION of John Culbertson in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, David Sestini. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
84 DECLARATION of Benjamin F. Henwood in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, David Sestini. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
85 DECLARATION of Pam Bowers in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, David Sestini. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/15/2016)

01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016

86 DECLARATION of Lisa Holbrook in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, David Sestini. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
87 DECLARATION of Leonard John Porto III in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, David Sestini. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
88 DECLARATION of James Scott Rudolph in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, David Sestini. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
89 DECLARATION of David Sestini in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, David Sestini. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
90 Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections to the Declarations of John Pietig, Laura Farinella, Jason Kravetz, Jason Farris, Wade Brown, Emma Ferreira, and Lawrence G. Haynes, Jr. in Support of Defendants' Oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction and for Provisional Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, David Sestini (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
91 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, David Sestini to Defendants' Evidentiary Objections to Declarations of Named Plaintiffs, Pati Donaldson, and Joshua Oldham (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
92 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, David Sestini to Defendants' Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Benjamin F. Henwood (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
93 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, David Sestini to Defendants' Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Heather Maria Johnson (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/15/2016)

01/21/2016

94 Objections Opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 Evidentiar Objections to Declarations filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/21/2016)

01/21/2016

95 Objection Opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 30 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Cessation of Enforcement of Cal. Penal Code 647(e) and LBMC Sections 8.30.030 and 18.05.020 . Motion 29 Defendants' Evidentiary Objections to Supplemental Declaration of Benjamin F. Henwood, Ph.D. filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 01/21/2016)

01/22/2016

96 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, David Sestini to Defendants' Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Benjamin F. Henwood (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/22/2016)

01/25/2016

97 MINUTES OF 1. PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [DKT 29] 2. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PROVISIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION [DKT 30] Hearing held before Judge Andrew J. Guilford: Argued and taken under submission. Court Reporter: Miriam Baird. (lb) (Entered: 01/29/2016)

01/29/2016

98 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini for Court Reporter. Court will contact Michelle Ochoa at mochoa@aclusocal.org with any questions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 01/29/2016)

02/10/2016

99 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction 29 by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. See document for further information. (lwag) (Entered: 02/11/2016)

03/08/2016

100 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/30 15 9:30 AM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miriam V. Baird, phone number mvb11893@aol.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due

3/29/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/8/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/6/2016. (Baird, Miriam) (Entered: 03/08/2016)

03/08/2016

101 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 11/30/15 9:30 AM re Transcript 100 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Baird, Miriam) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/08/2016)

03/14/2016

102 Joint STIPULATION to Reschedule Briefing Schedule Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Stipulation Regarding Revised Briefing and Hearing Schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification)(Attorney Daniel S Lim added to party Lisa Holbrook(pty:pla), Attorney Daniel S Lim added to party John Miller(pty:pla))(Lim, Daniel) (Entered: 03/14/2016)

03/15/2016

103 ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Guilford; Granting Stipulation Regarding Revised Briefing and Hearing Schedule for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification re 102 . Having considered the Joint Stipulation Regarding Revised Briefing and Hearing Schedule on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS the Stipulation. It is hereby ORDERED that: Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class Certification on orbefore June 20, 2016; Defendants shall file their Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification on or before August 1, 2016; Plaintiffs shall file their Reply in Support of the Motion for Class Certification on or before August 22, 2016; and The hearing on the Motion for Class Certification shall be set forSeptember 12, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. (mba) (Entered: 03/15/2016)

04/18/2016

104 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Daniel S Lim counsel for Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. Daniel S. Lim is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by plaintiffs Kenneth Glover, David Sestini, Douglas Frederes Jr., Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, John Miller and Lisa Holbrook. (Lim, Daniel) (Entered: 04/18/2016)

05/03/2016

105 Joint STIPULATION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 05/03/2016)

05/03/2016

106 Joint STIPULATION to Reschedule Class Certification and Discovery Deadlines filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, David Sestini. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 05/03/2016)

05/04/2016

107 **PLEASE NOTE CHANGE MADE BY THE COURT** ORDER Granting Stipulation Regarding Revised Class Certification and Discovery Deadlines 106 by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: The Court hereby GRANTS the Stipulation. It is hereby ORDERED that: Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class Certification on or before June 27, 2016; Defendants shall file their Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification on or before August 1, 2016; Plaintiffs shall file their Reply in Support of the Motion for Class Certification on or before September 19, 2016; The hearing on the Motion for Class Certification shall be set for October 3, 2016; and The fact discovery cutoff is extended from August 15, 2016 to September 15, 2016. (lwag) (Entered: 05/04/2016)

05/04/2016

108 ORDER Granting Stipulation Regarding Second Amended Complaint 105 by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: The Court hereby GRANTS the Stipulation. It is hereby ORDERED that: Plaintiffs may file the Second Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit A to the Stipulation Regarding Second Amended Complaint and Defendants shall file a response within 30 days after the Second Amended Complaint is filed. (lwag) (Entered: 05/04/2016)

05/04/2016

109 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants All Plaintiffs amending Amended Complaint/Petition, 18 , filed by Plaintiffs Lisa Holbrook, Douglas Frederes Jr, John Miller, David Sestini, Jeffrey Aiken, Kenneth Glover, Katrina Aune(Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 05/04/2016)

06/02/2016

110 ANSWER to Amended Complaint/Petition, 109 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department.(Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 06/02/2016)

