Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 1 of 37 Page ID #:15

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 2 of 37 Page ID #:16

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

1. This is an action for injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

3 F.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), as well as damages, based upon the ongoing violations by the

4 Defendant of the rights secured to Plaintiffs by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth

5 Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction exists based on 28 U.S.C.

6 § 1331 and 1343 in that this case is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and raises

7 questions of federal constitutional law under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth

8 Amendments. Jurisdiction also exists under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.

9 §§ 2201(a) and 2202. The court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law

10 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

11

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

12 complained of in this action all occurred in the Central District.

13

INTRODUCTION

14

3. This case represents a road the CITY has traveled down before. In 1987

15 and again in 2000, injunctions were issued against the defendant City of Los Angeles

16 (“CITY”), barring the CITY from summarily confiscating and destroying the property

17 of homeless individuals in the Skid Row area without due process. In 2006, the City

18 settled a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of a number of homeless individuals

19 whose property was confiscated and destroyed in a single sweep at the Venice Beach

20 on Labor Day weekend in 2004. Then, as now, if the individuals were present and

21 attempted to save their property, they were threatened by the police with arrest. Despite

22 these repeated injunctions and actions against the CITY, once again, the most

23 vulnerable population in our community comes to court to request yet another order

24 directing the CITY to stop seizing and demolishing the few belongings they have left.

25

4. Plaintiffs are eight homeless individuals living in the City of Los Angeles.

26 Over the course of the last two months, their personal possessions were confiscated and

27 immediately destroyed by CITY Public Works employees at the direction of the Los

28 Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) as a part of an ongoing practice targeting the

1

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 3 of 37 Page ID #:17

1 homeless on Skid Row. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated

2 homeless men and women who have suffered and will continue to suffer the same type

3 of loss as a result of the same unlawful practice and policy.

4

5. As a result of the illegal seizures, Plaintiffs have lost indispensable

5 personal property such as shelters, medicine, clothing, personal papers, family photos

6 and portable electronics. Some of the property is irreplaceable. There is no legitimate

7 reason to seize the property in the first place, much less immediately destroy it, often

8 while Plaintiffs are present, pleading to spare their possessions and watching helplessly

9 as what little they have is swept up and crushed. The only real reason for this policy is

10 to destroy the property of individuals such as Plaintiffs, who are homeless and who are

11 regarded by the CITY as nothing more than garbage to be removed from City streets.

12
6. A Temporary Restraining Order is needed to prevent imminent harm to
13
Plaintiffs. Defendant has made clear through the repeated seizure and destruction of
14
Plaintiffs’ property that this is part of an ongoing campaign on Skid Row. As recently
15
as March 17, 2011, LAPD officers destroyed Plaintiffs’ property as they attended to

16 such basics as taking a shower at the Union Rescue Mission, going to court, and getting

17 a meal. Unless restrained by an Order of this Court, these unlawful acts will continue.

18

19

DEFENDANT’S PAST UNLAWFUL CONDUCT

20 The 1987 Temporary Restraining Order

21
7. On February 25, 1987, the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a Temporary
22
Restraining Order in Adam Young Bennion v. City of Los Angeles, C637718. The terms
23
of the restraining order included a requirement that the City give 12 hours written notice
24
before removing property on the presupposition that it has been abandoned on the 25 public streets of Skid Row. Exhibit A, p.28 (“III. Notice Requirements”). The Bennion
26 Order required City employees to post a “prominent notice in a conspicuous place on
27 the cite. The notice shall include the specific citation to the law allegedly violated and
28 state that the property will be subject to disposal if the violation is not corrected within
2

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 4 of 37 Page ID #:18

1 twelve hours from the time the notice is posted. Id.

2
The Justin Case
3

4

8. In 2000, the City again began a campaign of confiscating the property of

5 homeless persons, ordering them to move away from their belongings, and then

6 immediately crushing all of the property in dump trucks. In response to the CITY’s

7 unlawful actions, several individuals filed a lawsuit entitled Justin v. City of Los
Angeles, CV 00-12352 LGB (AIJx). On November 5, 2001, the Honorable Lourdes
8
Baird entered a permanent injunction against the City, in corporating the terms of the
9
Bennion retraining order and enjoining, inter alia, the City would “not confiscate
10
personal property that does not appear abandoned and destroy it without notice. Where
11
applicable, defendants will give notoice in compliance with the temporary restraining
12
order issued in Bennion v. City of Los Angeles (C637718). Any personal property that
13
does not appear intentionally abandoned collected by defendants will be retained for 90
14
days as provided in California Civil Code section 2080.2.” Exhibit A, p.18, ¶5. At the
15 request of the CITY, the injunction expired after 48 months. Id. at lines 23-28.

16

17 The Noe Case

18

9. Shortly after midnight just before Labor Day in 2004, the LAPD conducted

19 a sweep of the Venice Beach area, seizing and immediately destroying the property of

20 several dozen homeless individuals. None of the property was abandoned. Many of

21 the owners of the property were present and were allowed to take some of their

22 property, but were threatened with arrest when they asked to take additional items. A

23 class action lawsuit was filed seeking compensation for the injuries resulting from the

24 loss of personal possessions. Richard Noe v. City of Los Angeles, cv 05-08374. In 25 November, 2006, the Honorable Andrew Guilford approved a settlement for the class 26 of individuals whose property was destroyed in the Noe case. Exhibit C.

27

28
3

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 5 of 37 Page ID #:19

1

PARTIES

2
Plaintiffs:
3

4

10. Plaintiff TONY LAVAN is an homeless individual currently residing on

5 the streets of the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. On March 17, 2011, his EDAR was

6 confiscated and destroyed while Mr. LAVAN was at the Union Rescue Mission using

7 the shower facilities. He was gone from his property for no more than 30 minutes, if that. His property was not abandoned. He sues on behalf of himself and all similarly
8
situated individuals.
9

10

11. Plaintiff CATERIUS SMITH is an homeless individual currently residing

11 on the streets of the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. On March 17, 2011, his EDAR was

12 confiscated and destroyed while Mr. SMITH was present. Mr. SMITH had just 13 returned from court, observed the LAPD officers and Public Works employees seizing 14 the EDARS. Mr. SMITH pleaded to rescue his property but was not pernitted to gather 15 more than a few items. His property was not abandoned. He sues on behalf of himself 16 and all similarly situated individuals.

17

12. Plaintiff WILLIE VASSIE is an homeless individual currently residing on

18 the streets of the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. On March 17, 2011, his EDAR,

19 bicycle and shopping cart with all of his possessions was confiscated and destroyed by

20 LAPD officers and Public Works employees. He lost medications and all of his personal

21 property. Mr. VASSIE’s property was not abandoned. He sues on behalf of himself

22 and all similarly situated individuals.

23
13. Plaintiff SHAMAL BALLANTINE is an homeless individual currently 24 residing on the streets of the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. On March 17, 2011, his 25 EDAR with all of his possessions was confiscated and destroyed by LAPD officers and 26 Public Works employees. Mr. BALLANTINE had gone to the bank a few blocks from 27 where his EDAR was located. He was away from this property for no more than about
28 20 minutes; his property was not abandoned. He sues on behalf of himself and all
4

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 6 of 37 Page ID #:20
1 similarly situated individuals.
2
14. Plaintiff ERNEST SEYMORE is an homeless individual presently residing 3 on the streets of the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. On February 6, 2011, his shopping 4 cart with all of his possessions was confiscated and destroyed by LAPD officers and 5 Public Works employees. Mr. SEYMORE was just a few feet from his cart, about to 6 cross the street, when the officers and a skip loader came down the street and grabbed 7 his cart. There were five other carts he had been watching for other individuals. All 8 were taken and everything in them was destroyed as Mr. SEYMORE watched
9 helplessly. His property was not abandoned. He sues on behalf of himself and all
10 similarly situated individuals.
11
15. Plaintiff LAMOEN HALL is an homeless individual presently residing on
12
the streets of the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. On February 24, 2011, his shopping
13
cart with all of his possessions was confiscated and destroyed by LAPD officers and 14 Public Works employees. Mr. HALL had left his cart on the corner of 6th and Gladys 15 Streets for no more than 10 minutes to fill several jugs with water at the Hippie Kitchen. 16 When he returned, he observed LAPD officers and a skip loader in the street. All of 17 his property had been dumped out of his carts. He was not permitted to recover any of 18 his property, even though it was in the street and had not yet been put in the skip loader 19 and destroyed. His property was not abandoned. He sues on behalf of himself and all 20 similarly situated individuals.
21
16. Plaintiff BYRON REESE is an homeless individual currently residing on
22
the streets of the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. He works as a custodian to support
23
himself. On February 24, 2011, his shopping cart with all of his possessions was
24
confiscated and destroyed by LAPD officers and Public Works employees. Mr.
25
REESE’s cart was located on the corner of 6th and Gladys Streets. He left his cart for
26
a few minutes to use the restroom at the park across the street. When he returned, he
27
observed LAPD officers and a skip loader taking his cart and that of Plaintiff HALL.
28
5

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 7 of 37 Page ID #:21

1 All of Mr. Reese’s important personal papers, identification documents, and other

2 crucial personal belongings were in a leather satchel. The satchel was visible and

3 within reach. When Mr. Reese attempted to retrieve he satchel, he was threatened with
4 arrest by Officer Acosta. He was told that he would have to go to the City dump to 5 retrieve his possessions. Mr. REESE then immediately rode his bicycle out to the City 6 dump. When he arrived there, it was closing and he was informed by the staff that 7 everything brought in was destroyed. His property was not abandoned when it was 8 taken by Defendant’s employees. He sues on behalf of himself and all similarly situated 9 individuals.

10

17. Plaintiff REGINALD WILSON is an individual who is homeless and was

11 residing on the streets of the Skid Row area of Los Angeles on March 17, 2011. On that

12 morning, his EDAR was confiscated and destroyed while Mr. WILSON was away from

13 the area for a short while. His property was not abandoned. Everything he had was lost

14 when his property was confiscated and summarily destroyed, including his clothes,

15 hygiene products and personal papers. He sues on behalf of himself and all similarly

16 situated individuals.

17 Defendant:

18

19

18. The City of Los Angeles is a municipal entity organized under the laws of

20 the State of California. The CITY is a legal entity with the capacity to sue and be sued.

The departments of the City of Los Angeles include the Los Angeles Police Department
21
and the Los Angeles Department of Public Works, employees of which have engaged
22
in the acts constituting the violations of plaintiffs’ rights alleged in this action.
23

24

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

25

19. Beginning in February, 2011, CITY employees from the LAPD and the

26 Department of Public Works began seizing and summarily destroying any property they

27 came upon on the public sidewalks of Skid Row without notice to the property owners.

28 When individuals leave their property in the care of others, the CITY seizes it, warning

6

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 8 of 37 Page ID #:22

1 that no one may leave their property, even momentarily, and even if someone else is

2 present and watching the property. The property so seized is not abandoned and the

3 CITY knows it. Even when individuals are present or return prior to the time that the 4 property is crushed by the skip loader, LAPD officers threaten arrest if the individuals 5 attempt to save their property from destruction. The intent is clear: destroy what little 6 homeless have in this world as a means of forcing them out of the CITY.

7

20. Each of the acts complained of herein was taken, and each violation of

8 plaintiffs’ rights occurred, pursuant to the policies, practices or customs of the

9 defendant CITY, as executed by one or more the subdivisions of the CITY.

10
21. In doing each of the constitutional violations complained of herein,
11
Defendant CITY, its officials, agents, and employees were acting under color of law.
12

13

22. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on such basis allege that at all times

14 relevant to this action, each of the individuals who seized and destroyed their property

15 were the agents, servants and /or employees of the defendant CITY, and were acting at

16 all times within the scope of their agency and employment and with the knowledge and 17 consent of their principal and employer, the City of Los Angeles.

18

23. Each plaintiff has timely filed a claim for damages with the defendant

19 CITY, pursuant to Government Code section 910, et seq.

20
24. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the acts complained of herein were
21
done in the furtherance of the customs, policies and practices of authorized
22
policymakers of the defendant CITY and were joined in and/or implemented by the
23
CITY’s agents and employees who seized and destroyed Plaintiffs’ property. Each of 24 these individual LAPD officers and Public Works employees were acting as the agent 25 and employee in concert with each other. Each of the defendant CITY’s agents and
26 employees caused the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights and the
27 resulting injuries by, among other things, participating personally in the unlawful
28 conduct; by authorizing, acquiescing or setting in motion the policies, plans and actions
7

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 9 of 37 Page ID #:23

1 that led to the unlawful conduct, by failing to take action to prevent the unlawful

2 conduct, by demonstrating deliberate indifference to the need to maintain adequate

3 training and supervision, and by failing to take remedial and disciplinary action. The
4 CITY was on notice of the need for training in this instance based on the three past legal 5 actions brought against the CITY. Moreover, the confiscation of some of the Plaintiffs’ 6 property was reported in the Los Angeles Times when Senior Lead Officer Deon Joseph 7 brought Sandy Banks of the Times on a tour of Skid Row in which he violated the 8 Fourth Amendment rights of the Plaintiff class with impunity by invading their tents 9 without a warrant and without exigent circumstances for the sole purpose of making a 10 point to the reporter.

11

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

12
25. The individual plaintiffs named above filed claims against the CITY both
13
as individuals and as representatives of the class. They bring this action pursuant to
14
F.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) to certify an injunctive relief class. The class is defined as:
15

16

all individuals who are homeless and reside in the Skid Row area whose

17

personal belongings have or will be taken and immediately destroyed by

18

the agents and employees of the defendant CITY without any notice and

19

opportunity to retrieve the property, which was not abandoned by the

20

plaintiff class members.

21

25. The class consists of approximately 3,000 individuals, which is the

22 approximately number of individuals who reside in the Skid Row but who have no

23 daytime shelter or other location at which to store their property while they attend to the

24 basics of life, including showering, eating, and obtaining services at various government

25 offices and private facilities. The members of the class are so numerous as to make 26 joinder impracticable.

27

26. There are common questions of law and fact that predominate over any

28 questions affecting individual class members. Among the common questions of law

8

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 10 of 37 Page ID #:24

1 and fact are the following:

2
a. Whether defendant CITY’s policies, practices and conduct of seizing 3 and destroying the personal property of individuals who are homeless, without 4 providing any prior notice or an opportunity to retrieve vital personal possessions 5 before they are destroyed violated and continue to violate the class members’ state and
6 federal constitutional rights against unreasonable seizure;
7
b. Whether these same policies, practices and conduct violated and
8
continue to violate the class members’ state and federal constitutional rights to due
9
process;
10

11

c. Whether these same policies, practices and conduct violated and

12 continue to violate the class members’ rights pursuant to California Civil Code§§ 52 13 and 52.1, Civil Code§ 2080; and,

14

d. Whether injunctive relief should issue to enjoin the policy, practice

15 and conduct of the CITY’s agents and employees in seizing and immediately destroying

16 the property of homeless individuals on Skid Row when the property is not abandoned.

17

27.
18

The claims of the class representatives are typical of those of the class

members with respect to the constitutionality and legality of the CITY’s policies,
19

practices and conduct at issue here. The prosecution of individual actions against the

20

CITY by individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent and varying

21
adjudications, which would result in variable standards of conduct for defendant.

22

23 28.

The class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests

24 of the class members and are unaware of any conflict among or between the class

25 members that would preclude their fair and adequate representation. Class counsel is 26 an experienced litigator who has brought several class actions on behalf of homeless 27 individuals in the City of Los Angeles, including Fitzgerald v. City of Los Angeles, 28 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27382 (C.D. CA 2003) (approving attorney fees separate from

9

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 11 of 37 Page ID #:25

1 common fund award to damages class) and Noe v. City of Los Angeles, discussed at

2 paragraph 9, above.

3

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

4

Right to Be Secure From Unreasonable Seizures

5 42 U.S.C. §1983 - Fourth Amendment; Art. 1, §13, California Constitution

6 29.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs

7 1 through 28 as though fully set forth hereat.

8

30.

Defendant CITY violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free

9 from unreasonable seizure of their property by confiscating and then destroying

10 Plaintiffs’ property without a warrant and often under threat of arrest if Plaintiffs

11 attempted to retrieve the property before it was crushed by the skip loader.

12

31.

Defendant’s unlawful actions, through the conduct of its employees from

13 the LAPD and the Dept. of Public Works was done with the specific intent to deprive

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

15

32.
16

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the acts of the CITY’s employees

and agents were intentional in failing to protect and preserve their property and that, at
17

minimum, the CITY was deliberately indifferent to the likely consequence that the
18
property would be seized and destroyed unlawfully, based on the past circumstances of

19
similar constitutional and statutory violations of the law.

20

21 33.

As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendant’s agents

22 and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer loss of their personal

23 property and are entitled to compensatory damages for their property and other injury 24 to their person.

25

26

27

28
10

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 12 of 37 Page ID #:26

1

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

2

Right to Due Process of Law

3

42 U.S. C. §1983, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments;

Art. I, §7 Calif. Constitution
4

34.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs

5

1 through 28 as though fully set forth hereat.

6

7 35.

