Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 1 of 27 Page ID #:2

··fiLED

1 BARRETT S. LITT, SBN 45527 PAUL J. ESTUAR, SBN 167764
2 E-Mail: pestuar@littlaw.com

LITT, ESTUAR, HARRISON & 3 KITSON, LLP

4

1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1880 Los Angeles, California 90017

5 Telephone:(213)386-3114

Facsimile: (213) 380-4585

6

ROBERT MANN, SBN 48293 7 DONALD W. COOK, SBN 116666

8 E-Mail: doncook@earthlink.net Attorneys at Law
9 3435 Wilshire Boulevard., Suite 2900 Los Angeles, California 90010

10 Telephone: (213) 252-9444

11 Facsimile: (213) 252-0091

2008HAY 14 PM 1: 12
:·,LERi~ :.,: ': r:.,~:~:-~:('7" C~.,hJQT CENTRJ:i_ :)1ST r CA~!t-LC·_:; ,\~·jGf,£--
BY
CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER, SBN 175764 E-Mail: cablaw@hotmail.com LAW OFFICES OF CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, California 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-3246

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 ARMANDO MIRANDA and ERIC
16 FLORES, individually and as class

No.CVOS-03178 P'J\l\'J:

17 representatives,

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR

18

Plaintiffs,

JURY TRIAL

19

1. 42 U.S.C. §1983/Cal. Civil

20

vs.

Code §52.1 -Unlawful Search & Seizure

21 DALE E. BONNER, J.A. FARROW AND 2. 42 U.S.C. §1983/Cal Civil Code

22

SUNNE WRIGHT MCPEAK, individually and in their official capacities; CITY OF

§52.1 -Uncompensated Taking 3. 42 U.S.C. §1983/Cal Civil Code

23 LOS ANGELES; and DOES 1 through 10;

§52.1 -Procedural Due Process

24

all on their own behalf and as representative 4. Cal Civil Code §52.1-

of a class of Defendants,

Interference With Federal Or

25

State Rights By Threat,

26

Defendants.

Intimidation Or Coercion 5. Inverse Condemnation

27

28

1

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 2 of 27 Page ID #:3

1

INTRODUCTION, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

1. Plaintiffs present federal claims for reliefthat arise under 42 U.S.C.

3 § 1983, and supplemental state law claims actionable under California Civil Code

4 §52.1. Plaintiffs seek declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief for unlawful

5 seizures and impoundments of vehicles pursuant to the authority of California

6 Vehicle Code §14602.6 by law enforcement agencies throughout the State of

7 California. Plaintiffs seek certification of a statewide injunctive relief class of

8 both Plaintiffs and Defendants. Plaintiffs also seek certification of a Plaintiffs'

9 damages class against the named Defendants in this action.

10

2. For all state law claims asserted in this Complaint (except inverse

11 condemnation, for which no administrative claim must be filed, see California

12 Govt. Code §905.1), Plaintiffs filed timely (i.e., within six months of the time of

impound of the vehicle involved) administrative claims with the entity involved 13

with the particular Plaintiff pursuant to the Government Code, including Govt. 14

Code §91 0. Each such claim was filed on behalf of the individual Plaintiff and on 15
behalf of all persons similarly situated. 16
3. Federal jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 17
1343. Plaintiffs' state law claims are so related to Plaintiffs' federal law claims that

18 they form part ofthe same case or controversy. Accordingly, supplemental

19 jurisdiction over those claims is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

20 4. Venue is proper in this District because Plaintiffs reside in this District.

21 The events of which Plaintiffs complain occurred in this District, as well as

22 throughout the State.

23

5. As used throughout this Complaint, the phrase "Plaintiffs" refers to

24 both individual Plaintiffs, and to the class that they seek to represent. The phrase

25 "Defendants" refers to the named Defendants, and in the case of injunctive relief, to

26 the class of Defendants that Plaintiffs seek to certify.

27

28

2

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 3 of 27 Page ID #:4

1

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

2

6. Plaintiffs' claims arise out of a statewide policy, custom, pattern and

3 practice of violating the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs based on California

4 Vehicle Code §14602.6 (hereafter"§ 14602.6"). Section 14602.6 provides, among

5 other things, that a peace officer may "cause the removal and seizure of' a vehicle if

6 a person was 1) "driving a vehicle while his or her driving privilege was suspended

7 or revoked" or, 2) was "driving a vehicle without ever having been issued a driver's

8 license." §14602.6(a)(1). In such a situation, a "vehicle so impounded shall be 9 impounded for 30 days." Jd.

10

7. Under the statute, the registered and legal owner of such a vehicle is

11 entitled to a "storage hearing" at which the hearing officer shall "determine the

12 validity of, or consider any mitigating circumstances attendant to, the storage." Jd.

sub-section (b). The impounding agency shall release the vehicle to the owner if A) 13

it is a stolen vehicle, B) the vehicle is subject to bailment and is driven by an 14

unlicensed employee of a business establishment, including a parking service or 15
repair garage, C) the driver's license was suspended for certain specified offenses, 16
D) the vehicle was seized under this section for an offense that does not authorize 17
the seizure of the vehicle, or E) the driver reinstates his or her driver's license or

18 acquires a driver's license and proper insurance. Jd. sub-section (d)(l).

19 8. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the registered and legal owner

20 of a vehicle that is removed and seized under Vehicle Code §14602.6(a), or their

21 agents, shall be provided the opportunity for a "storage hearing" to determine the

22 validity of, or consider any "mitigating circumstances" attendant to the storage, in

23 accordance with Vehicle Code §22852. Vehicle Code §14602.6(b).

24

9. Vehicle Code §22852, however, does not require that an owner be

25 notified of his or her right to a hearing to determine whether "mitigating

26 circumstances" justify or require the release of the vehicle.

27

28

3

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 4 of 27 Page ID #:5

1

10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that, when

2 informing owners of their right to a "storage hearing," Defendants assert to the

3 owners of seized vehicles that the only matter that Defendants will consider at

4 "storage hearings" is whether there was probable cause to seize the vehicle in the

5 first place and, in fact, that is the only matter that Defendants do consider at a

6 storage hearing. This constitutes a violation ofthe combined terms of Vehicle Code

7 §§14602.6(b) and 22852, which require consideration of "mitigating

8 circumstances," and a violation of due process of law by failing to provide notice,

9 and indeed providing misleading notice, ofthe owner's rights under the statutory

10 scheme.

11

ll. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendants

do not consider "mitigating circumstances" at storage hearings, and/or that 12

Defendants have either no or inadequate standards for determining what constitutes 13

"mitigating circumstances." Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants' 14

interpretations of what constitutes "mitigating circumstances" are so varied and 15
arbitrary that there is no clear guidance as to what constitutes "mitigating 16
circumstances."
17 12. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code §22852(c) the "hearing officer" at

18 a "storage hearing" may be an employee ofthe law enforcement agency that

19 authorized the impound. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege,

20 that Defendants utilize employees ofthe seizing agency as "hearing officers",

21 including employees who are closely connected associates of the seizing officer.