06/24/2016

111 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Peter J Eliasberg on behalf of Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, Michael Newman, Richard Owens, James Scott Rudolph, David Sestini (Attorney Peter J Eliasberg added to party Jeffrey Aiken(pty:pla), Attorney Peter J Eliasberg added to party Katrina Aune(pty:pla), Attorney Peter J Eliasberg added to party Douglas Frederes Jr(pty:pla), Attorney Peter J Eliasberg added to party Kenneth Glover(pty:pla), Attorney Peter J Eliasberg added to party Lisa Holbrook(pty:pla), Attorney Peter J Eliasberg added to party John

Miller(pty:pla), Attorney Peter J Eliasberg added to party Michael Newman(pty:pla), Attorney Peter J Eliasberg added to party Richard Owens(pty:pla), Attorney Peter J Eliasberg added to party James Scott Rudolph(pty:pla), Attorney Peter J Eliasberg added to party David Sestini(pty:pla))(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/27/2016

112 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. Motion set for hearing on 10/3/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of David Sestini, # 3 Declaration of Richard Owens, # 4 Declaration of Michael Newman, # 5 Declaration of Benjamin F. Henwood, Ph.D., # 6 Declaration of Jack Day, # 7 Declaration of Peter J. Eliasberg, # 8 Exhibit A-G to Eliasberg Declaration, # 9 Exhibit H-M to Eliasberg Declaration, # 10 Exhibit N-U to Eliasberg Declaration, # 11 Exhibit V-AA to Eliasberg Declaration, # 12 Declaration of Katherine F. Murray, # 13 Proposed Order) (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 06/27/2016)

08/01/2016

113 Objections in Opposition to re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 112 EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS OF DAVID SESTINI, MICHAEL NEWMAN, AND RICHARD WAYNE OWENS filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 08/01/2016)

08/01/2016

114 Opposition in opposition to re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 112 EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF JACK DAY filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 08/01/2016)

08/01/2016

115 OBJECTION IN OPPOSITION TO re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 112 EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF PETER J. ELIASBERG filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 08/01/2016)

08/01/2016

116 OBJECTION IN OPPOSITION TO re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 112 EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF BENJAMIN F. HENWOOD, PH.D filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 08/01/2016)

08/01/2016

117 OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION TO re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 112 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed by Defendants City of

Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 08/01/2016)

08/01/2016

118 STIPULATION to Dismiss Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, James Scott Rudolph filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation to Facts for All Purposes)(Yoder, Michael) (Entered: 08/01/2016)

08/01/2016

119 DECLARATION of JASON KRAVETZ in opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 112 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 08/01/2016)

08/01/2016

120 DECLARATION of JASON FARRIS in opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 112 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 08/01/2016)

08/01/2016

121 DECLARATION of AJIT SINGH THIND in opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 112 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 08/01/2016)

08/01/2016

122 APPLICATION to file document Declaration of Emma Ferreira under seal filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Redacted Document Declaration of Emma Ferreria in Support of Defs Opposition to Mtn for Class Certification, # 3 Declaration In support of the Application for Leave to File Under Seal Certain Paragraphs from the Decl of Emma Ferreira)(Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 08/01/2016)

08/01/2016

123 SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document Declaration of Emma Ferreira under seal 122 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 08/01/2016)

08/02/2016

124 NOTICE Notice of Errata filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 08/02/2016)

08/04/2016

125 **NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT** ORDER Granting Defendants' Application for Leave to File Under Seal 122 by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: Upon consideration of Defendants City of Laguna Beachs and the Laguna Beach Police Departments (Defendants)

Application to file under seal paragraphs 21-27, 32-33, and 44-48 of the Declaration of Emma Ferreira in Support of Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification; good cause appearing, the Application is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs and any interested member of the public can challenge the sealing of these paragraphs. Counsel must file the redacted version of the declaration on the public docket within 3 days and the unredacted version under seal within 3 days. (lwag) (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/05/2016

126 DECLARATION of Emma Ferreira in opposition to APPLICATION to file document Declaration of Emma Ferreira under seal 122 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 112 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/05/2016

127 SEALED DOCUMENT re APPLICATION to file document Declaration of Emma Ferreira under seal 122 , Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal,, 125 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/05/2016

128 ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Guilford Granting APPLICATION for Leave to File Certain Documents Under Seal 122 . Upon consideration of Defendants City of Laguna Beach's and the Laguna Beach Police Department's ("Defendants") Application to file under seal paragraphs 21-27, 32-33, and 44-48 of the Declaration of Emma Ferreira in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; good cause appearing, the Application is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs and any interested member of the public can challenge the sealing of these paragraphs. IT IS SO ORDERED. (dro) (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/16/2016

129 STIPULATION for Order RE: Expert Discovery Deadlines filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yoder, Michael) (Entered: 08/16/2016)

08/17/2016

130 ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Guilford Granting re Stipulation Regarding Expert Discovery Deadlines 129 . After considering the parties' Stipulation Regarding Expert Discovery Deadlines, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The deadline for initial expert disclosures shall be October 10, 2016. 2. Any rebuttal expert disclosure shall be served within 30 days after the initial expert disclosure to which it responds. 3. The deadline for all expert discovery shall be

December 9, 2016. 4. All other deadlines in the Scheduling Order and Minute Order shall remain unchanged. (dro) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

09/02/2016

131 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick: See document for further information. (lwag) (Entered: 09/02/2016)