Defendant CITY owed Plaintiffs a duty under the due process clause of

8 the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, sec. 7 of

9 the California Constitution, and the statutory law of the State of California, to protect

10 the personal property of Plaintiffs that was known not to be abandoned.

11
36.

Defendant provided Plaintiffs with no notice that their property was at

12

risk of being seized and/or destroyed. Defendant did not preserve the property and
13

provide any means of reclaiming it in a timely manner, even though Defendant has been
14

put on notice by the Los Angeles Superior Court and the United States District Court
15

for the Central District of California that such notice and preservation of property was
16

required. Even when Defendant was specifically put on notice that the property was not
17

abandoned and given an opportunity to cease the seizure and destruction of the personal
18

items of Plaintiffs, Defendant denied Plaintiffs that due process under threat of arrest.
19

20 37.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the acts of the CITY’s employees

21 and agents were intentional in failing to protect and preserve their property and that, at

22 minimum, the CITY was deliberately indifferent to the likelihood that the property

23 would be seized and destroyed without due process based on the past occurrences of

24 these same constitutional and statutory violations of the law.

25

38.
26

As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendant’s agents

and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer loss of their personal
27

28 property and are entitled to compensatory damages for their property and other injury

11

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 13 of 37 Page ID #:27

1 to their person.

2

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

3 Violation of Civil Rights: Interference By Threat, Intimidation or Coercion

4

California Civil Code § 52.1

5 39.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs

6 1 through 28 as though fully set forth hereat.

7

40.

Defendant’s agents and employees have used threats of arrest and

8

intimidation to interfere with Plaintiffs’ rights to maintain their personal possessions in

9

the exercise of Plaintiffs’ rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, the

10

Constitution of the State of California, and the statutory laws of the State of California.

11

12 41.

Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction pursuant to California Civil Code

13 §52.1. Plaintiffs are also entitled to damages pursuant to Civil Code §§ 52 and 52.1.

14 Plaintiffs have filed tort claims with the defendant CITYon behalf of themselves and

15 all similarly situated persons. Plaintiffs will amend this action to include damages

16 under this provision once they have exhausted their administrative remedies.

17 18 19
42.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION California Civil Code §2080, et seq. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs

20

21 1 through 28 as though fully set forth hereat.

22 43.

Defendant’s policies, practices and conduct challenged herein violated

23 California Civil Code § 2080 et seq., in that Defendant’s agents and employees failed

24 to protect and preserve the personal property of Plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff

25 class when the property was on the public sidewalk and streets; failed to provide notice

26 that the property had been taken; and failed to provide an opportunity for the owners 27 of the property to reclaim it within a reasonable time. California Code of Civil 28 Procedure § 2080 et seq. imposes a mandatory duty to maintain property that is not

12

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 14 of 37 Page ID #:28

1 abandoned.

2

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

3

Conversion

4 44.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs

5 1 through 28 as though fully set forth hereat.

6

45.
7

Plaintiffs were in possession of their personal property at the time that

Defendant’s agents and employees ordered that the property be seized and immediately
8

destroyed without notice. Defendant’s agents and employees unlawfully prohibited
9

Plaintiffs from securing their personal property and the personal property of others left
10

in their care. Plaintiffs were threatened with forcible arrest if they attempted to retrieve
11

12 their belongings.

13 46.

Defendant and its agents and employees had a duty owed to Plaintiffs to

14 protect their personal property under Los Angeles Municipal Code §52.55 and

15 California Civil Code §§ 2080.2, 2080.4 and 2080.6. Plaintiffs’ property was not

16 abandoned at the time that Defendant seized it and immediately destroyed in and

17 Defendant’s agents and employees knew that the property was not abandoned.

18 Defendant breached its duty to protect Plaintiffs’ personal property when its agents and

19 employees wrongly exerted dominion over the property and denied Plaintiffs’ their

20 constitutional and statutory rights.

21

22

47.

Defendant had no legitimate governmental interest that gave its agents

23 and employees the legal right or justification for confiscating Plaintiffs’ property and

24 then immediately demolishing it without prior notice to Plaintiffs and without a

25 procedure to permit Plaintiffs to recover their property, and without fair compensation

26 to Plaintiffs.

27

48.

As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendant’s agents

28 and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer loss of their personal

13

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 15 of 37 Page ID #:29

1 property and are entitled to compensatory damages for their property and other injury 2 to their person.

3

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

4

5

49.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs

6 1 through 28 as though fully set forth hereat.

7 50.

A real and immediate difference exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant

8 regarding Plaintiffs’ rights and Defendant’s duty owed to Plaintiffs to protect Plaintiffs’

9 personal property present on public sidewalks and streets in Skid Row. Defendant’s

10 policies and actions have resulted and will result in irreparable injury to Plaintiffs.

11 There is no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described

12 herein. Defendant has made it clear that it intends to continue these practices of

13 confiscating and immediately destroying the property of homeless individuals from the 14 public streets and sidewalks without a warrant and without notice. Unless restrained 15 by this Court, Defendant will continue to implement this policy and practice of 16 confiscating and summarily destroying the personal property of Plaintiffs and members
17
of the plaintiff class.
18

19

51.

Defendant’s acts alleged above violate established constitutional rights

20 of Plaintiffs and Defendant could not reasonably have thought that the conduct of its

21 agents and employees in seizing and destroying Plaintiffs’ property was lawful.

22

52.

An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant in that

23 Defendant’s agents and employees have engaged in the unlawful and unconstitutional

24 acts alleged herein and intend to continue to do so. Plaintiffs claim that these actsare

25 contrary to law and seek a declaration of their rights with regard to this controversy.

26

27

53.

As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendant’s agents

28 and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages through

14

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 16 of 37 Page ID #:30

1 injury to their person and the loss of their personal property, including all of their 2 clothing, bedding, medication, personal papers and other personal possessions, stripping 3 them of the essential Plaintiffs’ need for their well-being and personal dignity.

4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray as follows:

5

6

1.

For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent

injunction, enjoining and restraining defendants from engaging in the policies,
7
practices and conduct complained of herein;

8

9

2.

For a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s policies, practices and

conduct as alleged herein violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States
10
Constitution, the California Constitution and the laws of California;

11

12

3.

For an order certifying the injunctive relief class pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.

23(b)(2);
13

14 4.

For damages in an amount to be determined according to proof but in no

15

event less than $4,000 per incident pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §§ 52, 52.1 and

Cal. Government Code § 815.6.
16

17 5.

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

18

6.

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

19
20 Dated: April 5, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

21

LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL

22

/S/

23

By: CAROL A. SOBEL

24

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

25

26

27

28

15

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 17 of 37 Page ID #:31

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 18 of 37 Page ID #:32

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 19 of 37 Page ID #:33

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 20 of 37 Page ID #:34

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 21 of 37 Page ID #:35

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 22 of 37 Page ID #:36

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 23 of 37 Page ID #:37

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 24 of 37 Page ID #:38

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 25 of 37 Page ID #:39

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 26 of 37 Page ID #:40

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 27 of 37 Page ID #:41

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 28 of 37 Page ID #:42

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 29 of 37 Page ID #:43

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 30 of 37 Page ID #:44

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 31 of 37 Page ID #:45

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 32 of 37 Page ID #:46

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 33 of 37 Page ID #:47

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 34 of 37 Page ID #:48

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 35 of 37 Page ID #:49

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 36 of 37 Page ID #:50

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 1 Filed 04/05/11 Page 37 of 37 Page ID #:51

 
 O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-2874 PSG (AJWx)

Title

Tony Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date June 23, 2011

Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

Wendy K. Hernandez Deputy Clerk

Not Present Court Reporter

n/a Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Issuing a Preliminary Injunction

Pending before the Court is this Court’s Order to Show Cause re: Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction. The Court heard argument on the matter on June 20, 2011. After considering all the evidence submitted, the papers filed in support and opposition, and the arguments offered at hearing, the Court ISSUES a preliminary injunction.
I. Background
Plaintiffs Tony Lavan, Caterius Smith, William Vassie, Ernest Seymore, Lamoen Hall, Shamal Ballantine, Byron Reese, and Regina Wilson (“Plaintiffs”) bring this putative civil-rights class action against the City of Los Angeles (the “City” or “Defendant”) asserting claims under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, Article 1 § 7 and Article 1 § 13 of the California Constitution, California Civil Code § 52.1, California Civil Code § 2080, and common law conversion.
Plaintiffs, eight homeless individuals living in the City of Los Angeles’s “Skid Row” area, allege that since February 2011, the City, through the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) and Bureau of Street Services, has confiscated and destroyed the personal possessions they temporarily left in public spaces in order to use the restroom, eat a meal, or, among other things, appear in court. See Compl. ¶¶ 1-6. Plaintiffs also allege that the City did this in furtherance of an ongoing practice and policy of ridding the area of its homeless population. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6, 19, 24.

CV 11-2874 (06/11)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 16

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-2874 PSG (AJWx)

Title

Tony Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date June 23, 2011

Plaintiffs expect that the City will “continue these practices of confiscating and immediately destroying the property of homeless individuals from the public streets and sidewalks without a warrant and without notice.” Compl. ¶ 50. On April 22, 2010, this Court issued a temporary restraining order (the “April TRO”) enjoining Defendant’s purportedly unconstitutional practices. See Dkt. #11 (hereinafter “TRO”). At the same time, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. Pending before the Court is that Order to Show Cause.
II. Legal Standard
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must make a “clear showing” of each of the following elements: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable injury to the plaintiff if injunctive relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (4) an advancement of the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374, 376, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008) (citation omitted). “The Ninth Circuit recently reaffirmed that within this framework a preliminary injunction also is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of the hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor, thereby allowing district courts to preserve the status quo where difficult legal questions require more deliberate investigation,” so long as the other remaining Winter factors are met. Sencion v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., LLC, CV 10-3108 JF, 2011 WL 1364007, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011) (internal quotation omitted); see also Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011) (allowing for a post-Winter “sliding scale” analysis in preliminary injunction inquiries where “the elements of the preliminary injunction test are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another”).
III. Discussion
This Court granted Plaintiffs’ TRO after concluding that Plaintiffs would likely succeed on their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, and that the balance of equities tipped sharply in Plaintiffs’ favor. See TRO at 6-7. With the advantage of additional briefing, the City now claims that Plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success on the merits, that the City’s practices do not cause irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public

CV 11-2874 (06/11)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 16

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-2874 PSG (AJWx)

Title

Tony Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date June 23, 2011

interest favors the Government.1 For the reasons that follow, the Court disagrees and issues a preliminary injunction.

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Briefly stated, the Complaint alleges that the City, until the Court issued the TRO, was seizing and destroying Plaintiffs’ property in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. Plaintiffs submitted declarations indicating that the City has taken and destroyed personal property that was never abandoned, but only left unattended temporarily. See, e.g., Lavan Decl. ¶ 5 (“I then walked . . . to take a shower at the Union Rescue Mission. I was gone a total of approximately 20 to 25 minutes at the most. As I was walking back . . . I ran into [Plaintiff Smith] . . . [who] told me that the police were there and that the [property] was being taken and crushed. I ran back . . . [m]y [property] was already destroyed.”). This conduct is the same type of conduct that was enjoined in earlier lawsuits against the City for confiscation and destruction of homeless individuals’ property. See Justin v. City of Los Angeles, CV 00-12352 LGB AIJ, 2000 WL 1808426, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2000) (granting a temporary restraining order to stop, among other things, “confiscating the personal property of the homeless when it has not been abandoned and destroying it without notice”).

1. The Fourth Amendment

The City makes a number of arguments in an attempt to show that Plaintiffs will not prevail on the merits of this case. First, the City insists that the “seizure of items in a public place does not violate the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 13 of the California

1 At the preliminary injunction hearing on June 20, 2011, the City requested permission to

submit additional supplemental declarations to address issues such as certain Plaintiffs’ standing

to bring the claims in this case (for example, the City suggested that Plaintiff Hall objected to the

seizure of property not belonging to him). The City’s request is denied. The City has had ample

time to submit declarations to the Court and issues such as standing could have, and should have,

been raised in response to the Complaint or Plaintiffs’ declarations submitted in support of the

TRO Application. To the extent the City seeks an opportunity to respond to the evidence

submitted by Plaintiffs’ in their preliminary injunction Reply, the Court notes that the City did

not hesitate to file an unauthorized supplemental declaration, where it could have, but did not,

respond to any of Plaintiffs’ evidence.

CV 11-2874 (06/11)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 16

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-2874 PSG (AJWx)

Title

Tony Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date June 23, 2011

Constitution where there is objective evidence of abandonment or probable cause for the property’s seizure.” Response 4:3-6. In addition, the City claims that “property in a public place that is evidence of criminality may be seized under the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment,” and that the property here was evidence of a violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code §§ 56.11 and 41.45(b)-(c). Response 12:19-13:5. Both general propositions of law are not necessarily incorrect, but neither aids the City in its attempt to defeat Plaintiffs’ efforts to secure a preliminary injunction.

As explained in the April TRO, Plaintiffs have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their property and the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures applies. See Lehr v. City of Sacramento, 624 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1235 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Justin v. City of Los Angeles, CV 00-12352 LGB AIJ, 2000 WL 1808426, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2000)); Kincaid v. City of Fresno, CV 06-1445 OWW SMS, 2006 WL 3542732, at *35-37 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (issuing a preliminary injunction after holding that “[t]he City’s seizure of homeless people’s personal property without probable cause and the immediate and permanent destruction of such property without a method to reclaim or to assert the owner’s right, title, and interest to recovery such personal property violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I § 13 of the California Constitution”). This conclusion is not necessarily altered by the fact that the City may have found the property in a public place. See, e.g., Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 68, 113 S. Ct. 538, 121 L. Ed. 2d 450 (1992) (“an officer who happens to come across an individual’s property in a public area could seize it only if Fourth Amendment standards are satisfied—for example, if the items are evidence of a crime or contraband.”).

Despite this, the City maintains that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to Plaintiffs’

property because “[i]t is well established that individuals who leave items in public places do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in them.” See Response, 8:21-22. In doing so, the City

attempts to distinguish the Lehr, Kincaid and Justin cases cited by the Court in the April TRO.

The Court is troubled by the City’s straight-faced misstatement of the law, especially in light of abundant authority to the contrary. See, e.g., Soldal, 506 U.S. at 68. In support of its

proposition that there can be no expectation of privacy for any item left in a public place, the

City cites to, inter alia, the Supreme Court’s 1960 decision in Abel v. United States, the Ninth

Circuit 1969 decision in United States v. Knight, and the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision in United States v. Wider. The City offers no explanation as to why those abandoned-property

cases stand for such a sweeping proposition of law. In order to prevent further reliance on

inapplicable cases, the Court explains why those cases do not support the City’s legal position

despite the City’s failure to do the same.

CV 11-2874 (06/11)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 16

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-2874 PSG (AJWx)

Title

Tony Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date June 23, 2011

In Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 240-41, 80 S. Ct. 683, 4 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1960), the United States Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision to admit two pieces of “abandoned” evidence found in an empty hotel room “immediately after petitioner had paid his bill and vacated his room,” because at the time the evidence was found, “the hotel then had the exclusive right to its possession, and the hotel management freely gave its consent that the search be made.” Similarly inapplicable is the Ninth Circuit’s brief, twelve-sentence decision in United States v. Knight, 412 F.2d 292 (9th Cir. 1969), in which the Ninth Circuit simply held that a defendant did not have standing to “protest the seizure of abandoned property.” Finally, in United States v. Wider, 951 F.2d 1283, 1285-86 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that it was not clear error for the district court to conclude that the defendant “abandoned” a bag of cocaine by leaving it in a public place and walking away from it when the police noticed him, thus making the search of the bag lawful.

How the City sincerely believes that Abel, Knight and Wider indicate lack of Fourth Amendment protections for the homeless population’s property is beyond comprehension. In fact, the Northern District of California explicitly rejected almost identical arguments citing to Wider in another case involving homeless-property sweeps: “Initially, the City defends on the basis that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when property is left unattended in public places, citing United States v. Wider . . . As plaintiffs correctly argue, however, this is true only where the property is intentionally abandoned,” not simply “unattended.” Joyce v. City and County of San Francisco, 846 F. Supp. 843 (N.D. Cal. 1994). The only explanation for the City’s untenable position is that it assumes that all the homeless’ property is abandoned. But, as discussed below, such an assumption is unwarranted, especially in light of Plaintiffs’ clear showing that the City confiscated and destroyed unabandoned property in this case.