22 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the "hearing officers," because they are

23 employees of the seizing agency as "hearing officers," including employees who are

24 closely connected associates ofthe seizing officer, are not impartial.

25

13. Pursuant to the authority ofVehicle Code §14602.6, city and county

26 law enforcement agencies throughout the State of California seize and impound

27 vehicles, and keep them for 30 days, under the following circumstances:

28

4

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 5 of 27 Page ID #:6

1

a. If a person is driving a vehicle without any license, the vehicle is

2

seized and impounded on the authority of§ 14602.6 even though the

3

existence of probable cause to believe that the driver committed a traffic

4

violation is not a sufficient basis under the Fourth Amendment to make

5

the impoundment of the vehicle reasonable. The only constitutionally

6

permissible basis for such a seizure and impoundment is where the

7

vehicle jeopardizes public safety and the efficient movement of

8

vehicular traffic and, therefore, comes within the community caretaking

9

doctrine which allows a seizure of a vehicle. See Miranda v. City of

10

Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2005). Vehicles are routinely

11

seized and impounded by Defendants when the requirements ofthe

12

community caretaking doctrine are not met.

b. If a person is driving a vehicle with a driver's license issued by 13

another state or a foreign country, the vehicle is seized and impounded 14

for thirty days on the authority of§ 14602.6 even though §14602.6 does

15

not authorize a thirty-day seizure/impound because the driver was not

16

"driving a vehicle without ever having been issued a driver's license."

17

This

violates

the

Fourth

Amendment.

1 •

18 c. Seizure and impoundment of a vehicle for 30 days routinely

19 occurs where the seizure and impoundment is initially justified by the

20

community caretaking doctrine, e.g., where the driver does not have a

21

22 1 It appears that most members ofthe putative Defendant Class construe §14602.6
23 to authorize a 30-day seizure of anyone who has been living in the State for more 24 than 10 days, even if temporarily, and even if the person has a current and valid
driver's license from another jurisdiction. However, the statute only authorizes a 25 seizure if the person has never been issued a driver's license. The statute does not 26 require that that license must have been a California license, nor that that license be
currently valid. Plaintiffs contend that the statute does not authorize a 30-day 27 seizure if the driver has ever had a driver's license issued anywhere.
28

5

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 6 of 27 Page ID #:7

1

valid California license, but where there is no such justification to

2

continue to hold the vehicle when a person with a valid driver's license

3

is available to drive the vehicle away from impound; either the owner, or

4

someone with the owner's authorization. Under the authority of

5

§14602.6, the vehicle is nonetheless held for 30 days.

6

d. In connection with the seizure and impoundment of vehicles

7

pursuant to §14602.6, the impounding agencies impose additional fees to

8

the impound fee as an administrative fee, which fees, on information and

9

belief, are not cost based. Vehicle Code §22850.5(a) provides that a

10

"city, county, or city and county, or a state agency may adopt a

11

regulation, ordinance, or resolution establishing procedures for the

12

release of properly impounded vehicles and for the imposition of a

charge equal to its administrative costs relating to the removal, impound, 13

storage, or release of the vehicles." Thus, the fees routinely imposed by 14

Defendants violate §22850.5(a). 15
14. In addition to violation ofthe Fourth Amendment, the customs, 16
policies and practices described above deprive Plaintiffs of Procedural Due Process

17 of Law, the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, and the California analogues to each

18 ofthe foregoing, including the Fourth Amendment.

19 CLASS PLAINTIFFS

20 15. Plaintiff Armando Miranda resides in Los Angeles County, where the

21 events alleged herein occurred. On or about April23, 2008, Mr. Miranda's 1995

22 blue Honda Accord station wagon was being driven by his wife. She was stopped

23 in the driveway of their residence by LAPD Officer Griffith, badge #34467, for

24 failure to proceed on a green light. The wife was cited for failure to have a driver's

25 license. To the extent the car was blocking the driveway as a result of the LAPD

26 stop, it could readily have been moved a few feet away. Instead, the LAPD officer

27 ordered the vehicle towed to impound. Mr. Miranda is the registered owner of the

28

6

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 7 of 27 Page ID #:8

1 vehicle in question, has been a licensed California driver since 1997, and has a

2 currently valid California driver's license. On April241h, he went to both the Van

3 Nuys police station and the Foothill station to claim his vehicle. He presented his

4 ownership papers and his valid California driver's license, and asked to speak with

5 someone in charge about reclaiming his station wagon. Mr. Miranda was not

6 allowed to speak with anyone in either police station except the secretary at the

7 front desk, and was told that there was no way he could claim his car before the 30

8 days was up. He was never told that he had a right to request a hearing, or that he

9 had any options except to wait out the 30 days. As ofthe time of the filing of this

10 complaint, the car is still in impound on a 30-day hold. Plaintiff Miranda sues in his

11 own behalf and on behalf of the Plaintiff Injunctive Relief Class and the City of Los

12 Angeles Damages Class, each of which is defined below.

13

16. PlaintiffEric Flores resides in Los Angeles County where the events

alleged herein occurred. On or about April23, 2008, Eric Flores' wife was driving 14
north on the 605 Freeway near Santa Fe Springs, California, when she was stopped 15
by a~ officer of the California Highway Patrol. She was told that she was stopped 16
because the 2004 Cadillac Escalade she was driving had tinted windows and tinted 17
taillights. The officer then proceeded to order the vehicle towed on the ground that 18
the driver could not produce a driver's license. The officer ordered the tow even 19
though the driver offered to contact a licensed driver, Mr. Flores, to come and drive
20 the vehicle away. Mr. Flores is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, has
21 been a licensed California driver for approximately 18 years, and has a currently

22 valid California driver's license. On April23rd, he went to the CHP office in

23 Whittier, to claim his vehicle. He was informed that the vehicle would remain in

24 tow for thirty days. He was never told that he had a right to request a hearing. As

25 ofthe time of the filing of this complaint, the car is still in impound on a 30-day

26 hold. Plaintiff Flores sues in his own behalf and on behalf of the Plaintiffinjunctive

27 Relief Class and the CHP Damages Class, each of which is defined below.

28

7

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 8 of 27 Page ID #:9

1

17. Plaintiffs Miranda and Flores (hereafter the "Named Plaintiffs") sue on

2 their own behalf, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals

3 throughout the State of California, for each class for which they act as a class

4 representative. These individuals had their cars seized, towed, and impounded for

5 up to 30 days for driving without a valid driver's license under the authority of

6 Vehicle Code §14602.6.

7

18. When the Named Plaintiffs' vehicles were seized and impounded

8 pursuant to the authority of Vehicle Code §14602, in no instance was the driver

9 arrested. On information and belief it is the policy, custom and practice oflaw