09/12/2016

132 STIPULATION for Discovery as to Deposition of Leonard Porto III filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] OrderGranting Stipulation re Deposition of Leonard Porto III)(Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/13/2016

133 ORDER Granting Stipulation Regarding Deposition of Leonard Porto III 132 by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: The deposition of Leonard Porto III shall take place by October 7, 2016; The September 15, 2016 fact discovery cutoff shall continue to apply to all discovery other than the deposition of Leonard Porto III; and All other deadlines in the Scheduling Order shall remain unchanged. (lwag) (Entered: 09/13/2016)

09/15/2016

134 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Belinda Escobosa Helzer counsel for Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, Michael Newman, Richard Owens, James Scott Rudolph, David Sestini. Belinda Escobosa Helzer is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Kenneth Glover et. al.. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 09/15/2016)

09/19/2016

135 REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 112 filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 09/19/2016)

10/03/2016

136 MINUTES OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION [DKT 112] Hearing held before Judge Andrew J. Guilford: Argued and taken under submission. Court Reporter: Miriam Baird. (lb) (Entered: 10/06/2016)

10/06/2016

137 Joint STIPULATION to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yoder, Michael) (Entered: 10/06/2016)

10/11/2016 138 ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: Granting Stipulation to Extend Expert Discovery Deadlines 137 (mt) (Entered: 10/12/2016)

10/18/2016

139 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, Michael Newman, Richard Owens, James Scott Rudolph, David Sestini for Court Reporter. Court will contact Geneva Tien at gtien@aclusocal.org with any questions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 10/18/2016)

10/20/2016

140 ORDER Setting Settlement Conference by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. A Settlement Conference will be held before the Court in Courtroom 6B of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, California, on November 2, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. (see document for details). (dro) (Entered: 10/20/2016)

10/28/2016

141 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 10/3/16 10:00 AM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: miriam baird, phone number mvb11893@aol.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 11/18/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/28/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/26/2017. (Baird, Miriam) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/28/2016

142 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 10/3/16 10:00 AM re Transcript 141 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Baird, Miriam) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/31/2016

143 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Eighth Amendment Claims and ADA/RA Claims filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. Motion set for hearing on 12/5/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Auhtorities, # 2 Declaration of Peter J. Eliasberg, # 3 Declaration of Richard Owens, # 4 Declaration of Michael Newman, # 5 Declaration of Manda Robinson, # 6 Declaration of Benjamin Henwood, # 7 Declaration of Leonard J. Porto III, # 8 Declaration of David Sestini, # 9 Proposed Order) (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 10/31/2016)

10/31/2016

144 STATEMENT of Uncontroverted Facts NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Eighth Amendment Claims and ADA/RA Claims 143 filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 10/31/2016)

10/31/2016

145 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to or, In the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment of Claims filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Motion set for hearing on 12/5/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Separate Statement, # 3 Declaration of Christopher S. Whittaker, # 4 Exhibit 1 to the Whittaker Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 2 to the Whittaker Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 3 to the Whittaker Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 4-10 to the Whittaker Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 11-17 to the Whittaker Declaration, # 9 Declaration of Helen Cameron, # 10 Declaration of Lawrence G. Haynes, # 11 Declaration of John Pietig, # 12 Declaration of Emma Ferreira, # 13 Declaration of Jason Farris, # 14 Declaration of Kristen Berry, # 15 Proposed Final Judgment) (Yoder, Michael) (Entered: 10/31/2016)

11/02/2016

146 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick: Pursuant to Local Rule 16-14, the parties met this date for a mandatory settlement conference. The parties were unable to reach an agreement on disposition of the case. The parties are encouraged to continue their settlement discussions. Should there be a need for additional court assistance, the parties may contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk to schedule a further settlement conference. (lwag) (Entered: 11/04/2016)

11/10/2016

147 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to or, In the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment of Claims 145 filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter Eliasberg, # 2 Declaration of Michael Newman, # 3 Declaration of Leonard Porto III, # 4 Declaration of David Sestini)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 11/10/2016)

11/10/2016

148 STATEMENT Genuine Issues filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini re: MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion, 147 . (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 11/10/2016)

11/10/2016

149 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Eighth Amendment Claims and ADA/RA Claims 143 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Separate Statement, # 2 Evidentiary Objections to Eliasberg Declaration, # 3 Evidentiary Objections to Henwood Declaration, # 4 Evidentiary Objections to Newman Declaration, # 5 Evidentiary Objections to Owens Declaration, # 6 Evidentiary Objections to Porto Declaration, # 7 Evidentiary Objections to Robinson Declaration, # 8 Evidentiary

Objections to Sestini Declaration)(Yoder, Michael) (Entered: 11/10/2016)

11/18/2016

150 NOTICE of Errata re: Exhibit B of the Declaration of Peter J. Eliasberg In Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Kenneth Glover. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 11/18/2016)

11/18/2016

151 NOTICE of Errata re: The Declaration of Peter Eliasberg In Support of Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Kenneth Glover. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 11/18/2016)

11/21/2016

152 REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to or, In the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment of Claims 145 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Response to Plaintiffs' Additional Material Facts, # 2 Declaration of Christopher S. Whittaker, # 3 Declaration of Kristen Berry, # 4 Objections to Eliasberg Declaration, # 5 Objections to Newman Declaration, # 6 Objections to Sestini Declaration)(Yoder, Michael) (Entered: 11/21/2016)