The City’s exaggeration of the lack of protections afforded to the property of the homeless population does not stop there. The City also argues that the Fourth Amendment’s protections coincide with the distance that a homeless person is from his or her property. In the City’s own words, “the homeless have an expectation of privacy in their property when they are near it. When they walk away from it, the expectation of privacy dissipates,” and the property can be considered abandoned. Response 9:9-11. This argument, too, has been rejected by a court considering a similar case involving property of the homeless. Specifically, in Kincaid v. City of Fresno, the court held that:

“The City has attempted to justify its policies and practices by its rule that the

property of the homeless that it seizes and destroys is ‘abandoned’ and is therefore

‘trash.’ The City’s ‘rule[]’ . . . is that if a homeless person is not literally beside

CV 11-2874 (06/11)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 5 of 16

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-2874 PSG (AJWx)

Title

Tony Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date June 23, 2011

his or her property laying claim to it during a sweep, then the City deems that property to be abandoned, making the property ‘trash,’ which is then destroyed. There is no legal justification for this rule which is demeaning as it places no value on the homeless’ property and is not honest because the ‘rule’ purports to transmogrify obviously valuable property into trash.”
Kincaid, 2006 WL 3542732, at *36.2
Moreover, if the test for abandonment was simply distance from property, then the test would be superfluous as any person not within close proximity of the lonely item would be deemed to have abandoned it. The law, however, gives different rights to people who find property based on whether that property is lost or abandoned, and the like, not based on distance from the current or former possessor/owner. See, e.g., Martin v. Cassidy, 149 Cal. App. 2d 106, 110 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957); 1 Am. Jur. 2d, Abandoned, Lost, and Unclaimed Property § 18 (2011). The Court is not willing to say that all parked cars (even those in no parking zones), locked-up bicycles, and tied-up dogs can be seized and destroyed simply because the owner has stepped away to buy a gallon of milk. And, for the reasons stated in Kincaid, the Court is unpersuaded by the City’s argument that because the homeless in this case stepped away momentarily to, inter alia, get water or shower, they abandoned all their possessions and the City was then free to seize and destroy them.
Thus, the Fourth Amendment’s protections extend to the unabandoned property of Plaintiffs. The question then becomes whether the City, in seizing Plaintiffs’ property, acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment. Here too, Plaintiffs have made a clear showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits only those searches and seizures that are “unreasonable.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. A seizure of property occurs when there is “some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.” Soldal v.

2 The Court also notes that the Lehr court found that the plaintiff articulated a claim for the

deprivation of her Fourth Amendment rights without respect to her proximity to her belongings,

as did the Justin court. See Lehr, 624 F. Supp. 2d at 1235 (“Plaintiffs have a legitimate

expectation of privacy in their property and, thus, the property is protected by the Fourth

Amendment.”); Justin, 2000 WL 1808426, at *10 (finding a likelihood of success on the merits

of homeless plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims despite the fact defendants seized and

destroyed the plaintiffs’ property “when left momentarily”).

CV 11-2874 (06/11)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 6 of 16

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-2874 PSG (AJWx)

Title

Tony Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date June 23, 2011

Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 61, 113 S. Ct. 538, 121 L. Ed. 2d 450 (1992) (quoting United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113, 104 S. Ct. 1652, 80 L. Ed. 2d 85 (1984)). While taking and destroying personal property is a seizure, see Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 124-25, such seizures are only unlawful if they are unreasonable. To assess reasonableness, courts “must balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion.” Id. at 125.

As an initial matter, the City does not dispute that it disposes of certain items formerly in the possession of homeless persons in Los Angeles, thus, seizing it. It does dispute whether the property taken was actually abandoned, because if the property was abandoned then seizing it would not be unreasonable. See, e.g., Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 58-59, 44 S. Ct. 445, 68 L. Ed. 898 (1924). Abandonment is determined by the intent of the owner and the “inquiry should focus on whether, through words, acts or other objective indications, a person has relinquished a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property at the time of the search or seizure.” U.S. v. Nordling, 804 F.2d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1986). Such a determination is “to be made in light of the totality of the circumstances, and two important factors are denial of ownership and physical relinquishment of the property.” Id.

The City claims that it was objectively reasonable for the City to believe that Plaintiffs abandoned all the property seized in this case. For example, the City points to signs in the Skid Row area alerting people that “Los Angeles Municipal Code section 56.11 prohibits leaving . . . personal property on a public sidewalk,” and that there is a “regular clean-up of the area scheduled for Monday through Friday between 8:00 and 11:00 am.” See Response 9:14-20 (citing Paulson Decl. ¶¶ 2,3; Duncanson Decl. ¶ 3). With the presence of this sign, the City makes the assumption that any property left in the area during that time is abandoned. Id. 10:34. In addition, according to the City, none of the named Plaintiffs informed the City that they owned the property that was being cleaned up on the dates identified in the Complaint or declarations. Id. 10:26-27; Duncanson Decl. ¶ 9. The evidence submitted by Plaintiffs strongly suggests otherwise and clearly shows that the City did in fact know that at least some of the property seized was not abandoned.

Plaintiffs Lamoen Hall (a/k/a “Bling”), Byron Reese and Ernest Seymore claim that their

personal property—including a California ID, birth certificate, Social Security cards, family memorabilia, toiletries, cell phones, sleeping bags and blankets—was neatly packed in carts

provided by the “Hippie Kitchen,” but seized by the City while they watched or while they left

momentarily to get water or use the restroom. See Hall Decl. ¶¶ 3-5; Reese Decl. ¶¶ 2-6;

Seymore Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. The property was seized despite the City’s declaration that “medications,

CV 11-2874 (06/11)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 7 of 16

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-2874 PSG (AJWx)

Title

Tony Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date June 23, 2011

legal paperwork, glasses, or other forms of identification” are never dumped, but left for the owner, as is any property found in a Catholic Worker/Hippie Kitchen-labeled cart. Duncanson Decl. ¶ 5. And although the City submitted the declaration of John Duncanson—an “investigator for the Bureau of Street Services” who is charged with making the decisions as to what items can be cleaned up and what must be left behind—indicating that he does not remember anyone telling him that the property taken on February 6, 2011 or February 24, 2011 from outside the Catholic Worker was not abandoned, Plaintiffs, in addition to the declarations of the homeless plaintiffs themselves, submit the declarations of two people working at the Catholic Worker on February 24, 2011 indicating that the City knew it was taking unabandoned property. See Morris Decl. ¶ 10-12; Lewis Decl. ¶¶ 4-7. Jesse Lewis, a declarant for the Plaintiffs, was even able to take pictures of the February 24, 2011 incident. See Lewis Decl., Exs. 1-8. Thus, at least three separate declarations and photographic evidence shows that while Mr. Duncanson might not remember being approached by anyone indicating that the property being dumped was not abandoned, the City was in fact notified that the property belonged to Lamonen Hall and others, and that when attempts to retrieve the property were made, the City took it and destroyed it nevertheless.3 See Hall Decl. ¶ 4, Morris Decl. ¶¶ 11-12; Lewis Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; Reese Decl. ¶¶ 2-4. Moreover, the fact that the carts were neatly packed objectively

3 Other portions of Mr. Duncanson’s declarations are similarly unsupported and even conflict

with declarations offered by the City. For example, Mr. Dunancson avers that he knows when

property is abandoned because, among other things, when no one is around to immediately claim

property in a public area, he will leave it “there for at least a day, if not longer before it is

cleaned up.” Duncanson Decl. ¶ 4 (emphasis added). Yet, Plaintiff Vassie stated that his

portable tent was destroyed by the City on March 17, 2011, after being told to move it from its

prior location on March 16, 2011, which Plaintiff Vassie did. See Vassie Decl. ¶ 4. Officer

Joseph, whose declaration the City submitted, confirmed Plaintiff Vassie’s account. See Joseph

Decl. ¶ 8. Mr. Duncanson states, however, that Plaintiff Vassie’s portable tent had been at the

new location since “March 15, 2011.” Duncanson Decl. ¶ 9(d). Plaintiff Vassie could not have

both left his tent at the new location since March 15, 2011—as claimed by Mr. Duncanson—and

have moved the tent there on March 16, 2011—as claimed by Officer Joseph and Plaintiff

Vassie. Moreover, the fact that the City instructed Plaintiffs to move their portable tents and

Plaintiffs followed the instruction (likely less than a day before destruction), is objective

evidence that the moved tents were not abandoned. The City relied heavily on this aspect of Mr.

Duncanson’s declaration at oral argument to establish that the City only disposes of abandoned

property left unattended for at least a day. The Court, however, cannot simply take Mr.

Duncanson’s declaration at face value in light of the other evidence offered by both Plaintiffs

and the City.

CV 11-2874 (06/11)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 8 of 16

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-2874 PSG (AJWx)

Title

Tony Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date June 23, 2011

suggests ownership: “[T]he homeless often arrange their belongings in such a manner as to suggest ownership-e.g., they may lean it against a tree or other object or cover it with a pillow or blanket; []by its appearance, the property belonging to homeless persons is reasonably distinguishable from truly abandoned property.” Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551, 1559 (S.D. Fla. 1992); Morris Decl. ¶ 5 (indicating that on February 24, 2011, the City took property contained in Hippie Kitchen carts, even though “[t]he carts were lined up in a row on the sidewalk . . . there was not a pile of trash in the street . . .[and t]he carts were neatly packed up”).

With this in mind, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have clearly shown that they will likely succeed in establishing that the City seized and destroyed property that it knew was not abandoned. As a result, it is necessary to balance this invasion of Plaintiff’s possessory interests in their personal belongings with the City’s reasons for taking the property. At the TRO hearing in April and in the papers filed in conjunction with the potential issuance of a preliminary injunction, the City repeatedly cited to the need to keep its streets clean in order to avert a severe impact to “the public interest in health, safety, and the economic vitality of the Skid Row area.” Response 25:6-7. The Court, however, already addressed this concern in the TRO and sees no reason to change its view now:

Here, Defendants may be slowed in their efforts to keep the City, and especially

the downtown area, clean and safe. [An] injunction may disturb their new initiative

to revitalize and uplift communities, to improve the streets and sidewalks, and to diminish the crime rate . . . Plaintiffs, however, risk a greater harm if the

injunction is not granted: the violation of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth

Amendment rights. The Court in Pottinger eloquently expressed the dangers

homeless individuals face in analogous situations: “The court recognizes the City's interest in keeping its parks and public areas clear

of unsightly and unsafe items. However, the City's interest in having clean parks is

outweighed by the more immediate interest of the plaintiffs in not having their personal belongings destroyed. As this court previously found, the loss of such

items such as clothes and medicine threatens the already precarious existence of

homeless individuals by posing health and safety hazards.”

Pottinger, 810 F. Supp. at 1573. Similarly, Defendants' actions are likely to displace homeless individuals and threaten their ability to access charities for food,

shelter, and assistance in Skid Row. As the Pottinger Court stated, Defendants'

actions are likely to “threaten[ ] the already precarious existence of homeless

individuals by posing health and safety hazards.”

CV 11-2874 (06/11)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 9 of 16

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-2874 PSG (AJWx)

Title

Tony Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date June 23, 2011

TRO at 7 (quoting Justin, 2000 WL 1808426, at *11). The Court is certainly not blind to the concerns of the City, but agrees with the other courts that have considered the issue and found that similar conduct, even by the same defendant in this case, violated the Fourth Amendment despite an inherent interest in keeping public areas clean and prosperous. See Lehr v. City of Sacramento, 624 F. Supp. 2d 1218; Justin v. City of Los Angeles, 2000 WL 1808426; Kincaid v. City of Fresno, 2006 WL 3542732; Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551.
The City’s final attempt to justify the seizure and destruction of property that is not abandoned is based on the Los Angeles Municipal Code (“LAMC”). More specifically, the City argues that it was entitled to collect Plaintiffs’ property as it was in “plain view” and evidence of “criminal” conduct under LAMC sections 56.11, and 41.45. LAMC § 56.11 provides in relevant part that “[n]o person shall leave or permit to remain any merchandise, baggage, or any article of personal property upon any parkway or sidewalk.” LAMC § 41.45 prohibits abandoning or leaving any shopping cart removed from “the owner’s premises” in a public place.4 Even if violation of these municipal code provisions warrant application of the exception allowing for the seizure of evidence of a crime found in plain view, see Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 137-39, 110 S. Ct. 2301, 110 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1990), LAMC § 56.11, as applied, conflicts with California Civil Code § 2080, which requires that “any person or public entity or private entity that finds and takes possession of any . . . personal property” must make a reasonable effort to return it or turn it over to the police, who must notify the owner and hold it for at least 90 days,5 see Cal. Civ. Code § 2080; Candid Enters. Inc. v. Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist., 39 Cal.3d 878, 885 (1985) (“if otherwise valid local legislation conflicts with state law, it is preempted by such law and is void”). It should also be noted that an otherwise lawful seizure “at its inception can nevertheless violate the Fourth Amendment because its manner of execution unreasonably infringes possessory interests protected by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘unreasonable seizures.’” Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 124. Therefore, assuming arguendo that the City had a valid reason to seize Plaintiffs unabandoned property under the LAMC, its conduct of

4 Because all the evidence presented suggests that the property taken in conjunction with the

February 6, 2011 and February 24, 2011 incidents outside the Hippie Kitchen came out of

Hippie Kitchen carts, which are provided to homeless persons for the express purpose of keeping

their belongings in them, the Court need not address the City’s LAMC § 41.45 argument.

5 Civil Code § 2080 also permits a public agency to adopt its own similar regulations for the

“care, restitution, sale or destruction of unclaimed property in its possession,” but even under an

alternative system, a public agency must still hold the property for “at least three months.” Cal.

Civ. Code § 2080.6(a).

CV 11-2874 (06/11)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 10 of 16

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-2874 PSG (AJWx)

Title

Tony Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date June 23, 2011

immediately destroying the property rather than holding it pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 2080, 6 turns what could be an otherwise lawful seizure into an unlawful one by forever depriving an owner of his or her interests in possessing the property without recourse, in violation of § 2080, and without a sufficient governmental interest.

The property of the homeless is entitled to Fourth Amendment protection. Here, Plaintiffs have clearly shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the claim that in collecting and destroying Plaintiffs’ property on the spot, the City unlawfully and unreasonably seized personal property in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

2. The Fourteenth Amendment

Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, “[n]o state shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Article I, section 7 of the California Constitution similarly provides that a “person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Plaintiffs’ personal possessions, perhaps representing everything they own, must be considered “property” for purposes of this due process analysis. See Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 84, 92 S. Ct. 1983, 32 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1972); see also Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551, 1559 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (holding that confiscation and destruction of the property of the homeless violates both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments after noting that “a homeless person’s personal property is generally all he owns; therefore, while it may look like ‘junk’ to some people, its value should not be discounted”). As such, before the City can seize and destroy Plaintiffs’ property, it must provide notice and an “opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,” Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 339-43, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976), except in “extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies the postponing of the hearing until after the event,” United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 53, 114 S. Ct. 492, 126 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1993). Under Matthews v. Eldridge, a court is to consider three factors to determine whether the basic procedural due process requirements have been met:

6 The Court recognizes that Mr. Duncanson claims that the City keeps property that has been

seized and objected to at the time of seizure, for at least 72 hours. Duncanson Decl. ¶ 7. The

Court has already explained its concerns with Mr. Duncanson’s declaration, and further notes

that Plaintiff Reese went to the dump during the time when his property should have been

available, but was told that it had already been “trashed.” Reese Decl. ¶ 3.

CV 11-2874 (06/11)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 11 of 16

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-2874 PSG (AJWx)

Title

Tony Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date June 23, 2011

(1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the Government’s interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens that additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail.
Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 321.
The City claims that it provides notice before seizing homeless individuals’ property via the street signs indicating sidewalk cleanups between certain hours. See Duncanson Decl. ¶ 2. At oral argument, the City acknowledged that this notice, often posted at a very high level with small print, obscured by foliage or taped over, is inadequate. See Sobel Decl. ¶¶ 3-12, Exs. 1-10. Even if this notice was adequate, however, Plaintiffs have established the lack of either pre or post-deprivation opportunities to be heard. For example, the City claims that if a person objects to the seizure of his or her property while it is being seized, then that person can go to the dump within 72 hours and retrieve his or her property. Duncanson Decl. ¶ 7. This is contradicted by Byron Reese, who avers that he was told to go to the dump to collect items that had been seized by the City, but when he got there a few hours later he was informed that all the property had been “trashed.” Reese Decl. ¶ 3. Moreover, even if there was a meaningful “post-deprivation,” 72-hour opportunity to be heard at the dump, it only affects those people who were present to witness and object to the seizure of their property, not those who temporarily left to attend other business, use the restroom, eat a meal or get some water; they are deprived of their property without any recourse at all.7 See Duncanson Decl. ¶ 7 (“If someone approaches me and informs me that the property belongs to them,” but the property has already been loaded in the dump truck, “then we provide a map to the dump site,” where that “particular load” is segregated and “kept for three days before it is brought to the landfill.” (emphasis added)).

7 At oral argument, the City argued that it provides a post-deprivation opportunity to be heard

and collect seized property through “bag and tag” programs administered by the LAPD and the

Central City East Association Business Improvement District (“BID”). See also Response 2:16-

3:7. The Court does not doubt the existence of those programs, but the City has still failed to

overcome Plaintiffs’ showing that unabandoned property was seized and immediately destroyed.

That the LAPD and BID have the ability to “bag and tag” seized property is substantially

different than actually holding unabandoned, seized property and affording people the

opportunity to be heard and collect it. No evidence submitted supports anything other than the

City’s ability to “bag and tag.”