10 enforcement agencies throughout the State of California, when citing for violation
11 of Vehicle Code §14602.6, to treat the matter as an infraction, and to not arrest the
12 driver.
19. For purposes of standing to bring a statewide injunctive relief claim, 13
each Named Plaintiffs vehicle is currently in impound. 14
CLASS DEFENDANTS 15
20. Defendant Dale E. Bonner is, and at all times herein mentioned was, 16
the Secretary of the State of California's Business, Transportation and Housing 17
Agency ("BTH") from March 2007 to the present. Defendant Sunne Wright 18
McPeak was the Secretary ofthe State of California's Business, Transportation and 19
Housing Agency ("BTH") during the class period until approximately March 2007. 20
The BTH is an agency of the Executive Branch of the California government and 21 oversees the activities of the California Highway Patrol. The Secretary's
22 supervisorial powers over the BTH and the CHP can be found at Government Code
23 §§ 13975, 13976, 13978, et seq. Defendant J.A. Farrow is, and at all times herein

24 mentioned was, the Commissioner of the CHP. The Commissioner's supervisorial

25 powers over the CHP can be found at Vehicle Code §§2108 and 2400. Each of the

26 foregoing Defendants is being sued herein in their individual official capacities and

27 as representatives of a Defendant Injunctive Relief Class, which is defined below,

28

8

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 9 of 27 Page ID #:10

1 as it relates to the claims of the Plaintiff Injunctive Relief Class, which is also

2 defined below. Each ofthe foregoing Defendants is also being sued herein in their

3 individual capacities by the CHP Damages Class, which is defined below.

4

21. Defendant City of Los Angeles is a political subdivision, i.e., a city

5 duly organized under the laws of the State of California. It routinely enforces

6 California Code §14602.6 by engaging in the conduct alleged herein, i.e., seizing

7 and impounding vehicles on the basis that the driver does not have a current, valid

8 California driver's license, including when the vehicle was not presenting a hazard

9 or a threat to public safety; keeping the vehicle for a period longer than someone

10 was available to pay the impound fee to date, usually for the 30 day period specified
11 by § 14602.6; seizing and impounding vehicles even when the driver has a valid
12 license from another jurisdiction; and, on information and belief, charging an
above-cost administrative fee. Defendant City of Los Angeles is sued as a 13
representative of the Defendant Injunctive Relief Class, which is defined below, as 14
well as in its own behalf. Defendant City of Los Angeles is also sued in its own 15
behalf by the City ofLos Angeles Damages Class, which is defined below. 16
22. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants 17
sued herein as DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, and therefore sue these Defendants by 18
such fictitious names. Plaintiffs sue Doe Defendants for two reasons: 1) to add, if 19
necessary, other class representative Defendants, and 2) to add, if necessary for any 20 state law claims, individual Defendants responsible to implement §14602.6 for a
21 particular Defendant, and who otherwise are appropriate and/or necessary to allow
22 Plaintiffs to fully pursue their claims.

23

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS- PLAINTIFF CLASS

24

23. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, and on behalf ofthe

25 class of all other persons similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23, Federal Rules of

26 Civil Procedure.

27

28

9

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 10 of 27 Page ID #:11

1

24. The "Plaintiff Injunctive Relief Class" is defined under Rule 23(b)(2)

2 as all persons in the State of California who have had cars seized/impounded for

3 thirty days pursuant to §14602.6, or may in the future have them so

4 seized/impounded. This class seeks relief against a statewide class of government

5 entities, defined further on in this Complaint. The class includes at least: A) those
6 whose cars were unlawfully seized/impounded under Fourth Amendment standards;
7 B) those whose vehicles were unlawfully seized/impounded for thirty days because
8 the driver did not have a currently valid California driver's license, even though
9 such seizures are not authorized by §14602.6 because the driver had previously
10 been issued a driver's license, though not a California driver's license; C) those 11 whose vehicles were seized and impounded, whether lawfully or not, but unlawfully 12 held pursuant to the 30 day provision of§ 14602.6; and D) those who were charged
a fee in excess of the costs associated with the administration of the seizure and 13
impound. 14
25. There are two Plaintiff Damages Classes, both brought under Rule 15
23(b)(3). The "CHP Damages Class" is defined as all persons in the State of 16
California who have had cars seized/impounded for thirty days by the CHP pursuant 17
to §14602.6. The class includes at least those set forth in sub-paragraphs A-D of~ 18
24, supra, with the exception that the class does not include those who in the future 19
may have the conduct defined occur. 20
26. The "City of LA Damages Class" is defined as all persons in the State 21 of California who have had cars seized/impounded for thirty days by the City Los
22 Angeles pursuant to §14602.6. The class includes at least those set forth in sub-
23 paragraphs A-D of~ 24, supra, with the exception that the class does not include
24 those who in the future may have the conduct defined occur. 2
25 26 2 Plaintiffs also assert for all the classes pled herein Rule 23 (b)(1) as a basis for
class certification but, to make clear the distinction between the injunctive relief and 27 damages classes have referred to the different classes as (b)(2) and (b)(3) classes.
28

10

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 11 of 27 Page ID #:12

1

27. On information and belief, each class defined herein numbers at least

2 in the thousands, and, for the Plaintifflnjunctive Relief Class, tens of thousands.

3 The members of the class are so numerous that joinder is impracticable.

4

28. Questions of law and fact common to each class include:

5

a. Whether the provisions of §14602.6 at issue herein are

6

constitutional, under either and/or both United States or California law,

7

including under the Fourth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, the

8

Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, or their California

9

analogues.

10

b. Whether it is lawful under the Fourth Amendment and its

11

California analogue to seize and impound a vehicle for thirty days on the

12

basis that the driver did not have a valid California driver's license,

where such seizures are not authorized by §14602.6, because the driver 13

had previously been issued a driver's license from another jurisdiction. 14

c. Whether, even if could be valid to seize and impound a vehicle 15

on the ground stated in the foregoing sub-section, it is lawful under the 16
Fourth Amendment or its California analogue to do so where the vehicle 17
1) could be left without posing a hazard to public safety, or 2) could be
18 so left by moving the vehicle to a nearby location (such as a legal

19 parking spot) and allowing the driver to contact a person to come and get

20 the vehicle.

21

d. Whether, even if the seizure and impoundment of the vehicle

22

under the circumstances was legal under the Fourth Amendment or its

23

California analogue, it violates the Fourth Amendment, the Eighth

24

Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, or their

25

California analogues to keep the vehicle for any period longer than that

26

27 Thus, (b)(1) is sought as an alternative basis for any of the alleged classes to the

28

11

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 12 of 27 Page ID #:13

1

needed for a person with a valid driver's license (or alternatively a valid

2

California driver's license) to drive the vehicle away and to pay the

3

impound fee accrued to that date.

4

e. Whether, even if the seizure and impoundment of the vehicle

5

under the circumstances was legal under the Fourth Amendment or its

6

California analogue, it violates the Fourth Amendment, or the Fifth

7

Amendment or their California analogues to automatically keep the

8

vehicle for 30 days and to charge a 30 day impound fee.