11/21/2016

153 REPLY in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter Eliasberg, # 2 Exhibit of Peter Eliasberg Declaration, # 3 Exhibit of Peter Eliasberg Declaration, # 4 Declaration of Benjamin Henwood, # 5 Exhibit of Benjamin Henwood Declaration, # 6 Declaration of David Sestini, # 7 Exhibit of David Sestini Declaration, # 8 Declaration of Glenn Baughman, # 9 Exhibit of Glenn Baughman Declaration, # 10 Declaration of Manda Robinson, # 11 Exhibit of Manda Robinson Declaration, # 12 Declaration of Michael Newman, # 13 Exhibit of Michael Newman Declaration, # 14 Declaration of Tiffany Roberts, # 15 Exhibit of Tiffany Roberts Declaration, # 16 Exhibit Tiffany Roberts Declaration, # 17 Exhibit Tiffany Roberts Declaration)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 11/21/2016)

11/21/2016

154 STATEMENT of Responses to the Genuine Disputes NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Eighth Amendment Claims and ADA/RA Claims 143 filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 11/21/2016)

11/21/2016

155 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Eighth Amendment Claims and ADA/RA Claims 143 Responses to Objections to Declaration of Peter Eliasberg filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 11/21/2016)

11/21/2016

156 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Eighth Amendment Claims and ADA/RA Claims 143 Responses to Objections to Declaration of Benjamin Henwood filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 11/21/2016)

11/21/2016

157 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Eighth Amendment Claims and ADA/RA Claims 143 Responses to Objection to Declaration of Michael Newman filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 11/21/2016)

11/21/2016

158 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Eighth Amendment Claims and ADA/RA Claims 143 Responses to Objections to Declaration of Richard Owens filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 11/21/2016)

11/21/2016

159 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Eighth Amendment Claims and ADA/RA Claims 143 Responses to Objections to Declaration of Leonard Porto filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 11/21/2016)

11/21/2016

160 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Eighth Amendment Claims and ADA/RA Claims 143 Responses to Objections to Declaration of Manda Robinson filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 11/21/2016)

11/21/2016

161 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Eighth Amendment Claims and ADA/RA Claims 143 Responses to Objections to Declaration of David Sestini filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 11/21/2016)

11/30/2016

162 Objections in opposition to re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Eighth Amendment Claims and ADA/RA Claims 143 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Ajit Singh Thind in Support of Defs Evidentiary Objections to Reply Declarations, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Ajit Singh Thind in Support of Defs Evidentiary Objections to Reply Declarations)(Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 11/30/2016)

12/01/2016 163 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Brian Searles Kaewert on behalf of Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini

(Attorney Brian Searles Kaewert added to party Michael Newman(pty:pla), Attorney Brian Searles Kaewert added to party Richard Owens(pty:pla), Attorney Brian Searles Kaewert added to party David Sestini(pty:pla))(Kaewert, Brian) (Entered: 12/01/2016)

12/01/2016

164 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Ian Matthew Kysel to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff Kenneth Glover (Pro Hac Vice Fee - Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973-18984369) filed by Plaintiffs Kenneth Glover. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex A - NY Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Exhibit Ex B - The State Bar of CA Application Submittal, # 3 Exhibit Ex C - Exam Application Submittal, # 4 Exhibit Ex D - The State Bar of CA, # 5 Exhibit Ex E - Pro Hac Vice App G64 Form, # 6 Exhibit Ex F - Pro Hac Vice - Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit Ex G - Minute Order Denying Application) (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 12/01/2016)

12/02/2016

165 ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: granting 164 Non-Resident Attorney Ian M. Kysel APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Putative Plaintiff Class and Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini, designating Peter J. Eliasberg as local counsel. (dro) (Entered: 12/02/2016)

12/05/2016

166 MINUTES OF 1. PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT 143] 2. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF CLAIMS [DKT 145] Motion held before Judge Andrew J. Guilford: Cause is called for hearing and counsel make their appearances. Matter is argued and taken under submission. Court Reporter: Miriam Baird. (es) (Entered: 12/08/2016)

12/08/2016

169 MINUTES OF Further Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick: Pursuant to Local Rule 16-14, the Court conducted a Further Settlement Conference with both parties. The parties were unable to reach an agreement. (lwag) (Entered: 12/14/2016)

12/09/2016

167 STIPULATION for Order to Extend Expert Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yoder, Michael) (Entered: 12/09/2016)

12/09/2016

168 ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Guilford Granting Stipulation to Extend Expert Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines 167 . (see document for details). (dro) (Entered: 12/09/2016)

12/15/2016

170 NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney Howard Daniels on behalf of Plaintiff Kenneth Glover. Filed by Plaintiff Kenneth Glover (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/19/2016

171 STIPULATION for Order Regarding Deposition of Dr. Benjamin Henwood filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yoder, Michael) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016

172 ORDER Granting Stipulation Regarding Deposition of Dr. Benjamin Henwood 171 by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: After considering the parties Stipulation to Regarding Deposition of Dr.Benjamin Henwood, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The deposition of Dr. Benjamin Henwood shall take place on January 3, 2017; The deadline for Defendants to file any motions in limine related to Dr. Henwoods testimony shall be January 10, 2017; The deadline for Plaintiffs to file any opposition briefs to any motions in limine related to Dr. Henwoods testimony shall be January 17, 2017; and All other deadlines set by the Scheduling Order and Local Rules shall remain unchanged. (lwag) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/20/2016