CV 11-2874 (06/11)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 12 of 16

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-2874 PSG (AJWx)

Title

Tony Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date June 23, 2011

The City’s admission that it has a practice of on-the-spot destruction of seized property only bolsters Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim.8 This practice presents an enormous risk of erroneous deprivation, which could likely be mitigated by certain safeguards such as adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See Kincaid, 2006 WL 3542732, at *38. Together, the declarations and state of the law with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process requirements make it such that Plaintiffs have, again, sufficiently shown a likelihood of success on the merits under Winter. See Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 434, 102 S. Ct. 1148, 71 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1982) (“the state may not finally destroy a property interest without first giving the putative owner an opportunity to present his claim of entitlement”); Propert v. District of Columbia, 948 F.2d 1327, 1335 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (“Although [a state] may have a strong interest in the prompt removal of supposed junk vehicles from the streets, its interest in the immediate destruction of such vehicles is far from apparent. On balance, the severity of the deprivation imposed on the vehicle's owner, combined with the potential vagaries of the enforcing officer's determinations, outweighs any government interest in the immediate destruction of a towed vehicle that has been identified as “junk” and compels the conclusion that post-towing process is required.”). The City admits that for Plaintiffs like Tony Lavan, whose property was seized and destroyed while he showered at a local shelter, no pre or postdeprivation hearing is afforded at all, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Lavan Decl. ¶ 5. Thus, Plaintiffs have clearly shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their Fourteenth Amendment claims because the City admittedly fails to provide any meaningful pre or post-deprivation opportunity to be heard before or after seizing and destroying property belonging to Skid Row’s homeless population. See Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 84-87, 92 S. Ct. 1983, 32 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1972) (the government must provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard in cases where common household goods are seized).
Without citing to a single case to justify its position, the City argues that it is “impracticable to provide a pre-deprivation hearing” when seizing the homeless population’s property and therefore no opportunity to be heard must be afforded before or after a seizure. Again, the Court recognizes the City’s desire for an efficient street cleaning process, but, as explained by the Supreme Court, often efficiency must take a backseat to constitutionally protected interests:
A prior hearing always imposes some costs in time, effort, and expense, and it is often more efficient to dispense with the opportunity for such a hearing. But these

8 This admission also dooms the City’s argument that no pre-deprivation due process is needed

where a loss is due to “a random and unauthorized act by a state employee.” Response 17:3-4.

CV 11-2874 (06/11)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 13 of 16

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-2874 PSG (AJWx)

Title

Tony Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date June 23, 2011

rather ordinary costs cannot outweigh the constitutional right. . . Procedural due process is not intended to promote efficiency or accommodate all possible interests: it is intended to protect the particular interests of the person whose possessions are about to be taken. The establishment of prompt efficacious procedures to achieve legitimate state ends is a proper state interest worthy of cognizance in constitutional adjudication. But the Constitution recognizes higher values than speed and efficiency. Indeed, one might fairly say of the Bill of Rights in general, and the Due Process Clause in particular, that they were designed to protect the fragile values of a vulnerable citizenry from the overbearing concern for efficiency and efficacy that may characterize praiseworthy government officials no less, and perhaps more, than mediocre ones.

Fuentes, 407 U.S. 67, 92 n.22 (quotations and citations omitted). Plaintiffs have established that, in some cases, the City both seizes and destroys Plaintiffs’ necessities without any meaningful pre or post-deprivation opportunity to be heard. In the absence of such process, Plaintiffs have established a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their Fourteenth Amendment claim.

Finally, the Court notes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) provides that an injunction or restraining order only binds: “(A) the parties; (B) the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with [the parties].” Although this lawsuit is stylized as a class-action, the equivalent of class-wide relief may still be appropriate despite the fact that a class has not yet been certified. In Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 92 F.3d 1486 (9th Cir. 1996), the Court held that “[w]hile injunctive relief generally should be limited to apply only to named plaintiffs where there is no class certification, an injunction is not necessarily made overbroad by extending benefit or protection to persons other than prevailing parties in the lawsuit-even if it is not a class action- if such breadth is necessary to give prevailing parties the relief to which they are entitled.” Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T., 92 F.3d at 1501-02 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original). As discussed, the allegations in the Complaint indicate that the City is seizing and destroying property that has been temporarily left in public places by its owner, but not abandoned. Thus, it would likely be impossible for the City to determine whose property is being confiscated—i.e. whether it is one of the named Plaintiffs or another homeless person—and a preliminary injunction, as fashioned below, is necessary to “give prevailing parties the relief to which they are entitled.” Id.

B. Irreparable Injury
CV 11-2874 (06/11)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 14 of 16

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-2874 PSG (AJWx)

Title

Tony Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date June 23, 2011

The Ninth Circuit has held that “an alleged constitutional infringement will often alone constitute irreparable harm.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Coalition for Econ. Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1412 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Citicorp Servs., Inc. v. Gillespie, 712 F. Supp. 749, 753 (N.D. Cal. 1989) (“In various cases, courts in the Ninth Circuit have presumed irreparable harm from an alleged violation of constitutional rights.”). Plaintiffs have shown the likelihood of proving past constitutional violations and there is a potential for continuing violations, especially considering that the City has been ordered to stop similar practices in the past. See Justin v. City of Los Angeles, 2000 WL 1808426, at *13; Compl. ¶¶ 4-6, 20, 24 (each paragraph generally alleging a continuing policy to rid Skid Row of its homeless population).
C. Balancing of Equities and the Public Interest
A Court considering an application for a preliminary injunction must identify the harm that a injunction might cause a defendant and weigh it against the injury to a plaintiff. Justin, 2000 WL 1808426, at *11 (citing Armstrong v. Marurak, 94 F.3d 566, 568 (9th Cir. 1996)). As indicated above and in the April TRO, the City claims that an injunction would hamper its efforts to ensure the health, safety and the economic vitality of the Skit Row area.” Response 25:6-8. However, the City’s interest in clean streets is outweighed by Plaintiffs’ interest in maintaining the few necessary personal belongings they might have. See TRO at 7. The City will still be able to lawfully seize and detain property, as well as remove hazardous debris and other trash; issuance of the injunction would merely prevent it from unlawfully seizing and destroying personal property that is not abandoned without providing any meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard. This not only benefits the Plaintiffs, but the general public as well. See Pottinger, 810 F. Supp. at 1573.
D. The Language of the Injunction
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) requires that “[e]very order granting and in junction and every restraining order must: (A) state the reason why it issued; (B) state its terms specifically; and (C) describe in reasonable detail—and not by referring to the complaint or other document—the act or acts restrained or required.” Thus, the Court must clearly state the specific terms of the injunction in order to “prevent uncertainty and confusion on the part of those faced with injunctive orders, and to avoid the possible founding of a contempt citation on a decree too vague to be understood.” Schmidr v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 476, 94 S. Ct. 713, 38 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1974). The Court finds that the following language satisfactorily complies with Rule 65’s requirements:

CV 11-2874 (06/11)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 15 of 16

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-2874 PSG (AJWx)

Title

Tony Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Date June 23, 2011

Defendant City, its agents and employees, are hereby preliminarily enjoined from doing any of the following:
1. Seizing property in Skid Row absent an objectively reasonable belief that it is abandoned, presents an immediate threat to public health or safety, or is evidence of a crime, or contraband; and
2. Absent an immediate threat to public health or safety, destruction of said seized property without maintaining it in a secure location for a period of less than 90 days.
Defendant City, its agents and employees, is further directed to leave a notice in a prominent place for any property taken on the belief that it is abandoned, including advising where the property is being kept and when it may be claimed by the rightful owner.
IV. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing Plaintiffs have clearly shown a likelihood of success on the merits, that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tip in their favor and that an injunction is in the public interest. As a result, the Court ISSUES a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV 11-2874 (06/11)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 16 of 16

 
 Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 35 Filed 07/25/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:682

1 CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, City Attorney - SBN 86629x GARY G. GEUSS, Chief Assistant City Attorney
2 CORY M. BRENTE Assistant City Attorney SUREKHA A. PESSIS, Deputy City Attorney - SBN 193206
3 Email: Surekha.Pessis@lacity.org 200 North Main Street
46th Floor, City Hall East Los Angeles CA 90012
5 Phone No.: (213) 978-7036, Fax No.: (213) 978-8785

6 Attorneys for Defendant, CITY OF LOS ANGELES

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

TWOILNLYIELVAAVSSAI~N."

CATERlUS SMITH, ERNEST SEYMORE,

12 LAMOEN HALL SHAMAL

BALLANTINE" BYRON REESE,

13 REGINALD WILSON,

CASE NO.: CVII-02874 PSG (AJWx)
Hon. Phillip Gutierrez, Ctr111 880 Roybal.
Mag. Andrew J. Wistrich, Ctr111.690 Roybal

14

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Plaintiffs,

"PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION APPEAL"

19 Defendants.
20

21

22

23 TO THIS HONORABLE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS

24 OF RECORD:

25

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thatDefendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public

26 entity, appeals to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit from the order

27 III

28 III

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 35 Filed 07/25/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:683

1 granting Plaintiffs request for a Preliminary Injunction, entered against the City of Los

2 Angeles on June 23, 2011.

3

4 DATED: July 25, 2011 5 6

CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, City Attorney

GARY G. GEUS~ Chief Assistant City Attorney

CORY M. B Nt' Assistant Cit Attorn

SUREKH

E

Depu 'ty Attorn y

7 ttorney
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 
 Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 152 Filed 01/27/15 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:2812

1 CAROL A. SOBEL SBN 84483 JOHN P. GIVEN SBN 269787
2 LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 3110 Main Street, Suite 210
3 Santa Monica, CA 90405 T. (310 393-3055 F. 310 451-3858
4 E. Carolsobel@aol.com

FILED
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
January 27, 2015
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WH BY: ___________________ DEPUTY

5

6

7

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION
10

11 TONY LAVAN, CATERIUS SMITH, WILLIE VASSIE, ERNEST
12 SEYMORE, LAMOEN HALL, SHAMAL BALLANTINE, BYRON
13 REESE, REGINALD WILSON,

14

Plaintiffs,

15 vs.

16 CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

17

Defendants.

Case No.: cv 11-02874 PSG (AJWx) AMENDED COMPLAINT: CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION: F.R.CIV.P. 23(b)(2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 AND FOURTH, FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, §§ 7 AND 13

18

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§52,

52.1

19

/ CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 2080

20

CONVERSION

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 152 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:2813

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

1. This is an action for injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

3 F.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), as well as damages, based upon the ongoing violations by the

4 Defendant of the rights secured to Plaintiffs by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth

5 Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction exists based on 28 U.S.C.

6 § 1331 and 1343 in that this case is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and raises

7 questions of federal constitutional law under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth

8 Amendments. Jurisdiction also exists under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.

9 §§ 2201(a) and 2202. The court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law

10 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

11

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

12 complained of in this action all occurred in the Central District.

13
INTRODUCTION

14

3. This case represents a road the CITY has traveled down before. In 1987

15 and again in 2000, injunctions were issued against the defendant City of Los Angeles

16 (“CITY”), barring the CITY from summarily confiscating and destroying the property

17 of homeless individuals in the Skid Row area without due process. In 2006, the City

18 settled a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of a number of homeless individuals

19 whose property was confiscated and destroyed in a single sweep at the Venice Beach

20 on Labor Day weekend in 2004. Then, as now, if the individuals were present and

21 attempted to save their property, they were threatened by the police with arrest. Despite

22 these repeated injunctions and actions against the CITY, once again, the most

23 vulnerable population in our community comes to court to request yet another order

24 directing the CITY to stop seizing and demolishing the few belongings they have left.

25

4. Plaintiffs are eight homeless individuals living in the City of Los Angeles.

26 Over the course of the last two months, their personal possessions were confiscated and

27 immediately destroyed by CITY Public Works employees at the direction of the Los

28 Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) as a part of an ongoing practice targeting the

1

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 152 Filed 01/27/15 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:2814

1 homeless on Skid Row. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated

2 homeless men and women who have suffered and will continue to suffer the same type

3 of loss as a result of the same unlawful practice and policy.

4

5. As a result of the illegal seizures, Plaintiffs have lost indispensable

5 personal property such as shelters, medicine, clothing, personal papers, family photos

6 and portable electronics. Some of the property is irreplaceable. There is no legitimate

7 reason to seize the property in the first place, much less immediately destroy it, often

8 while Plaintiffs are present, pleading to spare their possessions and watching helplessly

9 as what little they have is swept up and crushed. The only real reason for this policy is

10 to destroy the property of individuals such as Plaintiffs, who are homeless and who are

11 regarded by the CITY as nothing more than garbage to be removed from City streets.

12
6. A Temporary Restraining Order is needed to prevent imminent harm to
13
Plaintiffs. Defendant has made clear through the repeated seizure and destruction of
14
Plaintiffs’ property that this is part of an ongoing campaign on Skid Row. As recently
15
as March 17, 2011, LAPD officers destroyed Plaintiffs’ property as they attended to
16 such basics as taking a shower at the Union Rescue Mission, going to court, and getting

17 a meal. Unless restrained by an Order of this Court, these unlawful acts will continue.

18

19

DEFENDANT’S PAST UNLAWFUL CONDUCT

20 The 1987 Temporary Restraining Order
21
7. On February 25, 1987, the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a Temporary
22
Restraining Order in Adam Young Bennion v. City of Los Angeles, C637718. The terms
23
of the restraining order included a requirement that the City give 12 hours written notice
24
before removing property on the presupposition that it has been abandoned on the 25 public streets of Skid Row. Exhibit A, p.28 (“III. Notice Requirements”). The Bennion 26 Order required City employees to post a “prominent notice in a conspicuous place on 27 the cite. The notice shall include the specific citation to the law allegedly violated and
28 state that the property will be subject to disposal if the violation is not corrected within
2

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 152 Filed 01/27/15 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:2815

1 twelve hours from the time the notice is posted. Id.

2
The Justin Case
3

4

8. In 2000, the City again began a campaign of confiscating the property of

5 homeless persons, ordering them to move away from their belongings, and then

6 immediately crushing all of the property in dump trucks. In response to the CITY’s

7 unlawful actions, several individuals filed a lawsuit entitled Justin v. City of Los

8 Angeles, CV 00-12352 LGB (AIJx). On November 5, 2001, the Honorable Lourdes
Baird entered a permanent injunction against the City, in corporating the terms of the
9
Bennion retraining order and enjoining, inter alia, the City would “not confiscate
10
personal property that does not appear abandoned and destroy it without notice. Where
11
applicable, defendants will give notoice in compliance with the temporary restraining
12
order issued in Bennion v. City of Los Angeles (C637718). Any personal property that
13
does not appear intentionally abandoned collected by defendants will be retained for 90
14
days as provided in California Civil Code section 2080.2.” Exhibit A, p.18, ¶5. At the

15 request of the CITY, the injunction expired after 48 months. Id. at lines 23-28.

16

17 The Noe Case

18

9. Shortly after midnight just before Labor Day in 2004, the LAPD conducted

19 a sweep of the Venice Beach area, seizing and immediately destroying the property of

20 several dozen homeless individuals. None of the property was abandoned. Many of

21 the owners of the property were present and were allowed to take some of their

22 property, but were threatened with arrest when they asked to take additional items. A

23 class action lawsuit was filed seeking compensation for the injuries resulting from the

24 loss of personal possessions. Richard Noe v. City of Los Angeles, cv 05-08374. In 25 November, 2006, the Honorable Andrew Guilford approved a settlement for the class 26 of individuals whose property was destroyed in the Noe case. Exhibit C.

27
2GE95KG0
28
3

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 152 Filed 01/27/15 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:2816

1

PARTIES

2 Plaintiffs:

3

10. Plaintiff TONY LAVAN is an homeless individual currently residing on

4
the streets of the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. On March 17, 2011, his EDAR was

5
confiscated and destroyed while Mr. LAVAN was at the Union Rescue Mission using

6
the shower facilities. He was gone from his property for no more than 30 minutes, if

7
that. His property was not abandoned. He sues on behalf of himself and all similarly

8
situated individuals.

9

10

11. Plaintiff CATERIUS SMITH is an homeless individual currently residing

11 on the streets of the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. On March 17, 2011, his EDAR was

12 confiscated and destroyed while Mr. SMITH was present. Mr. SMITH had just

13 returned from court, observed the LAPD officers and Public Works employees seizing

14 the EDARS. Mr. SMITH pleaded to rescue his property but was not pernitted to gather

15 more than a few items. His property was not abandoned. He sues on behalf of himself

16 and all similarly situated individuals.

17
12. Plaintiff WILLIE VASSIE is an homeless individual currently residing on
18
the streets of the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. On March 17, 2011, his EDAR,
19
bicycle and shopping cart with all of his possessions was confiscated and destroyed by
20
LAPD officers and Public Works employees. He lost medications and all of his personal
21
property. Mr. VASSIE’s property was not abandoned. He sues on behalf of himself
22
and all similarly situated individuals.
23

24

13. Plaintiff SHAMAL BALLANTINE is an homeless individual currently

25 residing on the streets of the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. On March 17, 2011, his

26 EDAR with all of his possessions was confiscated and destroyed by LAPD officers and

27 Public Works employees. Mr. BALLANTINE had gone to the bank a few blocks from

28 where his EDAR was located. He was away from this property for no more than about
4

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 152 Filed 01/27/15 Page 6 of 17 Page ID #:2817

1 20 minutes; his property was not abandoned. He sues on behalf of himself and all

2 similarly situated individuals.