9

f. Whether the provisions of§ 14602.6 at issue in this Complaint

10

(i.e., seizure and impoundment of a vehicle being driven by a person

11

without a California license, and continuing impoundment for 30 days)

12

are unconstitutional on their face pursuant to any of the constitutional

provisions cited above. 13
g. Whether, if the relevant provisions ofVehicle Code 14
§14602.6 are not unconstitutional on the face ofthe statute, they are 15
unconstitutional as applied, specifically regarding 1) seizures and 16
impoundments in violation of the community caretaking doctrine, 2) 17
keeping seized and impounded vehicles for 30 days, and 3) failing to 18
provide hearings that comport with due process.
19 h. Whether it is permissible under Vehicle Code §22850.5(a) to
20 charge an administrative fee greater than the costs associated with

21

administration ofthe impound.

22

1. Whether the Defendants engage in the conduct challenged in this

23

complaint and, if so, which Defendants engage in which conduct.

24

29. The claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of

25 members of each class on whose behalf they are acting as a class representative.

26

27 extent the Court deems it appropriate. 28

12

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 13 of 27 Page ID #:14

1

30. The Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of

2 each class on whose behalf they are acting as a class representative. The Named

3 Plaintiffs have no interest which .is now or may be potentially antagonistic to the

4 interests of each class on whose behalf they are acting as a class representative. The

5 attorneys representing the Plaintiffs are experienced civil rights attorneys, and are

6 considered able practitioners in federal constitutional and statutory adjudications.

7

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

8 separate actions by individual members of each class would create a risk that

9 inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the

10 class would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the

11 class.

12

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

separate actions by individual members ofthe class would create a risk of 13

adjudications with respect to individual members ofthe class which would, as a 14

practical matter, substantially impair or impede the interests ofthe other members 15
of the class to protect their interests. 16
33. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs are informed 17
and believe and thereon allege that the Defendants have acted, threaten to act, and

18 will continue to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making

19 appropriate final injunctive relief or declaratory relief with respect to the class as a

20 whole.

21

34. Plaintiffs seek not only injunctive and declaratory relief, but equitable

22 relief in the form of restitution to the Plaintiffs for the fees and costs paid, and

23 property lost, as a result of the unlawful conduct alleged herein.

24

35. Even if said fees and costs are not considered equitable restitution, or

25 ancillary or incidental damages pursuant to the provisions ofFed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26 23(b)(1) or (b)(2), the class qualifies for certification pursuant to the provisions of

27 Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3) in that 1) the questions oflaw or fact common to the

28

13

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 14 of 27 Page ID #:15

1 members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual

2 members, and 2) this class action is superior to other available methods for the fair

3 and efficient adjudication of the controversybetween the parties.

4

36. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the

5 interests of members of each class in individually controlling the prosecution of a

6 separate action are low. Most class members would be unable to individually

7 prosecute any action at all. Plaintiffs are infonned and believe, and thereon allege,

8 that the amounts at stake for individuals are so small that separate suits would be

9 impracticable. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that most

10 members of the class will not be able to find counsel to represent them.

11

37. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that it is

12 desirable to concentrate all litigation in one forum because §14602.6 is a California-
wide statute presumptively enforced by law enforcementagencies throughout the 13
state. It would consume undue and unnecessary resources to litigate the identical 14
issues in forums throughout the state. 15
38. Plaintiffs do not know the identities ofthe class members. Plaintiffs are 16
informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the identities of the class members 17
may be ascertained from the records of the various law enforcement entities who act 18
for the Defendants, and from the towing companies who contract with the
19 Defendants. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that these
20 records will contain the identities, including addresses and telephone numbers, of

21 the persons whose vehicles have been seized, and that these records will likely be

22 computerized in most cases. Accordingly, the membership of the Plaintiff Class is

23 readily ascertainable. Plaintiffs believe the size of each class is at least in the

24 thousands, and, for the Injunctive Relief Class, more likely in the tens of thousands.

25

39. Plaintiffs know of no difficulty that will be encountered in the

26 management of this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.

27 The class action is superior to any other available means to resolve the issues raised

28

14

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 15 of 27 Page ID #:16

1 in this action. The class action will be manageable because the issues are discrete,

2 and the law enforcement and towing company records will allow a determination of

3 class members, or potential class members, from the records of these entities, and

4 the amount of any restitution due to the class.

5

40. Liability can be determined on a class-wide basis regarding what

6 provisions of§ 14602.6, and what policies, practices and customs adopted to enforce

7 it, are lawful. There are available methods to determine which Defendants engaged

8 in one or more of the prohibited acts alleged herein, which issues will mostly be

9 determinable from the available records, and which will likely lead to resolution

10 through summary judgment.

11

41. To the extent it is determined that notice is required for the Plaintiff

12 Class, then, class members will be identified by the records of Defendants.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS- DEFENDANT CLASS

13

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ONLY

14 42. Plaintiffs seek certification of a Defendant Class pursuant to F. R. Civ.

case of the State, governmental officials, that have the authority to enforce 17
§14602.6, to wit, each political subdivision within the State of California, including

18 any state or municipal agency, or any other political subdivision or governmental

19 instrumentality in the State of California.3

20

43. The Named Defendants are cities, counties, and governmental officials,

21 that are responsible to enforce and implement the provisions of§ 14602.6, or

22 supervise and control the agencies that do so, and thereby violate the constitutional

23 and other rights ofthe Plaintiffs.

24

25

26 3 Plaintiffs incorporate Fn. 2 regarding an alternative basis for certification of a
27 Defendant Class under Rule 23(b)(1 ).
28

15

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 16 of 27 Page ID #:17

1

44. Defendants are so numerous that joinder is impracticable. Upon

2 information and belief, the number of Defendants, including local governmental

3 entities, and their law enforcement agencies, numbers at least several hundred.

4

45. The defenses of the representative parties are typical ofthe defenses of

5 the class.

6

46. The members ofthe Defendant Class are readily ascertainable, as they

7 . are matters of public record.

8

47. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the Named Defendants

9 will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Defendants have no

10 interest which is now or may be potentially antagonistic to the interests of the

11 Defendant Class and have an interest in retaining attorneys with sufficient

12 experience and ability in federal constitutional and statutory adjudications to

represent the interests of a Defendant Class. In particular, Named Defendants are 13
the City of Los Angeles, with the largest City population in California, and 14
representatives of the State of California. These Defendants, as well as the others

48. Adjudications with respect to individual class members would, as a 17
practical matter, be dispositive of the interests ofthe other members not parties to

18 the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their

19 interests.

20

49. The Defendant Class members have acted or refused to act on grounds

21 generally applicable to the Plaintiff Class, specifically in enforcing the terms of the

22 §14602.6, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding

23 declaratory relief with respect to the Defendant Class as a whole.

24

50. Plaintiffs presume that early notice will be appropriate for the

25 Defendant Class to allow the class members to participate in the litigation should

26 they so choose. Such notice is relatively simple, as, by class size standards, the

27 Defendants Class is relatively small.

28

16

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 17 of 27 Page ID #:18

1

51. If it is determined that notice is required for the Defendant Class, their

2 identities are readily available and determinable.