173 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Reschedule Trial and Related Dates filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Brian Kaewert in Support of Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application, # 2 Proposed Order) (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 12/20/2016)

12/21/2016

174 OPPOSITION re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Reschedule Trial and Related Dates 173 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael G. Yoder)(Yoder, Michael) (Entered: 12/21/2016)

12/22/2016

175 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Guilford granting 173 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Dates As Modified. The Court CONTINUES the trial date in this case from February 7, 2017, to April 25, 2017, at 9 a.m. The Pretrial Conference is continued from January 23, 2017 to April 10, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' ex parte application to continue the trial date as modified. (Dkt. No. 173.) (see document for details). (dro) (Entered: 12/22/2016)

01/18/2017

176 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Plaintiffs Kenneth Glover, Michael Newman, Richard Owens for Court Reporter. Court will contact Michelle Ochoa at mochoa@aclusocal.org with any questions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 01/18/2017)

02/16/2017

177 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 12/5/16. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miriam Veliz Baird, phone number Mvb11893@aol.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/9/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/20/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/17/2017. (Baird, Miriam) (Entered: 02/16/2017)

02/16/2017

178 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 12/5/16 re Transcript 177 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Baird, Miriam) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/16/2017)

02/28/2017

179 STIPULATION for Leave to to file supplemental briefing filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 02/28/2017)

03/02/2017

180 ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Guilford granting Stipulation Regarding Supplemental Briefing Concerning Plaintiff Richard Owens 179 . The City may file a supplemental memorandum of points and authorities on the subject of Mr. Owens' incarceration (attached as Exhibit A to the Stipulation) and a request for judicial notice regarding the same subject; Plaintiffs shall have until March 7, 2017 to file a supplemental memorandum of points and authorities, of no longer than five pages, on the subject of Mr. Owens' incarceration in connection with the above described motions. (Please see Order for details) (ig) (Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/03/2017

181 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 112 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Eighth Amendment Claims and ADA/RA Claims 143 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to or, In the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment of Claims 145 filed by Defendant The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/03/2017

182 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 112 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Eighth Amendment Claims and ADA/RA Claims 143 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to or, In the Alternative, Partial Summary

Judgment of Claims 145 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Request for Judicial Notice)(Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/07/2017

183 MEMORANDUM in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 112 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Eighth Amendment Claims and ADA/RA Claims 143 filed by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Kenneth Glover, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 03/07/2017)

03/20/2017 184 JOINT Exhibit List filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini.. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 03/20/2017)

03/20/2017

185 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 03/20/2017)

03/20/2017 186 Witness List filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini.. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 03/20/2017)

03/20/2017

187 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Yoder, Michael) (Entered: 03/20/2017)

03/20/2017 188 Witness List filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department.. (Yoder, Michael) (Entered: 03/20/2017)

03/21/2017

189 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. correcting Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law 185 (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 03/21/2017)

03/21/2017

190 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Ruling on Pending Motions or in the Alternative, Application to Continue Trial Date and All Related Dates filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Brian S. Kaewert, # 2 Proposed Order) (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 03/21/2017)

03/22/2017

191 Opposition in opposition to re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Ruling on Pending Motions or in the Alternative, Application to Continue Trial Date and All Related Dates 190 filed by Defendant The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Ajit Singh Thind in Support of Defs. Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Request for Rulings on Pending Motions, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A in Support of Declaration of Ajit Singh Thind, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B in Support of Declaration of Ajit Singh Thind, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C in

Support of Declaration of Ajit Singh Thind, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D in Support of Declaration of Ajit Singh Thind)(Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 03/22/2017)

03/24/2017

192 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: granting 190 EX PARTE APPLICATION to continue and Ordering Briefing. The trial and related dates are CONTINUED to reflect an August 1, 2017 trial date, as specified in Plaintiffs proposed order [1902 at 2]. The Final Pretrial Conference is continued to July 17, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. (twdb) Modified on 3/24/2017 (twdb). (Entered: 03/24/2017)

04/03/2017

193 BRIEF filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Joint Brief concerning Settlement Negotiations regarding Order on Motion for Ruling, 192 . (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Peter J. Eliasberg in support of Joint Brief concerning Settlement Negotiations)(Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 04/03/2017)

06/09/2017

194 REQUEST for Ruling All Pending Motions filed by Plaintiff Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, Michael Newman, Richard Owens, James Scott Rudolph, David Sestini. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 06/09/2017)

06/12/2017

195 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: REQUEST for Ruling All Pending Motions 194 . The following error(s) was found: Proposed Document 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. (twdb) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/12/2017

196 STIPULATION for Leave to Supplemental Briefing filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Stipulation re Supplemental Briefing Concerning Plaintiff Michael Newman)(Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/12/2017

197 ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Guilford, Granting Stipulation Regarding Supplemental Briefing Concerning Plaintiff Michael Newman 196 . Upon consideration of the "Stipulation Regarding Supplemental Briefing Concerning Plaintiff Michael Newman" submitted by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, and David Sestini (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and Defendants City of Laguna Beach and Laguna Beach Police Department (collectively, "Defendants"), and

good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: (see document for details). (dro) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/15/2017

198 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: Plaintiffs have filed a request for a ruling by the Court on all pending motions. (Dkt. No. 194.) The Court was prepared and about to issue rulings on those motions before receiving that request. But yesterday, the parties stipulated to file supplemental briefing regarding the status of one of the named plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 196.) The Court granted that stipulation and is now waiting for Plaintiffs to file their reply to Defendants supplemental briefing. The Court will issue a ruling on all pending motions immediately after receiving Plaintiffs supplemental briefing. The Court GRANTS the request for a ruling. (Dkt. No. 194.) (es) (Entered: 06/15/2017)