3
14. Plaintiff ERNEST SEYMORE is an homeless individual presently residing
4
on the streets of the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. On February 6, 2011, his shopping
5
cart with all of his possessions was confiscated and destroyed by LAPD officers and
6
Public Works employees. Mr. SEYMORE was just a few feet from his cart, about to
7
cross the street, when the officers and a skip loader came down the street and grabbed
8
his cart. There were five other carts he had been watching for other individuals. All
9
were taken and everything in them was destroyed as Mr. SEYMORE watched
10
helplessly. His property was not abandoned. He sues on behalf of himself and all
11
similarly situated individuals.
12

13

15. Plaintiff LAMOEN HALL is an homeless individual presently residing on

14 the streets of the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. On February 24, 2011, his shopping

15 cart with all of his possessions was confiscated and destroyed by LAPD officers and

16 Public Works employees. Mr. HALL had left his cart on the corner of 6th and Gladys

17 Streets for no more than 10 minutes to fill several jugs with water at the Hippie Kitchen.

18 When he returned, he observed LAPD officers and a skip loader in the street. All of

19 his property had been dumped out of his carts. He was not permitted to recover any of

20 his property, even though it was in the street and had not yet been put in the skip loader

21 and destroyed. His property was not abandoned. He sues on behalf of himself and all

22 similarly situated individuals.

23

24

16. Plaintiff BYRON REESE is an homeless individual currently residing on

25 the streets of the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. He works as a custodian to support

26 himself. On February 24, 2011, his shopping cart with all of his possessions was

27 confiscated and destroyed by LAPD officers and Public Works employees. Mr. 28 REESE’s cart was located on the corner of 6th and Gladys Streets. He left his cart for

5

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 152 Filed 01/27/15 Page 7 of 17 Page ID #:2818
1 a few minutes to use the restroom at the park across the street. When he returned, he
2 observed LAPD officers and a skip loader taking his cart and that of Plaintiff HALL.
3 All of Mr. Reese’s important personal papers, identification documents, and other 4 crucial personal belongings were in a leather satchel. The satchel was visible and 5 within reach. When Mr. Reese attempted to retrieve he satchel, he was threatened with 6 arrest by Officer Acosta. He was told that he would have to go to the City dump to 7 retrieve his possessions. Mr. REESE then immediately rode his bicycle out to the City 8 dump. When he arrived there, it was closing and he was informed by the staff that 9 everything brought in was destroyed. His property was not abandoned when it was 10 taken by Defendant’s employees. He sues on behalf of himself and all similarly situated 11 individuals.
12
17. Plaintiff REGINALD WILSON is an individual who is homeless and was
13
14 residing on the streets of the Skid Row area of Los Angeles on March 17, 2011. On that 15 morning, his EDAR was confiscated and destroyed while Mr. WILSON was away from 16 the area for a short while. His property was not abandoned. Everything he had was lost 17 when his property was confiscated and summarily destroyed, including his clothes, 18 hygiene products and personal papers. He sues on behalf of himself and all similarly 19 situated individuals.
20 Defendant:
21
18. The City of Los Angeles is a municipal entity organized under the laws of
22
23 the State of California. The CITY is a legal entity with the capacity to sue and be sued. 24 The departments of the City of Los Angeles include the Los Angeles Police Department 25 and the Los Angeles Department of Public Works, employees of which have engaged 26 in the acts constituting the violations of plaintiffs’ rights alleged in this action.
27
28
6

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 152 Filed 01/27/15 Page 8 of 17 Page ID #:2819

1

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

2
19. Beginning in February, 2011, CITY employees from the LAPD and the
3
Department of Public Works began seizing and summarily destroying any property they
4
came upon on the public sidewalks of Skid Row without notice to the property owners.
5
When individuals leave their property in the care of others, the CITY seizes it, warning
6
that no one may leave their property, even momentarily, and even if someone else is
7
present and watching the property. The City has posted signs on Skid Row, identifying
8
Los Angeles Municipal Code 56.11 as authority to remove and “dispose” of any
9
property left on the sidewalk. The property so seized is not abandoned and the CITY
10
knows it. Even when individuals are present or return prior to the time that the property
11
is crushed by the skip loader, LAPD officers threaten arrest if the individuals attempt
12
to save their property from destruction. The intent is clear: destroy what little homeless
13
14 have in this world as a means of forcing them out of the CITY.

15

20. Each of the acts complained of herein was taken, and each violation of

16 plaintiffs’ rights occurred, pursuant to the policies, practices or customs of the

17 defendant CITY, as executed by one or more the subdivisions of the CITY.

18
21. In doing each of the constitutional violations complained of herein,
19
Defendant CITY, its officials, agents, and employees were acting under color of law.
20

21

22. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on such basis allege that at all times

22 relevant to this action, each of the individuals who seized and destroyed their property

23 were the agents, servants and /or employees of the defendant CITY, and were acting at

24 all times within the scope of their agency and employment and with the knowledge and
25 consent of their principal and employer, the City of Los Angeles.
26
23. Each plaintiff has timely filed a claim for damages with the defendant
27
CITY, pursuant to Government Code section 910, et seq.
28
7

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 152 Filed 01/27/15 Page 9 of 17 Page ID #:2820

1

24. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the acts complained of herein were

2 done in the furtherance of the customs, policies and practices of authorized

3 policymakers of the defendant CITY and were joined in and/or implemented by the

4 CITY’s agents and employees who seized and destroyed Plaintiffs’ property. Each of

5 these individual LAPD officers and Public Works employees were acting as the agent

6 and employee in concert with each other. Each of the defendant CITY’s agents and

7 employees caused the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights and the

8 resulting injuries by, among other things, participating personally in the unlawful
9 conduct; by authorizing, acquiescing or setting in motion the policies, plans and actions
10 that led to the unlawful conduct, by failing to take action to prevent the unlawful
11 conduct, by demonstrating deliberate indifference to the need to maintain adequate 12 training and supervision, and by failing to take remedial and disciplinary action. The 13 CITY was on notice of the need for training in this instance based on the three past legal 14 actions brought against the CITY. Moreover, the confiscation of some of the Plaintiffs’ 15 property was reported in the Los Angeles Times when Senior Lead Officer Deon Joseph 16 brought Sandy Banks of the Times on a tour of Skid Row in which he violated the 17 Fourth Amendment rights of the Plaintiff class with impunity by invading their tents 18 without a warrant and without exigent circumstances for the sole purpose of making a 19 point to the reporter.
20

21

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

22

25. The individual plaintiffs named above filed claims against the CITY both

23 as individuals and as representatives of the class. They bring this action pursuant to

24 F.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) to certify an injunctive relief class. The class is defined as:

25

26

all individuals who are homeless and reside in the Skid Row area whose

27

personal belongings have or will be taken and immediately destroyed by

28

the agents and employees of the defendant CITY without any notice and

8

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 152 Filed 01/27/15 Page 10 of 17 Page ID #:2821

1

opportunity to retrieve the property, which was not abandoned by the

2

plaintiff class members.

3
25. The class consists of approximately 3,000 individuals, which is the
4
approximately number of individuals who reside in the Skid Row but who have no
5
daytime shelter or other location at which to store their property while they attend to the
6
basics of life, including showering, eating, and obtaining services at various government
7
offices and private facilities. The members of the class are so numerous as to make
8
joinder impracticable.
9

10

26. There are common questions of law and fact that predominate over any

11 questions affecting individual class members. Among the common questions of law

12 and fact are the following:

13
a. Whether defendant CITY’s policies, practices and conduct of seizing
14
and destroying the personal property of individuals who are homeless, without
15
providing any prior notice or an opportunity to retrieve vital personal possessions
16
before they are destroyed violated and continue to violate the class members’ state and
17
federal constitutional rights against unreasonable seizure;
18

19

b. Whether these same policies, practices and conduct violated and

20 continue to violate the class members’ state and federal constitutional rights to due

21 process;

22
c. Whether these same policies, practices and conduct violated and
23
continue to violate the class members’ rights pursuant to California Civil Code§§ 52
24
and 52.1, Civil Code§ 2080; and,
25

26

d. Whether injunctive relief should issue to enjoin the policy, practice

27 and conduct of the CITY’s agents and employees in seizing and immediately destroying

28 the property of homeless individuals on Skid Row when the property is not abandoned.

9

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 152 Filed 01/27/15 Page 11 of 17 Page ID #:2822

1 27.

The claims of the class representatives are typical of those of the class

2 members with respect to the constitutionality and legality of the CITY’s policies,

3 practices and conduct at issue here. The prosecution of individual actions against the

4 CITY by individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent and varying

5 adjudications, which would result in variable standards of conduct for defendant.

6
28.
7

The class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests

of the class members and are unaware of any conflict among or between the class
8

members that would preclude their fair and adequate representation. Class counsel is
9

an experienced litigator who has brought several class actions on behalf of homeless
10

11 individuals in the City of Los Angeles, including Fitzgerald v. City of Los Angeles,

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27382 (C.D. CA 2003) (approving attorney fees separate from
12

13 common fund award to damages class) and Noe v. City of Los Angeles, discussed at

14 paragraph 9, above.

15

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

16

Right to Be Secure From Unreasonable Seizures

17 42 U.S.C. §1983 - Fourth Amendment; Art. 1, §13, California Constitution

18 29.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs

19 1 through 28 as though fully set forth hereat.

20 30.

Defendant CITY violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free

21 from unreasonable seizure of their property by confiscating and then destroying

22 Plaintiffs’ property without a warrant and often under threat of arrest if Plaintiffs 23 attempted to retrieve the property before it was crushed by the skip loader.

24 31.

Defendant’s unlawful actions, through the conduct of its employees from

25 the LAPD and the Dept. of Public Works was done with the specific intent to deprive

26 Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights to be secure in their property.
27

28

10

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 152 Filed 01/27/15 Page 12 of 17 Page ID #:2823

1 32.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the acts of the CITY’s employees

2 and agents were intentional in failing to protect and preserve their property and that, at

3 minimum, the CITY was deliberately indifferent to the likely consequence that the

4 property would be seized and destroyed unlawfully, based on the past circumstances of

5 similar constitutional and statutory violations of the law.

6

33.

As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendant’s agents

7 and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer loss of their personal

8 property and are entitled to compensatory damages for their property and other injury

9
to their person.

10

11

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

12

Right to Due Process of Law

13

42 U.S. C. §1983, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments;

14

Art. I, §7 Calif. Constitution

34.
15

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs

1 through 28 as though fully set forth hereat.
16

17 35.

Defendant CITY owed Plaintiffs a duty under the due process clause of

18 the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, sec. 7 of

19 the California Constitution, and the statutory law of the State of California, to protect

20 the personal property of Plaintiffs that was known not to be abandoned.

21
36.
22

Plaintiffs had a protected interest in their property. Defendant provided

Plaintiffs with no notice that their property was at risk of being seized and/or destroyed.
23

Defendant did not preserve the property and provide any means of reclaiming it in a
24

timely manner, even though Defendant has been put on notice by the Los Angeles
25

Superior Court and the United States District Court for the Central District of California
26

that such notice and preservation of property was required. Even when Defendant was
27

specifically put on notice by one or more of the Plaintiffs that the property was not
28

11

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 152 Filed 01/27/15 Page 13 of 17 Page ID #:2824

1 abandoned and given an opportunity to cease the seizure and destruction of the personal 2 items of Plaintiffs, Defendant denied Plaintiffs that due process under threat of arrest. 3 Defendant’s employees and agents acted pursuant to LAMC 56.11, which, by its plain 4 terms and as applied, fails to provide constitutionally adequate, let alone any, pre- or 5 post-deprivation notice and an opportunity to reclaim the property before it is 6 irrevocably destroyed by the City.

7

37.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the acts of the CITY’s employees

8 and agents were intentional in failing to protect and preserve their property and that, at

9
minimum, the CITY was deliberately indifferent to the likelihood that the property

10
would be seized and destroyed without due process based on the past occurrences of

11
these same constitutional and statutory violations of the law.

12

13 38.

As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendant’s agents

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

15 property and are entitled to compensatory damages for their property and other injury

16 to their person.

17
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

18
Violation of Civil Rights: Interference By Threat, Intimidation or Coercion

19

California Civil Code § 52.1

20

39.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs

21 1 through 28 as though fully set forth hereat.

22

40.
23

Defendant’s agents and employees have used threats of arrest and

24 intimidation to interfere with Plaintiffs’ rights to maintain their personal possessions in

25 the exercise of Plaintiffs’ rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, the

26 Constitution of the State of California, and the statutory laws of the State of California.

27 41.

Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction pursuant to California Civil Code

28 §52.1. Plaintiffs are also entitled to damages pursuant to Civil Code §§ 52 and 52.1.

12

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 152 Filed 01/27/15 Page 14 of 17 Page ID #:2825

1 Plaintiffs have filed tort claims with the defendant CITYon behalf of themselves and 2 all similarly situated persons. Plaintiffs will amend this action to include damages 3 under this provision once they have exhausted their administrative remedies.

4 5
6 42.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION California Civil Code §2080, et seq. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs

7
1 through 28 as though fully set forth hereat.
8

9

43.

Defendant’s policies, practices and conduct challenged herein violated

10 California Civil Code § 2080 et seq., in that Defendant’s agents and employees failed

11 to protect and preserve the personal property of Plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff

12 class when the property was on the public sidewalk and streets; failed to provide notice

13 that the property had been taken; and failed to provide an opportunity for the owners

14 of the property to reclaim it within a reasonable time. California Code of Civil

15 Procedure § 2080 et seq. imposes a mandatory duty to maintain property that is not

16 abandoned.

17
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18

Conversion

19 44.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs

20 1 through 28 as though fully set forth hereat.

21

45.
22

Plaintiffs were in possession of their personal property at the time that

23 Defendant’s agents and employees ordered that the property be seized and immediately

24 destroyed without notice. Defendant’s agents and employees unlawfully prohibited

25 Plaintiffs from securing their personal property and the personal property of others left

26 in their care. Plaintiffs were threatened with forcible arrest if they attempted to retrieve

27 their belongings.

28

13

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 152 Filed 01/27/15 Page 15 of 17 Page ID #:2826

1 46.

Defendant and its agents and employees had a duty owed to Plaintiffs to

2 protect their personal property under Los Angeles Municipal Code §52.55 and

3 California Civil Code §§ 2080.2, 2080.4 and 2080.6. Plaintiffs’ property was not

4 abandoned at the time that Defendant seized it and immediately destroyed in and

5 Defendant’s agents and employees knew that the property was not abandoned.

6 Defendant breached its duty to protect Plaintiffs’ personal property when its agents and

7 employees wrongly exerted dominion over the property and denied Plaintiffs’ their

8 constitutional and statutory rights.

9
47.

Defendant had no legitimate governmental interest that gave its agents

10
and employees the legal right or justification for confiscating Plaintiffs’ property and

11
then immediately demolishing it without prior notice to Plaintiffs and without a

12
procedure to permit Plaintiffs to recover their property, and without fair compensation

13
to Plaintiffs.

14

15 48.

As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendant’s agents

16 and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer loss of their personal

17 property and are entitled to compensatory damages for their property and other injury

18 to their person.

19
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
20

21 49.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs

22 1 through 28 as though fully set forth hereat.

23

50.

A real and immediate difference exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant

24 regarding Plaintiffs’ rights and Defendant’s duty owed to Plaintiffs to protect Plaintiffs’

25 personal property present on public sidewalks and streets in Skid Row. Defendant’s

26
policies and actions have resulted and will result in irreparable injury to Plaintiffs.

27
There is no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described

28
herein. Defendant has made it clear that it intends to continue these practices of

14

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 152 Filed 01/27/15 Page 16 of 17 Page ID #:2827

1 confiscating and immediately destroying the property of homeless individuals from the 2 public streets and sidewalks without a warrant and without notice. Unless restrained 3 by this Court, Defendant will continue to implement this policy and practice of 4 confiscating and summarily destroying the personal property of Plaintiffs and members 5 of the plaintiff class.

6

51.

Defendant’s acts alleged above violate established constitutional rights

7 of Plaintiffs and Defendant could not reasonably have thought that the conduct of its

8 agents and employees in seizing and destroying Plaintiffs’ property was lawful.

9

10

52.

An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant in that

11 Defendant’s agents and employees have engaged in the unlawful and unconstitutional

12 acts alleged herein and intend to continue to do so. Plaintiffs claim that these actsare

13 contrary to law and seek a declaration of their rights with regard to this controversy.

14

53.

As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendant’s agents

15 and employees, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages through 16 injury to their person and the loss of their personal property, including all of their
17
clothing, bedding, medication, personal papers and other personal possessions, stripping
18
them of the essential Plaintiffs’ need for their well-being and personal dignity.
19

20 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray as follows:

21

1.

For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent

22

injunction, enjoining and restraining defendants from engaging in the policies,

23

practices and conduct complained of herein;

24

2.

For a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s policies, practices and

25

conduct as alleged herein, including but not limited to LAMC 56.11, violate

26

Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution, the California

27

Constitution and the laws of California;

28

15

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 152 Filed 01/27/15 Page 17 of 17 Page ID #:2828

1 3.