3

COUNT ONE

Unlawful Search and Seizure Against All Defendants for Wrongful

4

Seizure/Impoundment

5

(42 U.S.C. §1983/Cal. Civil Code §52.1)

6 52. By this reference, Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previous and
7 following paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
8 53. The seizure of Plaintiffs' vehicles for driving without a license violated
9 the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, §13 ofthe
10 California Constitution.
11 54. The seizure/impoundment of Plaintiffs' vehicles when the conditions
12 leading up to the seizure did not meet the requirements of the community caretaking 13 doctrine, i.e., the vehicle did not present a threat to public safety, violated the Fourth 14 Amendment to the United States Constitution; and Article I, §13 of the California 15 Constitution. Specifically, the vehicles seized from the Named Plaintiffs, and the
16 class they seek to represent, were seized in circumstances where the car did not
17 "impede traffic, threaten public safety, or be[come] subject to vandalism," see,
18 United States v. Jensen, 425 F.3d 698, 706 (9th Cir.2005), or where the car readily
19 could have been parked in a manner in which the car did not present such a hazard.
20 This included circumstances in which a licensed driver associated with the

21 unlicensed driver was reasonably available at the time ofthe seizure, and was
22 capable and willing to drive the car away.

23

55. The seizure/impoundment of Plaintiffs' vehicles for 30 days pursuant

24 to the provisions of§ 14602.6, even when there was an available driver with a valid

25 driver's license to drive the car away from impound and the owner was prepared to

26 pay the accrued impound fee, violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States

27

28

17

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 18 of 27 Page ID #:19

1 Constitution, and Article I, §13 of the California Constitution, whether the initial

2 seizure was constitutionally valid or not.

3

56. The seizure and impoundment of Plaintiffs' vehicles for 30 days

4 pursuant to the provisions of§ 14602.6, even when the driver had previously been

5 issued a driver's license by another state and/or foreign country, even if that license

6 was not valid or no longer valid in California, violated the Fourth Amendment to

7 the United States Constitution, and Article I, §13 of the California Constitution

8 because§ 14602.6 does not authorize seizures for thirty days under such

9 circumstances.

10

57. The acts alleged herein were the product of a custom, practice and/or

11 policy of the Defendants, which custom, practice and/or policy caused the

12 constitutional violation alleged herein.
58. All acts of Defendants alleged herein- including those alleged in 13
subsequent counts in this complaint- occurred under color of state law. 14
59. The conduct alleged herein deprived Plaintiffs and the classes they 15
represent, via threats, intimidation and/or coercion, of the protections afforded by 16
provisions of federal constitutional and state constitutional and statutory law, 17
including but not limited to rights protected under the Fourth and Fourteenth 18
Amendments to the United States Constitution; and Article I, §13 of the California
19 Constitution. Therefore, Plaintiffs and the class members they represent are entitled
20 to bring suit and obtain equitable relief and damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code

21 §52.1(b).

22

60.

As to the state law aspects of this claim, the entities are liable for the

23 actions of their employees pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.

24

61. The aforementioned acts of Defendants directly and proximately

25 caused Plaintiffs to be deprived of their rights as stated above, thereby entitling

26 Plaintiffs to injunctive relief and restitution oflosses to property and/or damages

27 proximately caused by Defendants' wrongful acts, including but not limited to, 1)

28

18

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 19 of 27 Page ID #:20

1 payment of unlawful impound fees and administrative fees, 2) loss of their vehicles

2 through sale by Defendants by virtue oftheir inability to pay the unlawful impound

3 and/or administrative fees, and 3) interest on said payments or losses.

4

COUNT TWO

UNCOMPENSATED TAKINGS CLAIM AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

5

(42 U.S.C. §1983/CAL. CIVIL CODE§ 52.1/ARTICLE 1 §19 OF THE

6

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION/INVERSE CONDEMNATION)

7

62. By this reference, Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previous and

8 following paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

9

63. The seizure/impoundment of Plaintiffs' vehicles when the conditions

10 leading up to the seizure did not meet the requirements of the community caretaking

11 doctrine, i.e., the vehicle did not present a threat to public safety, violated the

12 Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I,

13 §19 of the California Constitution, and constituted an inverse condemnation under

14 California law.

15

64. The seizure/impoundment of Plaintiffs' vehicles for 30 days pursuant

16 to §14602.6, even when there was an available driver with a valid driver's license to

17 drive the car away from impound and the owner was prepared to pay the accrued

18 fees, violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
19 Constitution, Article I, §19 of the California Constitution, and constituted an inverse

20 condemnation under California law.

21

65. The seizure/impoundment ofPlaintiffs' vehicles for 30 days pursuant

22 to §14602.6, when the driver had previously been issued a driver's license by

23 another state and/or foreign country, even if that license was not valid or no longer

24 valid in California, violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the

25 United States Constitution, Article I, §19 of the California Constitution, and

constituted an inverse condenmation under California law, because §14602.6 does 26
not authorize seizures for thirty days under such circumstances. 27

28

19

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 20 of 27 Page ID #:21

1

66. The acts alleged herein were the product of a policy or custom of the

2 Defendants, which policy or custom caused the constitutional violation alleged

3 herein.

4

67. The acts alleged herein occurred under color of state law.

5

68. The conduct alleged herein deprived Plaintiffs and the classes they

6 represent, via threats, intimidation and/or coercion, of the protections afforded by

7 provisions of federal constitutional and state constitutional and statutory law,

8 including but not limited to rights protected under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth

9 Amendments to the United States Constitution; and Article I, § 19 of the California

10 Constitution. Therefore, Plaintiffs and the class members they represent are entitled

11 to bring suit and obtain equitable relief and damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code

12 §52.1(b).

69. As to the state law aspect of this claim, the entities are liable for the 13
actions oftheir employees pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior. 14
70. The aforementioned acts of Defendants directly and proximately 15
caused the Plaintiffs to be deprived of their rights as stated above, thereby entitling 16
Plaintiffs to injunctive and declaratory relief and restitution of losses to property
17 and/or damages proximately caused by Defendants' wrongful acts, including but not

18 limited to, 1) payment of unlawful impound fees and administrative fees, 2) loss of

19 their vehicles through sale by Defendants by virtue of their inability to pay the

20 unlawful impound fees, and 3) interest on said payments or losses.

21

COUNT THREE

22

Against All Defendants for Violation of Procedural Due Process For

Misleading Hearing Notices and Inadequacy of Hearing Officers, Standards

23

and Procedures

24

(42 U.S.C. §1983/Cal. Civil Code §52.1)

25 71. By this reference, Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previous and
26
following paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 27

28

20

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 21 of 27 Page ID #:22

1

72. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code §14602.6(b), the registered and

2 legal owners of a vehicle that is seized/impounded pursuant to Vehicle Code

3 §14602.6(a), or their agents, shall be provided the opportunity for a "storage

4 hearing" to determine the validity of, or to consider any "mitigating circumstances"

5 attendant to the storage, in accordance with Vehicle Code §22852.