06/16/2017

199 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Brian Searles Kaewert counsel for Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. Andrew Benjamin Grossman is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, and David Sestini. (Kaewert, Brian) (Entered: 06/16/2017)

06/19/2017

200 MEMORANDUM in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 112 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Eighth Amendment Claims and ADA/RA Claims 143 Supplemental filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Ian M. Kysel, # 2 Declaration Benjamin Henwood, # 3 Declaration David Sestini)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 06/19/2017)

06/20/2017

201 OBJECTIONS to Memorandum in Support of Motion, 200 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 06/20/2017)

06/20/2017 202 REPLY filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini to Objection 201 (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 06/20/2017)

06/23/2017

203 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: Order Granting MOTION for Class Certification 112 (mt) (Entered: 06/23/2017)

06/25/2017

204 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS)by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART the Parties' Motions for Summary Judgment re 143 ; 145 . (mba) (Entered: 06/26/2017)

06/26/2017

205 REVISED MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Yoder, Michael) (Entered: 06/26/2017)

06/30/2017

206 NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney Christine Parker on behalf of Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. Filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini (Attorney Christine Marie Parker added to party Michael Newman(pty:pla), Attorney Christine Marie Parker added to party Richard Owens(pty:pla), Attorney Christine Marie Parker added to party David Sestini(pty:pla))(Parker, Christine) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

06/30/2017

207 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Expert Opinions of Emma Ferreira filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. Motion set for hearing on 7/17/2017 at 08:30 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Brian S. Kaewert, # 3 Proposed Order)(Kaewert, Brian) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

06/30/2017

208 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Testimony About Homelessness' Effect on Tourism, the Economy, or General Feelings of Safety filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. Motion set for hearing on 7/17/2017 at 08:30 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Proposed Order)(Kaewert, Brian) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

06/30/2017

209 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE No.1 to Preclude Evidence or Argument Relating to Absent Class Members filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Motion set for hearing on 7/17/2017 at 08:30 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yoder, Michael) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

06/30/2017

210 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE No. 2 to Preclude Plaintiffs from Testifying to the Effect of any Event, Circumstance, Policy, or Condition of their Mental or Physical Health Conditions filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Motion set for hearing on 7/17/2017 at 08:30 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yoder, Michael) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

06/30/2017

211 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE No. 3 to Exclude Certain Opinions by Plaintiffs' Expert Witnesses Benjamin Henwood and Manda Robinson filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. Motion set for hearing on 7/17/2017 at 08:30 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments:

# 1 Declaration of Christopher S. Whittaker in Support of, # 2 Proposed Order)(Yoder, Michael) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

07/05/2017

212 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATES.( Trial set for 9/5/2017 09:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford., Pretrial Conference set for 8/21/2017 08:30 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford.) (twdb) (Entered: 07/05/2017)

07/10/2017

213 [Text Only Entry] All motions in limine shall be heard at the time of the Pretrial Conference on 8/21/17. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (lb) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/10/2017)

07/27/2017

214 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick: Pursuant to Local Rule 16-14, the Court conducted a Further Settlement Conference with both parties. Settlement discussions are continuing. Should there be a need for additional court assistance, the parties may contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk to schedule a further settlement conference. Court Recorder: N/A. (mba) (Entered: 07/28/2017)

07/31/2017

215 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: ADVANCING TRIAL DATE. The Court finds it necessary to advance the trial date in this case to allow time for the trial to finish before another lengthy trial in a criminal case begins in this Court. The Pretrial Conference date will remain as is. Thus, for reasons of calendar management, the Court orders the following:The trial is ADVANCED from September 5, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. to August29, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. (mba) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

08/04/2017

216 Second STIPULATION to Continue Trial Date and Pretrial Conference Date from 08-21-17 and 08-29-17 to not less than 6-7 weeks filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 08/04/2017)

08/04/2017

217 ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: GRANTING 216 Stipulation to Continue Trial Date and Pretrial Conference Date. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: The trial date currently set for August 29, 2017 is continued to September 26, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10D. The pretrial conference date currently set for August 21, 2017 is continued to September 18, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 10D. All pretrial filing deadlines are continued to dates consistent with thenew trial date and pretrial conference date set above. (mba) (Entered: 08/04/2017)

08/28/2017

218 STIPULATION to Continue Trial Date, Pretrial Conference Date, and Pretrial Filing Deadlines from 09/26/17 to 10/31/17 filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 08/28/2017)

08/28/2017

219 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 08/28/2017)

08/30/2017

220 ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Guilford, Granting Stipulation to Continue Trial Date and Pretrial Conference Date 218 . ( Trial set for 10/31/2017 09:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford., Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/16/2017 08:30 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford.) (twdb) (Entered: 08/30/2017)

09/22/2017

221 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Trial Date, Pretrial Conference Date and Pretrial Filing Deadlines from October 31, 2017 to November 14, 2017 filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaewert, Brian) (Entered: 09/22/2017)

09/25/2017

222 ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Guilford; GRANTING 221 Joint Stipulation to Continue Trial Date, Pretrial Conference Date, and Pretrial Filing Deadlines. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: The trial date currently set for October 31, 2017 is continued to November 28, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10D. The pretrial conference date currently set for October 16, 2017 is continued to November 13, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 10D. All pretrial filing deadlines are continued to dates consistent with the new trial date and pretrial conference date set above. (mba) (Entered: 09/25/2017)