For an order certifying the injunctive relief class pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.

2

23(b)(2);

3 4.

For damages in an amount to be determined according to proof but in no

4

event less than $4,000 per incident pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §§ 52, 52.1 and

5

Cal. Government Code § 815.6.

6 5.

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

7

6.

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

8

9 Dated: November 23, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

10

LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL

11

/S/

12

By: CAROL A. SOBEL

13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

 
 Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 166 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:2855

1 CAROL A. SOBEL SBN 84483 JOHN P. GIVEN SBN 269787
2 LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 3110 Main Street, Suite 210
3 Santa Monica, California 90405 t. 310 393-3055 f. 310 451-3858
4 e. carolsobel@aol.com e. john@johngiven.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - Western Division

10
TONY LAVAN, et al.,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
v.
13
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
17

) CASE NO: cv 11-02874 PSG (AJWx) ) ) JOINT NOTICE OF TENTATIVE ) SETTLEMENT, REQUEST TO VACATE ) TRIAL DATE, AND FOR THE COURT ) TO RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ) COMPLETE THE SETTLEMENT ) ) Date: None
Time: None Ctrm: Roybal 880 (Hon. Philip Gutierrez)
Action filed: April 5, 2011

18

19

The undersigned counsel submit this Joint Notice of Tentative Settlement,

20 Request to Vacate the Trial Date and for the Court to retain Jurisdiction to

21 Complete Settlement. As the Court is aware, the parties participated in a

22 settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Woehrle on November 24, 2015,

23 at which time they reached a tentative settlement of the remaining issues in this

24 action.

25

The settlement requires a four-step approval procedure by the City. That

26 process is anticipated to take at least three months, if not longer, particularly in

27 light of the upcoming holidays resulting in the cancellation of several meeting

28 dates for City officials. If the settlement is approved by the City Council, the

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 166 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2856

1 third step in the process, it then goes to the Mayor, who has 10 days to act on the

2 proposal.

3

The parties have agreed that, if approved by the City, the settlement will be

4 paid at the beginning of the next fiscal year, which is July 1, 2016.

5

Accordingly, the parties request that the Court vacate the current

6 scheduling order to permit the settlement to be considered by the defendant. The

7 parties will notify the Court of the outcome of the settlement review as soon as it

8 is completed.

9

10 Dated: December 2, 2015
11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
_/s/ Carol A. Sobel By: CAROL A. SOBEL Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney THOMAS PETERS, Chief Asst. City Attorney CORY M. BRENTE, Asst, City Attorney GEOFFREY PLOWDEN, Deputy City Attorney WENDY SHAPERO, Deputy City Attorney

18

/s/ Geoffrey Plowden

19

By: GEOFFREY PLOWDEN Attorneys for Defendant

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 166 Filed 12/02/15 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:2857

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
The undersigned hereby certifies that the City of Attorney has been served
2
this date by the Court’s Electronic Court Filing (ECF) system upon all attorneys
3
of record in this action.
4

5
December 2, 2015
6
7
8

s/ Carol A. Sobel CAROL A. SOBEL

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 166-1 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:2858

1 CAROL A. SOBEL SBN 84483 JOHN P. GIVEN SBN 269787
2 LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 3110 Main Street, Suite 210
3 Santa Monica, California 90405 t. 310 393-3055 f. 310 451-3858
4 e. carolsobel@aol.com e. john@johngiven.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - Western Division

10
TONY LAVAN, et al.,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
v.
13
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16

) CASE NO: cv 11-02874 PSG (AJWx) ) ) [PROPOSED] ORDER RE JOINT NOTICE ) OF TENTATIVE SETTLEMENT, ) REQUEST TO VACATE TRIAL DATE, ) AND FOR THE COURT TO RETAIN ) JURISDICTION TO COMPLETE THE ) SETTLEMENT )
Date: None Time: None Ctrm: Roybal 880 (Hon. Philip Gutierrez)

17

Action filed: April 5, 2011

18

19
The Court has reviewed with Joint Notice of Tentative Settlement, Request
20
to Vacate the Trial Date and for the Court to retain Jurisdiction to Complete
21
Settlement submitted by the parties on December 2, 2015. The docket in this
22
action reflects the results of the settlement conference conducted by Magistrate
23
Judge Woehrle on November 24, 2015.
24
The Court is informed that the settlement requires a four-step approval
25
procedure by the City, as outlined in the Joint Notice, that is anticipated to take
26
several months to complete.
27
The Court is further informed that, if the settlement is approved, it will be
28
paid at the beginning of the next fiscal year, which is July 1, 2016.

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 166-1 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2859

1

Accordingly, the Court vacates the current scheduling order to permit the

2 settlement to be considered by the defendant City. The parties are to notify the

3 Court of the outcome of the settlement review as soon as it is completed and to

4 provide a status report on the progress of approval of the settlement no later than

5 March 31, 2016 if a notice of completion of settlement has not been filed before

6 that date.

7

8

9 Dated: December 2, 2015
10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
_/s/ Carol A. Sobel By: CAROL A. SOBEL Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney THOMAS PETERS, Chief Asst. City Attorney CORY M. BRENTE, Asst, City Attorney GEOFFREY PLOWDEN, Deputy City Attorney WENDY SHAPERO, Deputy City Attorney

17

/s/ Geoffrey Plowden

18

By: GEOFFREY PLOWDEN Attorneys for Defendant

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 166-1 Filed 12/02/15 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:2860

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
The undersigned hereby certifies that the City of Attorney has been served
2
this date by the Court’s Electronic Court Filing (ECF) system upon all attorneys
3
of record in this action.
4

5
December 2, 2015
6
7
8

s/ Carol A. Sobel CAROL A. SOBEL

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

 
 Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 173 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:2878

1 CAROL A. SOBEL SBN 84483 JOHN P. GIVEN SBN 269787
2 LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Ste. 550
3 Santa Monica, California 90401 t. 310 393-3055
4 e. carolsobel@aol.com e. john@johngiven.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6

E-FILED 7/25/16 JS-6

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - Western Division
9

10 TONY LAVAN, et al.,

) CASE NO: cv 11-02874 PSG (AJWx)

)

11

Plaintiffs,

) [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING

) THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

12 v.

)

) Date: August 1, 2016

13 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., ) Time: 1:30 p.m.

) Ctrm: Roybal 880 (Hon. Philip Gutierrez)

14

Defendants.

)

Action filed: April 5, 2011

15

16

The parties informed the Court that they have completed the settlement of

17 this matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2),

18 as Plaintiffs request, the this action is dismissed with prejudice against all

19 defendants.

20
7/25/16 21 Dated:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
Lodged by:
23
LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
24
/s/ Carol A. Sobel 25 By: CAROL A. SOBEL
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
26

27

28

Case 2:11-cv-02874-PSG-AJW Document 173 Filed 07/25/16 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:2879

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served this date

2

on all counsel of record via the Court’s Electronic Court Filing (“ECF”) system.

3

4 Dated: July 20, 2016
5

/s/ Carol A. Sobel By: CAROL A. SOBEL

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 
 Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 1 of 19
(AJWx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,MANADR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:11−cv−02874−PSG−AJW

Tony Lavan et al v. City of Los Angeles Assigned to: Judge Philip S. Gutierrez Referred to: Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich Related Cases: 2:13−cv−02571−PSG−AJW
2:14−cv−07344−PSG−AJW
Case in other court: 9th CCA, 11−56253
9th CCA, 13−56251 Cause: 28:1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/05/2011 Date Terminated: 07/25/2016 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Tony Lavan

represented by Carol A Sobel Carol A Sobel Law Offices 725 Arizona Avenue Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401 310−393−3055 Fax: 310−451−3858 Email: carolsobel@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John P Given Law Office of Carol Sobel 3110 Main Street Suite 210 Santa Monica, CA 90405 310−393−3055 Fax: 310−451−3858 Email: john@johngivenlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Caterius Smith

represented by Carol A Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John P Given (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Willie Vassie

represented by Carol A Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John P Given (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ernest Seymore TERMINATED: 12/10/2014

represented by Carol A Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John P Given (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 2 of 19

Plaintiff Lamoen Hall
Plaintiff Shamal Ballantine
Plaintiff Byron Reese TERMINATED: 01/30/2015
Plaintiff Reginald Wilson

represented by Carol A Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John P Given (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol A Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John P Given (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol A Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John P Given (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol A Sobel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John P Given (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant City of Los Angeles

represented by Cory M Brente Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney 200 North Main Street 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−978−7021 Fax: 213−978−8785 Email: cory.brente@lacity.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey R Plowden Los Angeles City Attorney's Office City Hall East 200 N Main Street 6th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−978−7038 Fax: 213−978−8785 Email: geoffrey.plowden@lacity.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Surekha A Pessis Los Angeles City Attorneys Office City Hall East

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 3 of 19
200 North Main Street 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−978−7036 Fax: 2313−978−8785 Email: surekha.pessis@lacity.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wendy C Shapero Los Angeles City Attorney's Office City Hall E − Police Litigation 200 N Main St, 6th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90012−4130 213−978−7029 Fax: 213−978−8785 Email: wendy.shapero@lacity.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/05/2011
04/05/2011 04/05/2011 04/05/2011 04/06/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011 04/19/2011
04/20/2011 04/20/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Defendants City of Los Angeles. Case assigned to Judge Philip S. Gutierrez for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich.(Filing fee $ 350:PAID), filed by plaintiffs Shamal Ballantine, Caterius Smith, Ernest Seymore, Lamoen Hall, Reginald Wilson, Tony Lavan, Byron Reese, Willie Vassie.(ghap) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/7/2011: # 1 Notice of Assignment, # 2 Summons, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet) (ds). (Entered: 04/06/2011)
21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery) 1 as to Defendant City of Los Angeles. (ghap) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
2 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Shamal Ballantine, Lamoen Hall, Tony Lavan, Byron Reese, Ernest Seymore, Caterius Smith, Willie Vassie, Reginald Wilson. (ghap) (ds). (Entered: 04/06/2011)
3 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF ADR PROGRAM filed.(ghap) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
4 STANDING ORDER regarding Newly Assigned Cases (See document for further details) by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (ir) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
5 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08−05 (Related Case) filed. Transfer of case declined by Judge Andrew J. Guilford, for the reasons set forth on this order. Related Case No. CV05−08374 AG (SSx) (at) (Entered: 04/18/2011)
6 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Enjoin property seizure and destruction filed by plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memorandum Declarations Exhibits, # 2 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/18/2011)
7 OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION TO re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Enjoin property seizure and destruction 6 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS OF ASSISTANT CORY M. BRENTE AND DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY SUREKHA A. PESSIS; EXHIBITS filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 EXHIBIT A, # 2 EXHIBIT B, # 3 EXHIBIT C)(Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 04/19/2011)
8 REPLY in support of ex parte application EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Enjoin property seizure and destruction 6 filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/20/2011)
9 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: PLEASE BE ADVISED that on the Court's own motion, a Status Conference is hereby set for Friday, April 22, 2011 at 9:00 am to discuss plaintiff's ex parte application (See doc. 6). (bm) (Entered: 04/20/2011)

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 4 of 19

04/22/2011 04/22/2011
04/27/2011 04/27/2011 04/28/2011 05/16/2011

10 MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE held before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: Hearing held and counsel are present. The Court hears oral argument regarding Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for a TRO and/or Order to Show Cause Re: Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 6). The matter is taken under submission. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of the submitted pleadings. Court Reporter: Miriam Baird. (rp) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
11 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez granting 6 Plaintiffs Application for a Temporary Restraining Order: Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order. The Court held a hearing, where both parties were present, on April 22, 2011. After considering the papers submitted in support of the Application and in opposition to the Application, the Court GRANTS the Application and ISSUES a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Based on similar considerations, and after a careful analysis of the facts of this case, the Court finds that the balance of hardships tips in favor of the Plaintiffs. Moreover, the public interest is served by issuance of a TRO in that the City will still be able to lawfully seize and detain property, as opposed to unlawfully seizing and immediately destroying property. Although a bond is typically required upon issuance of a TRO in federal court, courts in the Ninth Circuit have dispensed with the requirement where there is little or no harm to the party enjoined and where plaintiffs are unable to afford to post such a bond. Like in Kincaid and Justin, the Court exercises its discretion to forego the bond requirement in light of the fact that Plaintiffs are homeless and that there is no real harm to the City in issuing this TRO. Pending a hearing on a preliminary injunction, Defendant City, its agents an employees, are hereby enjoined from doing any of the following: 1. Seizing property in Skid Row absent an objectively reasonable belief that it is abandoned, presents an immediate threat to public health or safety, or is evidence of a crime, or contraband; and 2. Absent an immediate threat to public health or safety, destruction of said seized property without maintaining it in a secure location for a period of less than 90 days. Defendant City, its agents and employees, is further directed to leave a notice in a prominent place for any property taken on the belief that it is abandoned, including advising where the property is being kept and when it may be claimed by the rightful owner. A hearing on the Order to Show Cause why a preliminary and/or permanent injunction should not issue is set for June 20, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. Any additional briefing by the Defendant is to be filed not later than May 16, 2011. Any responsive briefing by the Plaintiffs is to be filed no later than June 6, 2011. Based on and according to the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Orders Defendant to Show Cause why Issuance of a Preliminary or Permanent Injunction is not appropriate in this case. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
12 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 with JURY DEMAND ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles.(Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 04/27/2011)
13 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles, (Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 04/27/2011)
14 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: This matter is set for a scheduling conference on July 25, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. The Conference will be held pursuant to F.R.Civ. P. 16(b). The parties are reminded of their obligations to disclose information and confer on a discovery plan not later than 21 days prior to the scheduling conference, and to file a joint statement with the Court not later than 14 days after they confer, as required by F.R. Civ.P. 26 and the Local Rules of this Court. In their F.R.Civ. P. 16f Report, the parties shall indicate whether they have agreed to participate in the Courts ADR Program, to private mediation or, upon ashowing of good cause, to a Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference. Failure to comply may lead to the imposition of sanctions. (bm) (Entered: 04/28/2011)
15 RESPONSE filed by Defendant City of Los Angelesto Order on Ex Parte Application for TRO,,,,,,,,,, 11 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS (Attachments: # 1 DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, # 2

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 5 of 19

05/24/2011 05/26/2011 05/31/2011 05/31/2011

DEFENDANT'S CHART OF DISPUTED FACTS IN RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE, # 3 DECLARATION OF AKILIAH MANUEL MILLS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE, # 4 DECLARATION OF ALOAF WALKER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PERLIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE, # 5 DECLARATION OF ESTELLA LOPEZ IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE; EXHIBITS, # 6 DECLARATION OF JESUS TORIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE, # 7 DECLARATION OF JOHN DUNCANSON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE; EXHIBITS, # 8 DECLARATION OF JUAN MORENO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE, # 9 DECLARATION OF LIEUTENANT SHANNON PAULSON IN SUPPORTOF DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE; EXHIBITS, # 10 DECLARATION OF PAUL TYSON RAY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE, # 11 DECLARATION OF SENIOR LEAD OFFICER DEON JOSEPH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE; EXHIBITS, # 12 DECLARATION OF TYRONE ACOSTA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE)(Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
16 DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES NOTICE OF REQUEST TO CROSS−EXAMINE DECLARANTS/PLAINTIFFS AT HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [Local Rule 7−8] filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles re: Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion) 15 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 05/24/2011)
17 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Requests−Order 16 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Requests−Order. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 05/26/2011)
18 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. correcting Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion) 15 NOTICE OF ERRATA RE DEFENDANT'S CHART OF DISPUTED FACTS IN RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE (Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
19 ORDER by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: Granting Defendant City of Los Angeles' Request to Cross−examine Declarants/Plaintiffs at hearing on Order to Show Cause regarding Issuance of Preliminary Injunction 16 . The Court hereby orders the Declarants/Plaintiffs who supported the initial application for a Temporary Restraining Order to appear in this Court for cross−examination on June 20, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. Carol Sobel, counsel for Plaintiffs, is hereby ordered to notify Ernest Seymore, Lamoen Hall, Willie Vassie, Byron Reese, Shamal Ballantine, Tony Lavan, and Catarius Smith that they are required to appear for cross−examination in this Court at that time. In the event declarations from additional individuals are introduced in the Plaintiffs' Reply, the Court orders Ms. Sobel to notify those individuals of