6

73. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that, when

7 informing owners of their right to a "storage hearing," Defendants and the

8 Defendant Classes represent to the owners of seized/impounded vehicles that the

9 only matters that they will consider at "storage hearings" is whether there was

10 probable cause to seize the vehicle in the first place. However, the statute requires

11 that "mitigating circumstances" be considered. Accordingly, such limited

representations constitute a misleading statement to class members. 12
74. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that it is the 13
custom, policy, and practice of most if not all members ofthe Defendant Class not 14
to consider "mitigating circumstances" at "storage hearings." 15
75. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that it is the 16
custom, policy and practice ofthose members ofthe Defendant Class who do 17
consider "mitigating circumstances" at "storage hearings" to have no standards or 18
guidelines and/or inadequate standards or guidelines for determining what
19 constitutes "mitigating circumstances." Plaintiffs are informed and believe that

20 Defendants' interpretations of what constitutes "mitigating circumstances" are so

21 varied and arbitrary that there is no clear guidance as to what constitutes "mitigating

22 circumstances."

23

76. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code §22852(c) the "hearing officer" at

24 a "storage hearing" may be an employee of the law enforcement agency that

25 authorized the seizure. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that

26 Defendants utilize employees of the seizing agency as "hearing officers", including

27 employees who are closely connected associates of the seizing officer. Plaintiffs are

28

21

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 22 of 27 Page ID #:23

1 informed and believe that the "hearing officers", because they are employees of the 2 seizing agency as "hearing officers", including employees who are closely

3 connected associates of the seizing officer, are not impartial.

4

77. Defendants' wrongful customs, practices and policies caused Plaintiffs

5 and the class members they represent not to request "storage hearings," and/or not

6 to present potentially valid claims for the return of Plaintiffs' vehicles, and/or for

7 Defendants to reject Plaintiffs' valid claims for the return of Plaintiffs' vehicles.

8 The conduct of 1) misleading class members regarding the issues that may be raised

9 at a "storage hearing", 2) failing to consider mitigating circumstances at a "storage

10 hearing", 3) having no or no adequate guidelines or standards where mitigating
11 circumstances are considered at a "storage hearing", and 4) using employees of, or
individuals closely associated with, the seizing and impounding entity each 12
constitutes violations of due process oflaw under the Fifth and Fourteenth 13
Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 7 of the California 14
Constitution. 15
78. The conduct alleged herein deprived Plaintiffs and the classes they 16
represent, via threats, intimidation and/or coercion, of the protections afforded by 17
provisions of federal constitutional and state constitutional and statutory law, 18
including but not limited to rights protected under the Fifth, and Fourteenth
19 Amendments to the United States Constitution; and Article I, § 7 of the California 20 Constitution. Therefore, Plaintiffs and the class members they represent are entitled

21 to bring suit and obtain equitable relief and damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code

22 §52.1(b).

23

79. As to the state law aspect of this claim, the entities are liable for the

24 actions of their employees pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.

25

80. The aforementioned acts of Defendants directly and proximately

26 caused the Plaintiffs and the class they represent to be deprived of their rights as

27 stated above, thereby entitling Plaintiffs and the class they represent to injunctive

28

22

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 23 of 27 Page ID #:24

1 and declaratory relief and restitution oflosses to property and/or damages 2 proximately caused by Defendants' wrongful acts including, but not limited to, 1)

3 payment of unlawful impound fees and administrative fees, 2) loss of their vehicles

4 through sale by Defendants by virtue of their inability to pay the unlawful impound

5 and/or administrative fees, and 3) interest on said payments or losses.

6

COUNT FOUR

Against All Defendants for Failure to Comply with Veh. Code

7

§22850.5(2) and With Due Process Of Law

8

42 U.S.C. § 1983/CAL. CIVIL CODE §52.1)

9 81. By this reference, Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previous and
10 following paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
11 82. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that it is the
12 custom, policy and practice ofthe Defendant Class, or some of its members, to
13 impose a fee on vehicles seized and impounded pursuant to Vehicle Code §14602.6
14 in excess of the administrative costs associated with the seizure and impound.

15

83. The imposition of a fee separate from the impound fee that exceeds the

16 administrative costs is expressly prohibited by Vehicle Code §22850.5(a) and,

17 therefore, is unlawful under California law. (It therefore also constitutes a violation

18 of due process oflaw.)

19

84. Because the initial or continuing seizure of Plaintiffs' vehicles

20 occurred via threats, intimidation and/or coercion, and Defendants have the power

21 to prevent Plaintiffs from recouping their property, thus continuing the seizure via

22 coercion, the conduct alleged herein deprived Plaintiffs and the class they represent,

23 via threats, intimidation and/or coercion, of the protections afforded by provisions

24 of federal constitutional and state constitutional and statutory law, including but not 25 limited to rights protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the 26 United States Constitution, and Article I, §7 ofthe California Constitution, and
27 Vehicle Code §14602.6. Therefore, Plaintiffs and the class members they represent

28

23

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 24 of 27 Page ID #:25

1 are entitled to bring suit and obtain equitable relief and damages pursuant to Cal.

2 Civ. Code §52.1(b).

3

85. As to the state law aspect of this claim, the entities are liable for the

4 actions of their employees pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.

5

86. The aforementioned acts of Defendants proximately caused Plaintiffs

6 to be deprived oftheir rights as stated above, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to

7 injunctive and declaratory relief and restitution of losses to property and/or damages

8 proximately caused by Defendants' wrongful acts, including but not limited to, 1)

9 payment of unlawful impound fees and administrative fees, 2) loss of their vehicles

10 through sale by Defendants by virtue of their inability to pay the unlawful impound

11 fees, and 3) interest on said payments or losses.

12

APPROPRIATENESS OF EQUITABLE RELIEF

87. Plaintiffs do not have an adequate remedy at law for the injuries 13

alleged herein. The continuing enforcement of§ 14602.6 as outlined herein violates 14

Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and causes continuing, sweeping and irreparable 15
hann to Plaintiffs by the constant threat to their property, and their livelihood, from 16
the policies and practices challenged in this complaint.
17 88. Plaintiffs are also entitled to declaratory relief with respect to the

18 constitutionality of the provisions of§ 14602.6, and an injunction preventing the

19 enforcement of those aspects determined to be unconstitutional. Such relief is

20 necessary in that an actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiffs,

21 who contend that §14602.6 is unconstitutional, and Defendants, who deny such

22 contention and enforce its provisions. Without such a declaration and injunction,

23 Plaintiffs will face the ongoing threat of its enforcement.

24

89. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief under both federal and state law.