09/28/2017

224 MINUTES OF Further Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. Pursuant to Local Rule 16-14, the Court conducted a Further Settlement Conference with both parties. Settlement discussions are continuing. Should there be a need for additional court assistance, the parties may contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk to schedule a further settlement conference. Court Reporter: N/A. (dro) (Entered: 10/02/2017)

09/29/2017

223 NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney Ian M. Kysel on behalf of Plaintiffs Kenneth Glover, Michael Newman, Richard Owens. Filed by Plaintiffs Kenneth Glover, Michael Newman, Richard Owens (Attorney Ian Matthew Kysel added to party Kenneth Glover(pty:pla))(Kysel, Ian) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

10/11/2017

225 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Ian Matthew Kysel counsel for Plaintiff Kenneth Glover. Howard Daniels is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs KENNETH GLOVER, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated. (Kysel, Ian) (Entered: 10/11/2017)

10/11/2017

226 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Ian Matthew Kysel counsel for Plaintiff Kenneth Glover. Christine Marie Parker is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs KENNETH GLOVER, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated. (Kysel, Ian) (Entered: 10/11/2017)

10/27/2017

227 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. The Court, with the agreement of the parties, hereby sets a Further Settlement Conference for 11/1/2017 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (nbo) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/27/2017)

10/27/2017

228 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Trial Date, Pretrial Conference Date, and Pre-Trial Filing Deadlines from November 13, 2017(Pretrial), and November 28, 2017 (Trial) to January 15, 2018 (Pretrial), and January 30, 2018 (Trial) filed by Defendant City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Whittaker, Christopher) (Entered: 10/27/2017)

10/30/2017

229 ORDER Granting Stipulation to Continue Trial Date and Pretrial Conference Date 228 by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: The trial date currently set for November 28, 2017 is continued to January 30, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10D.; The pretrial conference date currently set for November 13, 2017 is continued to January 22, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 10D; and All pretrial filing deadlines are continued to dates consistent with the new trial date and pretrial conference date set above. (lwag) (Entered: 10/30/2017)

12/28/2017

230 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Belinda Escobosa Helzer on behalf of Plaintiffs Jeffrey Aiken, Katrina Aune, Douglas Frederes Jr, Kenneth Glover, Lisa Holbrook, John Miller, Michael Newman, Richard Owens, James Scott Rudolph, David Sestini (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 12/28/2017)

01/03/2018

231 Joint STIPULATION for Order To Continue Trial Date, Pretrial Conference Date, and Pretrial Filing Deadlines filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department.

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Whittaker, Christopher) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/04/2018

232 ORDER Granting Stipulation to Continue Trial Date and Pretrial Conference Date 231 by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: The trial date currently set for January 30, 2018 is continued to March 13, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10D; The pretrial conference date currently set for January 22, 2018 is continued to February 26, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 10D; and All pretrial filing deadlines are continued to dates consistent with the new trial date and pretrial conference date set above. (lwag) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

01/31/2018

233 STIPULATION to Continue Trial Date, Pretrial Conference Date and Pretrial Filing Deadlines filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Whittaker, Christopher) (Entered: 01/31/2018)

02/05/2018

234 ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: Granting Stipulation to Continue Trial Date, Pretrial Conference Date and Pre-Trial Filing Deadlines 233 . Bench Trial continued to 4/24/2018 09:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. Pretrial Conference continued to 4/16/2018 08:30 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (mt) (Entered: 02/06/2018)

02/16/2018

235 MINUTES OF Further Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick: Pursuant to Local Rule 16-14, the Court conducted a Further Settlement Conference with both parties. Settlement discussions are continuing. The Court sets a Further Settlement Conference for March 1, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. (lwag) (Entered: 02/16/2018)

03/29/2018

236 Joint STIPULATION for Settlement and, STIPULATION to Vacate Trial Date, Pre-trial Conference Date, and Pre-trial Filing Deadlines filed by Defendants City of Laguna Beach, The Laguna Beach Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kohn, Philip) (Entered: 03/29/2018)

03/29/2018

237 ORDER Granting Joint Stipulation to Vacate Trial Date, Pretrial Conference Date and Pre-Trial Filing Deadlines 236 by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: The trial date currently set for April 24, 2018 is vacated; The pretrial conference date currently set for April 16, 2018 is vacated; All pretrial filing, exchange, and conference deadlines are vacated; and The Court orders this matter statistically inactivated. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (lwag) (Entered: 03/29/2018)

06/06/2018

238 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Preliminary Approval and Notice of Proposed Class Claims Settlement (Unopposed) filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Proposed Order Preliminarily Approving Parties' Proposed Settlement and Directing Notice Thereof to Class) (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 06/06/2018)

06/08/2018

239 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Hearing Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval and Notice of Proposed Class Claims Settlement, re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Preliminary Approval and Notice of Proposed Class Claims Settlement (Unopposed) 238 , filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. Motion set for hearing on 7/9/2018 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/29/2018

240 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER CONTINUING HEARING by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: For reasons of calendar management, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the pending motion for preliminary approval of proposed class settlement, currently set for July 9, 2018, to July 16, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. (Dkt. Nos. 238, 239.) (es) (Entered: 07/05/2018)