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 6 of 19

06/06/2011 06/07/2011 06/09/2011
06/13/2011
06/14/2011 06/20/2011 06/20/2011 06/20/2011
06/21/2011
06/23/2011
07/13/2011 07/20/2011

theirobligation to appear at the June 20, 2011 hearing for the purpose of being cross−examined. (ir) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
20 REPLY in support of OSC re preliminary or permanent injunction filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
21 DECLARATION of Morris, Lewis, Sobel, Heiser, Hamme in support of injunction EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Enjoin property seizure and destruction 6 filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Decs and Exhibits Vol II)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
22 DECLARATION of JOHN DUNCANSON re Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion) 15 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JOHN DUNCANSON IN RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY AND/OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE; EXHIBITS filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 06/09/2011)
23 OBJECTION IN OPPOSITION TO re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Enjoin property seizure and destruction 6 DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE CITED IN PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY AND/OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
24 DECLARATION of Eric Ares OSC re preliminary/permanent injunction EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Enjoin property seizure and destruction 6 filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
25 Notice of Association of Counsel filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
26 NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney John P. Given on behalf of Plaintiff Tony Lavan. Filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
27 MINUTES: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING WHY A PRELIMINARY AND/OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE: Having heard oral argument regarding the 4th and 14th Amendment issue, the Court takes the matter Under Submission, and grants Defendants request to submit a supplemental briefing by June 30, 2011 by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez Court Reporter: Miriam Baird. (ir) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
28 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Reply in response to the Order to Show Cause why a Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction should not issue 25 . The following errors were found: Document linked incorrectly to the wrong document or docket entry. The above document linked to docket entry: " Notice of Association of Counsel". In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (ir) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
29 MINUTE: (In Chambers) Order Issuing a Preliminary Injunction: Based on the foregoing Plaintiffs have clearly shown a likelihood of success on themerits, that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tip in their favor and that an injunction is in the public interest. As a result, the Court ISSUES a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (See document for further details) IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (ir) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
30 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 3−8 days, filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan.. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
31 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 6/20/2011 1:30 p.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miriam Veliz−Baird, phone number mvb11893@aol.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 7 of 19

07/21/2011
07/21/2011 07/21/2011 07/25/2011 07/25/2011 07/25/2011 07/26/2011 07/26/2011 07/27/2011 08/02/2011 08/03/2011 08/10/2011 02/22/2012

purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/10/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/20/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/18/2011. (Baird, Miriam) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
32 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS VACATING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Scheduling Conference set for hearing on July 25, 2011 is hereby vacated and taken off calendar. On the Court's own motion, the following dates are hereby set. Counsel are directed to review the Court's trial order for further details. Last Day to Add Parties & Amend Pleadings (Doe defendants are dismissed as of cut−off to add parties) 08/25/2011; Discovery Cut−Off: 12/16/2011; Last Day to File Motion: 01/23/2012; Final Pretrial Conference (2:30 p.m.): 04/09/2012; Jury Trial (9:00 a.m.): 04/24/2012; Estimated Length: 4 Days. (bm) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
33 ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Program by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, ordering: The assigned Magistrate Judge shall conduct a settlement conference. (ir) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
34 ORDER FOR JURY TRIAL by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: Final Pretrial Conference 4/9/12 at 2:30 pm; Jury Trial 4/24/12 at 9:00 am (See document for further details). (ir) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
35 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. Appeal of Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, 29 (Appeal fee FEE NOT PAID.) (Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
36 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 35 . (Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
37 Civil Appeals Docketing Statement received from forwarded to 9th CCA. RE: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 35 (Attachments: # 1 CIVIL MINUTES Dated 6−23−11, # 2 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT)(Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
38 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 11−56253 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 35 as to Defendant City of Los Angeles. (dmap) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
39 APPEAL FEE PAID: re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 35 as to Defendant City of Los Angeles; Receipt Number: LA021759, PAID in the amount of $455. (lr) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
40 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDERING FORM For Dates: 6/20/2011; Court Reporter: Miriam Baird; Court of Appeals Case Number: 11−56253; Re: 35 (Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
41 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for STAYING THE PROCEEDINGS AND STAYING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUED ON JUNE 23, 2011 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 08/02/2011)
42 Opposition to Ex Parte opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for STAYING THE PROCEEDINGS AND STAYING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUED ON JUNE 23, 2011 41 filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
43 MINUTES: (In Chambers) Order Denying Defendants Ex Parte Application to Stay Pending Appeal 41 IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (ir) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
44 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 35 filed by City of Los Angeles, CCA # 11−56253. This appeal is referred to the mediation unit to explore the possibility of an expeditious resolution through mediation. [See document for further information] Order received in this district on 2/22/12. (car) (Entered: 02/23/2012)

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 8 of 19

04/09/2012 04/10/2012 04/23/2012 06/19/2012 09/26/2012 11/30/2012 12/13/2012 12/17/2012 01/31/2013 02/01/2013
03/11/2013
03/12/2013

45 MINUTES: (In Chambers): ORDER: PLEASE BE ADVISED that on the Courts own motion, the pretrial conference and jury trial date are hereby VACATED. A Status Conference is hereby set for Monday, April 16, 2012 at 3pm. Lead counselshall appear on that date and time by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (ir) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
IN CHAMBERS TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: At the request of plaintiff's counsel, the Status Conference is reset to 4/23/2012 03:00pm. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(wm) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/10/2012)
46 MINUTES OF Status Conference held before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: The Court is updated on the status of the case and on Order filed on February 22, 2012 by the Court of Appeals. Counsel is advised that a scheduling conference will be set after this Court receives the mandate from the Court of Appeals. Court Reporter: Miriam Baird. (lw) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
47 NOTICE of Change of address by Carol A Sobel attorney for Plaintiff Tony Lavan. Changing attorneys address to 3110 Main Street, Suite 210 Santa Monica, CA 90405 F. 310 451−3858. Filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
48 ORDER from 9th CCA filed, CCA # 11−56253. Plaintiffs−Appelees shall file a response to the Petition for Panel Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc filed by the City of Los Angeles pursuant to Circuit Rule 35−2. See document for further information]. Order received in this district on 9/26/12. (car) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
49 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 35 filed by City of Los Angeles CCA # 11−56253. The full court has been advised of the 0petition for rehearing en banc and no judge requested a vote o n whether to rehear the matter en banc. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. Order received in this district on 11/30/2012. (dmap) (Entered: 12/03/2012)
50 MANDATE of 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 35 CCA # 11−56253. The appeal is denied. Mandate received in this district on 121/13/2012. (dmap) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
51 NOTICE OF HEARING ON USCA MANDATE re USCA Mandate 50 : PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the judgment of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has been received in the above−entitled case. This matter is hereby set for Status Conference on 02/11/13 at 3:30 p.m. before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. It will be necessary for all counsel to be present at that time. (bm) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
52 REQUEST to Continue Status Conference from February 11, 2013 to March 11, 2013 filed by plainitff Tony Lavan. Request set for hearing on 3/11/2013 at 03:30 PM before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Continue Status Conference)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
53 ORDER RE STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez granting 52 Request to Continue: The Court has reviewed the Stipulated Request to Continue the Status Conference filed by the parties. The Court concludes that there is good cause to continue the status conference from February 11, 2013 to March 11, 2013 at 3:30 p.m. If the parties reach a tentative settlement before the March 11, 2013 hearing date, notice shall be promptly filed with the Court. (bm) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
54 MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE held before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: The Court is updated on the status of the case re: mandate filed on December 13, 2012. The Court is informed of the petition for certiorari has been filed. Court and counsel confer regarding settlement discussions. The Court will issue a separate order appointing a magistrate judge for settlement purposes. Court Reporter: Miriam Baird. (bm) (Entered: 03/13/2013)
55 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS re Order Appointing Settlement Judge by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle is appointed as a settlement judge. The parties are ordered to contact Judge Woehrle to schedule a conference. (bm) (Entered: 03/13/2013)

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 9 of 19

03/25/2013
04/08/2013 04/11/2013 04/21/2013 04/22/2013 04/29/2013 04/29/2013 04/30/2013 05/01/2013 05/08/2013 05/09/2013 06/13/2013

56 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. This matter having been referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle for settlement conference by U.S. District Judge Gutierrez, IT IS ORDERED that a settlement conference shall be held in the chambers of Judge Woehrle on April 17, 2013, 2013 at 1:00 p.m., Room 640, 6th Floor of the Roybal Courthouse, 255 E. Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA. The conference should be attended by persons with meaningful authority to negotiate and agree to a settlement of the case. The parties shall submit settlement conference statements directly to Judge Woehrles chambers not later than three (3) court days before the conference. These statements are to be exchanged with opposing counsel. The statements shall not be filed in the court record. 55 [SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS] (gr) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
57 Joint STIPULATION to Continue SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE from 04/17/2013 to 6/13/2013 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
58 ORDER REGARDING JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, this Court hereby continues the Settlement Conference to June 13, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 640, Roybal, before Magistrate Carla Woehrle. IT IS SO ORDERED. 57 (gr) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
59 STATUS REPORT re settlement discussions filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Request for Extension, # 2 Exhibit Opposition to Request for Extension)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/21/2013)
60 RESPONSE filed by Defendant City of Los Angelesto Status Report 59 (Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
61 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for MODIFYING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO CONFORM WITH THE DECISION IN LAVAN V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 693 F.3d 1027 (9TH Cir. 2012) filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Proposed Order)(Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
62 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. correcting EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for MODIFYING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO CONFORM WITH THE DECISION IN LAVAN V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 693 F.3d 1027 (9TH Cir. 2012) 61 (Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
63 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for MODIFYING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO CONFORM WITH THE DECISION IN LAVAN V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 693 F.3d 1027 (9TH Cir. 2012) 61 filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Eric Ares, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Ares Dec, # 3 Declaration Carol Sobel, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Sobel dec)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
64 TEXT ONLY ENTRY IN CHAMBERS by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: On the Court's own motion, a Status Conference is hereby set for 06/17/13 at 3:00pm re: DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' EX PARTE APPLICATION 61 . THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(wm) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 05/01/2013)
65 REPLY filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles to MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion, 63 REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO THE EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER MODIFYING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO CONFORM WITH THE DECISION IN LAVAN v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 693 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2012) (Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
66 SUPPLEMENT to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for MODIFYING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO CONFORM WITH THE DECISION IN LAVAN V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 693 F.3d 1027 (9TH Cir. 2012) 61 Opposition filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 05/09/2013)
67 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle:, ORDER by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle The hearings originally scheduled have been rescheduled:( Telephonic Conference Re: Settlement/Status set for 7/24/2013 11:00

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 10 of 19

06/17/2013
06/17/2013 06/27/2013 07/10/2013
07/10/2013 07/17/2013 07/17/2013 07/17/2013 07/17/2013 07/18/2013
07/22/2013 08/01/2013

AM before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle.) (dt) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
68 MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE: DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER MODIFYING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO CONFORM WITH THE DECISION IN LAVAN V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 693 F.3D 1027 (9TH Cir. 2012) FILED 04−29−13 (DOC. 61) taking under submission 61 Ex Parte Application; Status Conference Hearing held before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: Having considered all papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the ex parte application referenced above, and the oral argument presented today, the Court takes the ex parte Under Submission. A ruling will be issued after full consideration of the submitted pleadings. Court Reporter: Miriam Baird. (bm) (Entered: 06/18/2013)
69 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING Ex Parte Application to Modify Preliminary Injunction by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez denying 61 Ex Parte Application: For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's application to modify the injunction is DENIED. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 06/18/2013)
70 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: Scheduling Conference set for 8/26/2013 02:00 PM. (wm) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
71 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 06−17−2013 3:00 p.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: MIRIAM V. BAIRD, CSR 11893, phone number (213) 894−2853, email 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 7/31/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/10/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/8/2013. (Duvall, Richard) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
72 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 06−17−2013 3:00 p.m. re Transcript 71 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(Duvall, Richard) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/10/2013)
73 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. Appeal of Order on Ex Parte Application for Order, 69 (Appeal fee FEE NOT PAID.) (Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
74 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 73 . (Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
76 APPEAL FEE PAID: re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 73 as to Defendant City of Los Angeles; Receipt Number: LA074989 in the amount of $455. (dmap) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
77 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 13−56251, 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 73 as to Defendant City of Los Angeles. (car) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
75 SCHEDULING NOTICE to counsel by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle re: Status/ settlement conference set for Wednesday, July 24, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. Counsel are notified that the telephonic conference scheduled will now be an in person status conference. All parties/counsel are ordered to attend the conference in person before The Honorable Carla M.Woehrle in courtroom 640 of the Roybal courthouse on July 24, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(dt) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/18/2013)
78 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle:b At the request of counsel, the settlement conference set to take place on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 if OFF CALENDAR. Counsel are directed to contact Judge Woehrle's clerk to reschedule. (dt) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
79 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Scheduling Conference from August 26, 2013 to October 11, 2013 filed by plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Continue Scheduling Conference)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 08/01/2013)

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 11 of 19

08/02/2013 08/16/2013 09/18/2013 09/23/2013
10/16/2013 10/17/2013
11/04/2013
11/18/2013 11/22/2013

80 ORDER RE: STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, re Stipulation to Continue 79 . The Stipulated Request to continue the Scheduling Conference from the current date of August 26, 2013 to October 7, 2013 is granted. If the parties are unable to reach settlement, they are to file a Rule 26 report with the Court no later than September 27, 2013. (bp) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
81 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 73 filed by City of Los Angeles, CCA # 13−56251. This is a preliminary injunction appeal. Appellees' motion to assign this case to the previously constituted panel, to which no opposition has been filed, is granted. The briefing schedule is set. [See document for further details]. Order received in this district on 8/16/13. (car) (Entered: 08/19/2013)
82 STIPULATION to Continue scheduling conference from October 7, 2013 to November 4, 2013 filed by plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to continue scheduling conference)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
83 ORDER RE: STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, re Stipulation to Continue 82 : The parties to this action have submitted for the Court's approval a Stipulated Request to Continue the Scheduling Conference from the present date of October 7, 2013 to November 4, 2013. Based upon the representations of the parties regarding the ongoing settlement discussions with the newly−elected City Attorney, the Court finds that there is good cause to continue the Scheduling Conference to permit renewed settlement discussions to be explored. Accordingly, the Stipulated Request to continue the Scheduling Conference from the current date of October 7, 2013 to November 4, 2013 is granted. If the parties are unable to reach settlement, they are to file a Rule 26 report with the Court no later than October 21, 2013. The parties are to inform the Court of any significant developments, if such occur, prior to that date, including whether an additional extension of time might be necessary. (bm) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
84 STIPULATION to Continue Scheduling Conference from November 4, 2013 to December 16, 2013 filed by plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
85 ORDER RE: STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, re Stipulation to Continue 84 , Accordingly, the Stipulated Request to continue the Scheduling Conferencefrom the current date of November 4, 2013 to December 16, 2013 is granted. If the parties are unable to reach settlement, they are to file a Rule 26 report with the Court no later than December 2, 2013. The parties are to inform the Court of any significant developments, if such occur, prior to that date, including whether an additional extension of time might be necessary. re: ( Scheduling Conference continuing to 12/16/2013 AT 02:00 PM before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez.) (lw) (Entered: 10/17/2013)
86 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. This matter having been referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle for settlement conference by U.S. District Judge Gutierrez, IT IS ORDERED that a settlement conference shall be held in the chambers of Judge Woehrle on November 18, 2013, at 1:00 p.m., Room 640, 6th Floor of the Roybal Courthouse, 255 E. Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA. The conference should be attended by persons with meaningful authority to negotiate and agree to a settlement of the case. The parties shall submit settlement conference statements directly to Judge Woehrle's chambers not later than three (3) court days before the conference. These statements are to be exchanged with opposing counsel. The statements shall not be filed in the court record. (78) (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (gr) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
87 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: A continued conference is scheduled for November 22, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. (dt) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
90 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: Parties are to confer further. The court will issue further orders regarding continued settlement proceedings. (dt) (Entered: 12/03/2013)

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 12 of 19

11/26/2013 12/02/2013
12/05/2013 02/18/2014 02/20/2014 04/01/2014 04/07/2014 04/09/2014
04/14/2014 04/15/2014 04/20/2014 04/20/2014 04/21/2014

88 Joint STIPULATION to Continue SCHEDULING CONFERENCE from December 16, 2013 to February 24, 2014 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
89 ORDER RE: STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, re Stipulation to Continue 88 : Accordingly, the Stipulated Request to continue the Scheduling Conference from the current date of December 16,2013 to February 24, 2014 is granted. If the parties are unable to reach settlement, they are to file a Rule 26 report with the Court no later than February 10, 2014. The parties are to inform the Court of any significant developments, if such occur, prior to that date, including whether an additional extension of time might be necessary. (bm) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
91 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. Settlement conference held. Parties are to confer further. The court will issue further orders regarding continued settlement proceedings.: (gr) (Entered: 12/06/2013)
92 STIPULATION to Continue status conference from February 24, 2014 to April 21, 2014 filed by plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
93 ORDER RE STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 92 by Judge Gutierrez: The Stipulated Request to continue the SchedulingConference from the current date of February 24, 2014 to April 21, 2014 isgranted. If the parties are unable to reach settlement, they are to file a Rule26 report with the Court no later than April 7, 2014. (wm) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
94 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 73 filed by City of Los Angeles CCA # 13−56251. Appellants motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. Fed. R. App. P. 42(b).The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.A copy of this order shall serve as and for the mandate of this court. Order received in this district on 4/1/2014. (dmap) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
95 SUPPLEMENT filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
96 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Supplemental Rule 26 Report 95 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. Other error(s) with document(s): Supplement should be linked back to original Rule 26 Report and indicate full caption of attached document in docket entry text. 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. (bm) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
97 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Cory M Brente counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles. Filed by Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES. (Attorney Cory M Brente added to party City of Los Angeles(pty:dft))(Brente, Cory) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
98 TEXT ONLY ENTRY IN CHAMBERS by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: On the Court's own motion, the Scheduling Conference 93 is continued to 04/28/2014 at 2:00pm. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (wm) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/15/2014)
99 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to liability filed by plaintiff Tony Lavan. Motion set for hearing on 6/9/2014 at 01:30 PM before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Memorandum Statement of Uncontroverted Facts)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/20/2014)
100 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Exhibits Vol I filed by plaintiff Tony Lavan. Motion set for hearing on 6/9/2014 at 01:30 PM before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
101 EXHIBIT Exhibit 8−24 to MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to liability 99 filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/21/2014)