25

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

26

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this court grant the

27 following relief:

28

24

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 25 of 27 Page ID #:26

1

1. That the Court certify this case pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) as a

2 class action on behalf of a class of Plaintiffs composed of all persons in the State of

3 California who have had, or are subject to having in the future, cars seized and

4 impounded pursuant to the authority of§ 14602.6 on the ground that they did not

5 have a valid driver's license, including at least those set forth in sub-paragraphs A-

6 D of"!f24, supra.

7

2. That this court certify a Defendant Class pursuant to F. R. Civ. P.

8 23(b)(2) as a class action composed of all local governmental entities, or, in the case

9 of the State, governmental officials, that have the authority to enforce§ 14602.6, to

10 wit, each political subdivision within the State of California, including any state or
11 municipal agency, or any other political subdivision or governmental
instrumentality in the State of California. 12
3. That the court certify this case pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as a 13
class action on behalf of a class ofPlaintiffs composed of all persons in the State of 14
California who have had, or will have had up through the judgment in this case, 15
cars seized and impounded by the CHP pursuant to the authority of§ 14602.6 on the 16
ground that they did not have a valid driver's license, including at least those set 17
forth in sub-paragraphs A-D of"!f24, supra.
18 4. That the court certify this case pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as a
19 class action on behalf of a class of Plaintiffs composed of all persons in the State of

20 California who have had, or will have had up through the judgment in this case,

21 cars seized and impounded by the City of Los Angeles pursuant to the authority of

22 §14602.6 on the ground that they did not have a valid driver's license, including at

23 least those set forth in sub-paragraphs A-D of"!f24, supra.

24

5. That the court issue a declaration that §14602.6, in the respects set

25 forth herein, is unconstitutional on its face and of no force or effect. Specifically,

26 that this court declare that§ 14602.6 is facially unconstitutional (a) to the extent that

27 it permits or authorizes the seizure and impoundment of a vehicle on the ground that

28

25

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 26 of 27 Page ID #:27

1 the person driving the vehicle does not have a valid driver's license where the

2 criteria of the community caretaking doctrine are not met, (b) to the extent that it

3 mandates or allows a vehicle to be held longer than the time for a person with a

4 valid driver's license to pick up the vehicle with the owner's consent and,

5 specifically, that its 30 day impoundment provision is unconstitutional, and (c) to

6 the extent that it fails to require adequate notice that "mitigating circumstances"

7 may be used at a storage hearing, to establish clear standards regarding what

8 constitutes "mitigating circumstances", and to authorize use ofmembers ofthe

9 seizing agency as hearing officers at a storage hearing.

10

6. That the court issue a declaration that§ 14602.6, in the respects set

11 forth herein, is unconstitutional as applied. Specifically, that this court declare that it

is an unconstitutional application of§ 14602.6, (a) to seize or impound a vehicle on 12

the ground that the person driving the vehicle does not have a valid driver's license 13

where the criteria of the community caretaking doctrine are not met, (b) to hold a 14

vehicle seized and impounded under the authority of§ 14602.6 longer than the time 15
for a person with a valid driver's license to pick up the vehicle with the owner's 16
consent, and (c) to fail to give adequate notice that "mitigating circumstances" may
17 be used at a storage hearing, to fail to have established and clear standards regarding
18 what constitutes "mitigating circumstances", and to use members ofthe seizing

19 agency as hearing officers at a storage hearing.

20

7. That, after hearing, this court issue a Preliminary Injunction against

21 Defendants enjoining them from implementing and enforcing the sections of

22 §14602.6 challenged herein, or in the manner challenged herein, and from engaging

23 in the unlawful conduct described herein, as elaborated in the preceding paragraphs

24 of this Request for Relief.

25

8. That this court issue a Judgment permanently and forever enjoining

26 Defendants from implementing and enforcing the sections of §14602.6 challenged

27

28

26

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 1 Filed 05/14/08 Page 27 of 27 Page ID #:28

1 herein, and from engaging in the unlawful conduct described herein, as elaborated

2 in the preceding paragraphs of this Request for Relief.

3

9. That this court order equitable relief in the form of restitution to the

4 Plaintiff Class or alternatively a monetary award in the form of damages.

5

10. That this court award Plaintiffs, on their individual claims only,

6 individually determined compensatory and statutory damages, according to proof;

7

11. That this court award Plaintiffs, on their individual claims only and as

8 against individual Defendants only, punitive damages according to proof;

9

12. That this court award attorneys fees and costs incurred in this action

10 under 42 U.S.C. §1988, California CCP §1021.5, California Civil Code §52.1, and

11 any other appropriate statute.

12

13. That this court grant such other and further relief as may be just and

proper. 13

DATED: May 14,2008 14

LITT, ESTUAR, HARRISON & KITSON, LLP ROBERT MANN

15

DONALD W. COOK

LAW OFFICES OF CYNTHIA ANDERSON-

16 17

:~~,/fo

18

Barrett S. Litt

19

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27

 
 Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 1 of 43 Page ID #:1786

1 BARRETT S. LITT, SBN 45527 PAUL J. ESTUAR, SBN 167764
2 LITT, ESTUAR & KITSON, LLP
1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1880 3 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 386-3114 4 Facsimile: (213) 380-4585
E-Mail: pestuar@littlaw.com 5

6 ROBERT MANN, CSB 48293 DONALD W. COOK, CSB 116666
7 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900
8 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 252-9444; (213) 252-0091 facsimile
9 E-Mail: manncook@earthlink.net
10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11

CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER, CSB 175764 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 381-3246 E-Mail: cablaw@hotmail.com

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

15 ARMANDO MIRANDA, ERIC 16 FLORES, and JORGE HEREDIA,
individually and as class representatives,
17
Plaintiffs,
18

vs.
19

20

DALE E. BONNER, J.A. FARROW and SUNNE WRIGHT MCPEAK,

21 individually and in their official

capacities; CITY OF LOS ANGELES;

22 LOS ANGELES POLICE

DEPARTMENT; CITY OF SIGNAL

23 HILL; SIGNAL HILL POLICE

DEPARTMENT and DOES 1 through 10; 24 all on their own behalf and as

25 representative of a class of Defendants,

26

Defendants.

Case No. CV08-3178 SJO (VBKx)
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED CLASS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; PROPOSED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Date: 12/5/11 Time: 10:00 a.m. Ctrm: 1

27

28

-1-

Amend Complaint Motion - Ps & As, etc. (00072898).WPD

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 2 of 43 Page ID #:1787

1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Monday December 5, 2011, in Courtroom 1 of

3 the above entitled Court, located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, at
4 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, before the Hon. S. James Otero,
5 United States District Judge, Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order granting leave
6
to file a Third Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief. A
7
copy of the proposed amended complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
8
This motion will be pursuant to Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and will
9
10 based upon this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities and
11 Exhibit; all the papers and pleadings on file on this action; the Court’s September 26,
12 2011 order regarding the filing of a class certification motion, and upon such other and

13 further evidence and argument as the Court deems necessary or convenient.

14 DATED: October 17, 2011

15

ROBERT MANN

DONALD W. COOK

16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17

18

by______________________________

19

Donald W. Cook

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

00072898.WPD

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 3 of 43 Page ID #:1788

1 I. Case Background and Relief Requested.

2

This proposed class action lawsuit is related to Salazar v. Schwartzenegger, CV07-

3 1854 SJO (VBKx) (now closed following remand to the state court of state law claims).