07/16/2018

242 MINUTES OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS CLAIMS SETTLEMENT [DKT 238, 239] Hearing held: Motion GRANTED. Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (lb) (Entered: 07/19/2018)

07/18/2018

241 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT by Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (see order for further details) (es) (Entered: 07/18/2018)

10/04/2018

243 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendant City of Laguna Beach for Court Reporter. Court will contact pjohnson@rutan.com at pjohnson@rutan.com with further instructions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter. (Thind, Ajit) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/22/2018

244 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Claims Settlement Agreement (Unopposed) filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. Motion set for hearing on 11/5/2018 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Ian Kysel, # 3 Declaration of Benjamin Henwood,

# 4 Declaration of Manda Robinson, # 5 Declaration of Emma Ferreira, # 6 Declaration of Gavin Curran, # 7 Declaration of Jason Farris, # 8 Declaration of Lisette Chel-Walker, # 9 Declaration of Philip Kohn, # 10 Declaration of Sue Anne Monlux) (Kysel, Ian) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/23/2018

245 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 7/16/18, 10:30 AM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Alex Joko, phone number aj_csr@yahoo.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 11/13/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/23/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/22/2019. (Joko, Alexander) (Entered: 10/23/2018)

10/23/2018

246 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 7/16/18, 10:30 AM re Transcript 245 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Joko, Alexander) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/23/2018)

11/02/2018

247 NOTICE Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 to Class Claims Settlement Agreement and General Release filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Kysel, Ian) (Entered: 11/02/2018)

11/05/2018

248 MINUTES OF PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT [DKT 244 ] Hearing held before Judge Andrew J. Guilford: Cause is called for hearing and counsel make their appearances. The Court orders that the tentative ruling shall become the order of the Court. A separate minute order to issue. Court Reporter: Miriam Baird. (gga) (Entered: 11/06/2018)

11/05/2018

249 MINUTES [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT (DKT. 244 ) by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: The Court concludes that the parties' settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final settlement approval. (Dkt. 244.) (es) (Entered: 11/06/2018)

11/21/2018

250 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Julia Devanthery to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $400.00 Previously Paid on 11/21/2018, Receipt No. 26DL734B) filed by Plaintiff Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit,

# 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Proposed Order) (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 11/21/2018)

11/27/2018

251 NOTICE of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Pro Hac Vice Application RE: APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Julia Devanthery to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $400.00 Previously Paid on 11/21/2018, Receipt No. 26DL734B) 250 . The following error(s) was/were found: Local Rule 5-4.3.4 Application not hand-signed. Other error(s) with document(s): Please note that electronic, image or stamp signatures are not allowed. (lt) (Entered: 11/27/2018)

11/29/2018

252 Corrected APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Julia Devanthery to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $400.00 Previously Paid on 11/21/2018, Receipt No. 26DL734B) filed by Plaintiff Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 11/29/2018)

11/29/2018

253 NOTICE of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Pro Hac Vice Application RE: Corrected APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Julia Devanthery to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini (Pro Hac Vice Fee $400.00 Previously Paid on 11/21/2018, Receipt No. 26DL734B) 252 . The following error(s) was/were found: Local Rule 5-4.3.4 Application not hand-signed. Local Rule 83-2.1.3.3(b) Proposed order not attached. Local Rule 83-2.1.3.3(d) Certificate of Good Standing not attached for every state court listed to which the applicant has been admitted. (lt) (Entered: 11/29/2018)

11/30/2018

254 Amendment to APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Julia Devanthery to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $400.00 Previously Paid on 11/21/2018, Receipt No. 26DL734B) 250 , Corrected APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Julia Devanthery to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $400.00 Previously Paid on 11/21/2018, Receipt No. 26DL734B) 252 filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Proposed Order)(Eliasberg, Peter) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

12/03/2018 255 ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Guilford, GRANTING 252 Non-Resident Attorney Julia Devanthery APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on

behalf of Plaintiff, designating Peter J. Eliasberg as local counsel. (es) (Entered: 12/03/2018)

12/19/2018

256 Joint STIPULATION to Dismiss Case pursuant to Settlement filed by plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kysel, Ian) (Entered: 12/19/2018)

12/21/2018

257 ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE 256 by Judge Andrew J. Guilford. It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, this action, including all class and individual claims asserted in this action, is hereby dismissed with prejudice; 2. Each party is responsible for its own attorneys' fees and costs with respect to this lawsuit. 3. The Court will retain jurisdiction for the sole purpose of enforcing any term or condition of the Class Claims Settlement Agreement. (es) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

07/19/2019

258 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Ian Matthew Kysel counsel for Plaintiff Kenneth Glover. Filed by Plaintiffs Kenneth Glover, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated. (Kysel, Ian) (Entered: 07/19/2019)

07/31/2019

259 DECLARATION of Julia Devanthery re Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 255 , Amendment (Motion related),, 254 Regarding Bar Exam Passage Status Update filed by Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Devanthery, Julia) (Entered: 07/31/2019)

08/10/2020

260 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Julia Devanthery counsel for Plaintiffs Michael Newman, Richard Owens, David Sestini. Filed by Plaintiffs Kenneth Glover, et al.. (Devanthery, Julia) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

04/02/2021 14:27:41

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse

Client Code:

Leake

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

8:15-cv-01332-AGDFM End date: 4/2/2021

Billable Pages:

30

Cost:

3.00

Exempt flag: Not Exempt

Exempt reason:

Not Exempt