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 13 of 19

04/24/2014
04/24/2014 04/25/2014 04/25/2014 04/28/2014 04/29/2014 04/29/2014 04/29/2014 05/19/2014
05/20/2014

102 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Exhibits in Support of Plaintiff's Motion 100 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. The correct event is: Responses/Replies/Other Motion Related Documents−Exhibit to Motion. Other error(s) with document(s): Docket entry text does not match caption of attached document, and should be linked back to Motion for Summary Judgment 99 . 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. (bm) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
103 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 56(d) from 6/09/2014 to 4/28/2014 Re: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to liability 99 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
104 Opposition opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 56(d) from 6/09/2014 to 4/28/2014 Re: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to liability 99 103 filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/25/2014)
105 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 56(d) from 6/09/2014 to 4/28/2014 Re: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to liability 99 103 CORRECTED OPPOSITION filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/25/2014)
106 MINUTES OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. The Court discusses the ex parte application 103 . The Court denies the ex parte application without prejudice. The Court proceeds to question counsel regarding discovery and trial estimate, and advises that an Order setting dates will be issued soon. Court Reporter: Marea Woolrich. (cb) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
107 ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) SETTING DATES by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/20/2015 at 2:30 PM. Jury Trial set for 5/5/2015 at 09:00 AM before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (cb) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
108 ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 1 by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. Case ordered to Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle for Settlement Conference. ADR Proceeding to be held no later than 3/6/2015. (cb) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
109 ORDER FOR JURY TRIAL by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, (REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS) re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, Set Deadlines/Hearings 107 (lw) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
110 OPPOSITION to Plaintiffs' Motion for Declaratory Relief and Partial Summary Judgment re: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to liability 99 , MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Exhibits Vol I 100 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Separate Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law, # 2 Declaration of Wendy Shapero; Exhibits, # 3 Declaration of Tyrone Acosta, # 4 Declaration of David Burrus; Exhibits, # 5 Declaration of John Duncanson; Exhibits, # 6 Declaration of John Duncanson, # 7 Declaration of Raul Gonzalez, # 8 Declaration of Deon Joseph; Exhibit, # 9 Declaration of Juan Moreno, # 10 Declaration of Joseph Myers, # 11 Declaration of Bismarck Obando; Exhibit, # 12 Declaration of Shannon Paulson; Exhibits, # 13 Declaration of Nazario Sauceda;, # 14 Declaration of Gregg Smith; Exhibit, # 15 Declaration of Jesus Toris, # 16 Declaration of Jesus Toris, # 17 Declaration of Enrique Zaldivar; Exhibits, # 18 Proposed Order)(Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
111 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 4/28/2014 at 2:36 P.M. Court Reporter: Marea Woolrich, phone number (213) 894−2853. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter @ mareawoolrich@aol.com before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 14 of 19

05/20/2014 05/23/2014 05/28/2014 05/30/2014 06/02/2014
06/10/2014 06/10/2014 06/10/2014 06/11/2014
07/14/2014
07/14/2014 07/14/2014

obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 6/10/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/20/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/18/2014. (mwo) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
112 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 04/28/2014 at 2:36 P.M. re Transcript 111 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (mwo) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 05/20/2014)
113 REPLY in support MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to liability 99 filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Sobel Declaration)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
114 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez denying 99 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment: Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
115 Request for Reconsideration of Order filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan re: Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 114 (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
116 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Request for Reconsideration 115 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Requests−Reconsideration. 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. (bm) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
117 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Violation of Due Process Rights filed by plaintiff Tony Lavan. Motion set for hearing on 7/28/2014 at 01:30 PM before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Supplement Sep Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, # 3 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
118 EXHIBIT 1−24 to MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Violation of Due Process Rights 117 filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
119 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by plaintiff Tony Lavan. Motion set for hearing on 8/4/2014 at 01:30 PM before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Sep. Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
120 TEXT ONLY ENTRY IN CHAMBERS by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: Based counsel's representation that PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 119 corrects the Motion at docket entry 117 and 118 , Motion 117 and Exhibits 1−24 118 are rendered moot. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (wm) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/11/2014)
121 OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO PFS' MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT re: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment 119 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Declaration, # 6 Declaration, # 7 Declaration, # 8 Declaration, # 9 Declaration, # 10 Declaration)(Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
122 DECLARATION of WENDY SHAPERO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMET MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment 119 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Proposed Order)(Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
123 STATEMENT of DFS' RESPONSE TO PFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment 119 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 DFS' RESPONSE TO PFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)(Shapero, Wendy)

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 15 of 19

07/14/2014 07/21/2014 07/21/2014 07/24/2014 10/22/2014 10/23/2014 11/24/2014
11/30/2014 12/01/2014
12/01/2014
12/03/2014
12/04/2014

(Entered: 07/14/2014)
124 DECLARATION of LIEUTENANT SHANNON PAULSON OPPOSITION TO PFS; MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; EXHIBITS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment 119 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
125 REPLY in support of MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment 119 filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
126 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment 119 CORRECTED filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
127 ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) DENYING Motion for Summary Judgment 119 by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment as to their first, second, and fourth causes of action. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (cb) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
128 Joint STIPULATION for Order DEPOSE PLAINTIFF WILLIE VASSIE filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
129 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich, re Stipulation for Order 128 . See document for details. (yb) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
130 DOCUMENT IS STRICKEN PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER DATED 12/1/14, DOCUMENT 133 . NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER AND COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. Motion set for hearing on 12/22/2014 at 01:30 PM before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) Modified on 12/2/2014 (bm). (Entered: 11/24/2014)
131 Amendment to MOTION to AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER AND COMPLAINT 130 filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 11/30/2014)
132 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Motion to Amend Scheduling Order 130 . The following error(s) was found: Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely. Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below: Hearing is noticed for a date that is closed on the court's calendar, and a motion to amend scheduling order should not be noticed for court hearing except by court order. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
133 ORDER by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: the following document(s) be STRICKEN for failure to comply with the Local Rules, General Order and/or the Courts Case Management Order: Motion To Amend Scheduling Order And Amend The Complaint 130 , for the following reasons: Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely. Other: The hearing date selected was closed on 11/06/14. (bm) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
134 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Corrected Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order and Complaint 131 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below The correct event is: Motions−Amend/Correct.: Docket entry text does not indicate noticed motion hearing date (2/2/15). 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. (bm) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
135 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss PLAINTIFFS Byron Reese, Ernest Seymore FOR FAILING TO PROSECUTE THIS ACTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF SUREKHA A. PESSIS;

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 16 of 19

12/08/2014 12/10/2014
12/12/2014 12/16/2014 12/16/2014 12/18/2014 01/06/2015
01/06/2015 01/06/2015 01/07/2015
01/12/2015 01/12/2015

EXHIBITS filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on 2/9/2015 at 01:30 PM before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EXHIBITS A−G, # 2 Exhibit EXHIBITS H−R)(Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
136 Joint STIPULATION to Dismiss Plaintiff Ernest Seymore filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
137 ORDER Dismissing Plaintiff Ernest Seymore by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, re Stipulation to Dismiss Party 136 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Ernest Seymore dismisses his claims against Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES with prejudice. The City waives its costs with respect to Ernest Seymore's claims. The Motion for Involuntary Dismissal of Plaintiff Byron Reese will remain on calendar for hearing on February 9, 2015. Ernest Seymore terminated. (smo) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
138 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Quash Subpoena for depositions of witnesses filed by plaintiff Tony Lavan. Motion set for hearing on 1/26/2015 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Sobel Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1 Subpoenas, # 3 Exhibit Meet and Confer letter, # 4 Exhibit Objections to subpoenas, # 5 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
139 STATEMENT STATEMENT OF FACT OF DEATH; DECLARATION OF WENDY SHAPERO; EXHIBIT (Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 12/16/2014)
140 STATEMENT OF FACT OF DEATH; DECLARATION OF WENDY SHAPERO; EXHIBIT (Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 12/16/2014)
141 Dismissal of Motion filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan re: MOTION to Quash Subpoena for depositions of witnesses 138 (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
142 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Geoffrey R Plowden counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles. Adding GEOFFREY R. PLOWDEN as attorney as counsel of record for DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES. (Attorney Geoffrey R Plowden added to party City of Los Angeles(pty:dft))(Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
143 Joint STIPULATION to Continue TRIAL from 5/05/2015 to 07/28/2015 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
144 NOTICE OF SERVICE filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles, re Miscellaneous Document 140 NOTICE OF PROOF OF SERVICE RE STATEMENT OF FACT OF DEATH served on 12/10/2014. (Pessis, Surekha) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
145 ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION OF PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, re Stipulation to Continue 143 : GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, the Court hereby amends the Scheduling Order issued on April 29, 2014 as follows: (1) Trial: from May 5, 2015 to July 28, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.; (2) Final Pretrial Conference from April 20, 2015 to July 13, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.; (3) Last day to File Motions: from February 10, 2015 to April 27,2015; (4) Last day to Add Parties and Amend Pleadings: Passed; (5) Discovery Cut−Off: from January 27, 2015 to February 27, 2015; (6) Opening Expert Witness Disclosure: from February 3, 2015 to March 13, 2015; (7) Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosure: from March 3, 2015 to March 30, 2015; (8) Expert Discovery Cut−Off: from March 31, 2015 to April 1, 2015. (bm) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
146 OPPOSITION in opposition re: MOTION to AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER AND COMPLAINT 130 131 Amendment to Motion filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wendy Shapero, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
147 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: Parties are ordered to schedule a mediation hearing before Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle within seven days. (bm) (Entered: 01/13/2015)

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 17 of 19

01/16/2015
01/19/2015 01/26/2015 01/27/2015 01/27/2015 01/27/2015
01/28/2015 01/30/2015
03/05/2015 03/11/2015 03/18/2015

148 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. This matter having been referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle for settlement conference. IT IS ORDERED that a settlement conference shall be held in the chambers of Judge Woehrle on Friday, February 27, 2015, at 2:00 p.m, Room 640, 6th Floor of the Roybal Courthouse, 255 E. Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA. The conference should be attended by persons with meaningful authority to negotiate and agree to a settlement of the case. The parties shall submit settlement conference statements directly to Judge Woehrle's chambers not later than three (3) court days before the conference. These statements are to be exchanged with opposing counsel. The statements shall not be filed in the court record. 147 (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (gr) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
149 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of MOTION to AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER AND COMPLAINT 130 filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 01/19/2015)
150 Joint STIPULATION to Continue DISCOVERY from 1/27/2015 to 3/31/2015 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
151 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS GRANTING Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order and Amend the Complaint (dkt. no. 131) by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: re: Amendment 131 : Having read and considered all papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion referenced above, the Court GRANTS the motion. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint is ordered filed. (bm) (Entered: 01/27/2015)
152 AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants City of Los Angeles amending Complaint 1 , filed by plaintiffs Tony Lavan, Shamal Ballantine, Caterius Smith, Byron Reese, Lamoen Hall, Reginald Wilson, Willie Vassie (bm) (Entered: 01/27/2015)
153 ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION OF PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT TO CONTINUE THE COMPLETION DATE FOR DISCOVERY AND EXPERT DISCLOSURES by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, re Stipulation to Continue 150 : GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, the Court hereby amends the Scheduling Order issued on April 29, 2014 as follows: (1) Discovery Cut−Off: from January 27,2015 to March 31, 2015; (2) Opening Expert Witness Disclosure: from February 3,2015 to April 3, 2015; (3) Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosure: from March 3, 2015 to April 24,2015; (4) Expert Discovery Cut−Off: from March 31, 2015 to May 22, 2015. (bm) (Entered: 01/27/2015)
154 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles, re Miscellaneous Document 140 NOTICE OF PROOF OF SERVICE RE STATEMENT OF FACT OF DEATH − LAMOEN HALL served on 01/27/2015. (Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
155 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING motion to dismiss Plaintiff Byron Reese's claims with prejudice by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez granting 135 Motion to Dismiss: Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to the extent that it seeks to dismiss Plaintiff Byron Reese's claims and finds that Defendant's motion has been RENDERED MOOT to the extent that it seeks to dismiss Plaintiff Ernest Seymore's claims. Plaintiff Byron Reese's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
156 STIPULATION to Vacate Scheduling Order filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Amend or Vacate Scheduling Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
157 TEXT ONLY ENTRY IN CHAMBERS by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: The Court schedules a Status Conference for 3/18/2015 at 1:30 p.m. to discuss the Joint Stipulation filed on March 5, 2015 156 . THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (wm) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/11/2015)
158 MINUTES OF Status Conference held before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez:The Court, having heard from counsel, advises that this will be the last continuance granted. Separate Order to follow. (Please see attached document for further details.)Court Reporter: Marea Woolrich. (dgon) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 18 of 19

03/18/2015 03/26/2015 04/03/2015
05/06/2015 05/07/2015 10/29/2015 11/24/2015 12/02/2015 12/03/2015
12/03/2015 12/03/2015

159 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, The Scheduling Order deadlines and hearings originally scheduled have been rescheduled: Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/26/2015 02:30 PM before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez., Discovery cut−off 7/31/2015., Motions due by 8/14/2015.. Jury Trial rescheduled to 11/10/2015 at 9:00 a.m. (Please see attached document for further details.) (dgon) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
160 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. A Further Settlement Conference has been scheduled for Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will be held before the Honorable Carla M. Woehrle in courtroom 640, 6th Floor of the Roybal Federal Building. (gr) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
161 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Further Settlement Conference Re−scheduled by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. On the Court's own motion, the Further Settlement Conference previously scheduled for Wednesday. April 8, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., before Judge Woehrle has been re−scheduled to Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. The hearing will take place in Judge Woehrle's courtroom, Roybal courthouse, 6th Floor, Room 640. The conference should be attended by persons of meaningful authority to negotiate and agree to a settlement of the case. In re: Minute Order (In Chambers) 160 . (mkr) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
162 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Trial and Current Scheduling Order from November 10, 2015 to January 12, 2016 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
163 ORDER by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, re RE: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE THE CURRENT SCHEDULING ORDER TO COMPLETE SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS 162 : The parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing, the Court hereby amends the Scheduling Order issued March 18, 2015, as follows:(Please see attached document for details.) (dgon) (Entered: 05/07/2015)
164 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Further Settlement Conference Scheduled by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. A Further Settlement Conference has been scheduled for Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle in Courtroom 640, 6th floor of the Roybal Federal Courthouse. The conference should be attended by persons with meaningful authority to negotiate and agree to a settlement of the case. (mkr) (Entered: 10/29/2015)
165 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. Settlement conference held. Agreement is reached, subject to Los Angeles City Council approval. Counsel to file joint notice of settlement. (mkr) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
166 NOTICE of Settlement Tentative filed by plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
167 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Attachment 1: Proposed Order 166 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below: Proposed order attachment lacks judge's signature line. A corrected stand−alone proposed order can be e−filed by submitting a Notice of Lodging, with the separate, additional attachment of the proposed order In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
168 NOTICE OF LODGING filed CORRECTED PROPOSED ORDER re Notice of Settlement 166 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order CORRECTED)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
169 ORDER RE JOINT NOTICE OF TENTATIVE SETTLEMENT, REQUEST TO VACATE TRIAL DATE, AND FOR THE COURT TO RETAIN JURISDICTION TO COMPLETE THE SETTLEMENT by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: Accordingly, the Court vacates the current scheduling order to permit the settlement to be considered by the defendant City. The parties are to notify the Court of the outcome of the settlement review as soon as it is completed and to provide a status report on the progress of approval of the settlement no later than March 31, 2016 if a notice of completion of

Case: 2:11-cv-2874 As of: 05/12/2017 10:45 AM PDT 19 of 19

03/31/2016 07/15/2016
07/20/2016 07/25/2016

settlement has not been filed before that date. IT IS SO ORDERED. (bm) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
170 STATUS REPORT re settlement filed by Plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
171 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez:ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING RE DISMISSAL On March 31, 2016, the Court received Plaintiffs Report on the Status of the Settlement Process. To date, no additional report or dismissal has been filed. Accordingly, the Court schedules an Order to Show Cause Hearing Re: Dismissal for August 1, 2016 at 2:30 pm. (lc) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
172 NOTICE of Settlement and Request for Dismissal filed by plaintiff Tony Lavan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
173 ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE ORDER by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: The parties informed the Court that they have completed the settlement ofthis matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2),as Plaintiffs request, the this action is dismissed with prejudice against alldefendants., (Made JS−6. Case Terminated.), (dgon) (Entered: 07/25/2016)