4 The three individual Plaintiffs in the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)

5 claim their cars were unlawfully seized and then impounded under Cal. Veh. Code §

6 14602.6:

7
–Armando Miranda: LAPD seized and impounded Mr. Miranda’s car because its
8
driver, Mr. Miranda’s wife, did not have a driver’s license. The SAC alleges that
9
neither the initial seizure nor subsequent 30 impound were lawful;
10
–Eric Flores: CHP seized and impounded Mr. Flores’ car because its driver, Mr.
11

12

Flores’ wife, did not have a driver’s license. The SAC alleges that neither the

13

initial seizure nor subsequent 30 impound were lawful;

14

–Jorge Heredia: Signal Hill PD seized and impounded Mr. Heredia’s car because

15

its driver, a friend of Mr. Heredia, did not have a driver’s license. The SAC alleges

16

that neither the initial seizure nor subsequent impound were lawful.

17

In connection with the class certification motion set for hearing the same day as the

18 instant motion, Plaintiffs seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). See

19 Exhibit A for a copy of the proposed amended complaint. As in the SAC, the TAC seeks

20 certification of both injunctive relief and damages classes, based on what Plaintiffs

21
contend are unlawful seizures and 30 day impoundments pursuant to § 14602.6. The TAC
22
adds one party, a plaintiff, while revising the class definitions in light of the Ninth
23
Circuit’s unpublished Salazar decision (414 Fed.Appx. 73, 2011 WL 477686 (2011)).
24

25 More specifically, the TAC:

26

! Adds plaintiff Julia Giron. Ms. Giron is the registered and legal owner of a 2000

27

Toyota LAPD impounded for 30 days, beginning September 14, 2011, because the

28

-3-

00072898.WPD

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 4 of 43 Page ID #:1789

1

driver, Ms. Giron’s son, had an expired California license. The car is presently

2

impounded. TAC ¶¶28-35;

3

! Revises the injunctive relief and damages class definitions so that the definitions

4

conform to defendants’ interpretation of Cal. Veh. Code § 14602.6, and defendants

5

actual practice for vehicle impounds as revealed over the last several years. TAC

6

¶¶42-56.

7
The TAC addresses defendants’ unlawful interpretation of § 14602.6 (treating an
8
expired or out-of-state driver’s licenses as the equivalent of having never been licensed),
9
an interpretation that the Ninth Circuit rejected in Salazar. See Salazar memorandum at
10
page 5. The TAC also alleges that defendants’ fail and/or refuse, as a matter of policy, to
11

12 provide a hearing for determining the lawfulness of a 30 day impound, as distinguished

13 from the lawfulness of a vehicle’s removal from the street and storage, for community

14 caretaking purposes.

15 II. Leave to Amend Should Be Granted.

16

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15(a), leave to amend the complaint

17 should be granted “freely given when justice so requires.” Thus, leave is granted unless

18 the amendment causes prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or

19 creates undue delay. Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th

20 Cir. 1989). As the Supreme Court explained:

21
If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a
22
proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his
23
claim on the merits. In the absence of any apparent or declared reason --
24

25

such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,

26

repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed,

27

undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the

28

amendment, futility of amendment, etc. -- the leave sought should, as the

-4-

00072898.WPD

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 5 of 43 Page ID #:1790

1

rules require, be “freely given.” Of course, the grant or denial of an

2

opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District Court, but

3

outright refusal to grant the leave without any justifying reason appearing

4

for the denial is not an exercise of discretion; it is merely abuse of that

5

discretion and inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules.

6 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
7
There is no prejudice to defendants. Though this action was filed May 14, 2008,
8
the Court stayed it four months later (September 30, 2008) because of the then-pending
9
Salazar appeal. See 9/30/08 Order (doc. 73). The stay was just recently lifted, on July 18,
10
2011 (doc. 84). Thus, the case has been active for only about seven months.
11
12 Consequently, this case is still in the early litigation stage. Defendants will have ample
13 opportunity to respond to the amended complaint and to conduct discovery related on the

14 revised basis of liability.

15 III. Conclusion.

16

Because this amended complaint comes earlier in this lawsuit’s active litigation

17 stage while amending allegations and adding a party so as to more closely conform to

18 defendants’ actual practice in enforcing Cal. Veh. Code § 14602.6, there is no prejudice

19 to defendants. Plaintiffs should be granted leave to file their Proposed Third Amended

20 Class Action Complaint.

21
DATED: October 17, 2011
22
23
24

ROBERT MANN DONALD W. COOK Attorneys for Plaintiffs

25

26

By___________________________________ Donald W. Cook

27

28

-5-

00072898.WPD

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 6 of 43 Page ID #:1791

1 BARRETT S. LITT, SBN 45527
PAUL J. ESTUAR, SBN 167764

2 E-Mail: pestuar@littlaw.com
LITT, ESTUAR & KITSON, LLP

3

1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1880 Los Angeles, California 90017

4

Telephone: (213) 386-3114 Facsimile: (213) 380-4585

5 ROBERT MANN, SBN 48293

6

DONALD W. COOK, SBN 116666 E-Mail: manncook@earthlink.net

7 ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3435 Wilshire Boulevard., Suite 2900

8

Los Angeles, California 90010 Telephone: (213) 252-9444

9 Facsimile: (213) 252-0091
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 ARMANDO MIRANDA, ERIC
13 FLORES, JORGE HEREDIA and

No. CV-08-3178 SJO (VBKx)

14 JULIA GIRON, individually and as class representatives,
15

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

16

Plaintiffs,

17

vs.

1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983/Cal. Civil Code § 52.1 – Unlawful Search & Seizure

18 DALE E. BONNER, J.A. FARROW
19 AND SUNNE WRIGHT MCPEAK,

2. 42 U.S.C. § 1983/Cal Civil Code §52.1 – Uncompensated Taking 3. 42 U.S.C. § 1983/Cal Civil Code

20 individually and in their official

§52.1 – Procedural Due Process

capacities; CITY OF LOS ANGELES; 4. 42 U.S.C. § 1983/Cal Civil Code

21 LOS ANGELES POLICE

§52.1 – Procedural Due Process For

22 DEPARTMENT; CITY OF SIGNAL Seizing Vehicles to Punish Owners for

HILL; SIGNAL HILL POLICE

Violation of California Criminal

23 DEPARTMENT; and DOES 1 through Statutes

24 10; all on their own behalf and as

5. 42 U.S.C. § 1983/Cal Civil Code

representative of a class of Defendants, §52.1 for Failure to Comply with

25

Vehicle Cod § 22850.5(2) and With Due

26

Defendants.

Process Of Law

27

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

1
-6-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 7 of 43 Page ID #:1792

1

INTRODUCTION, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

1. Plaintiffs present federal claims for relief that arise under 42 U.S.C.

3 §1983, and supplemental state law claims actionable under California Civil Code

4 §52.1. Plaintiffs seek declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief for unlawful
seizures and impoundments of vehicles pursuant to the authority of California 5
Vehicle Code §14602.6. Plaintiffs seek certification of a statewide injunctive 6
relief class of both Plaintiffs and Defendants. Plaintiffs also seek certification of a 7
Plaintiffs’ damages class against the named Defendants in this action. 8
2. For all state law claims asserted in this Complaint (except inverse 9
condemnation, for which no administrative claim must be filed, see California 10
Govt. Code § 905.1), Plaintiffs filed timely (i.e., within six months of the time of
11 impound of the vehicle involved) administrative claims with the entity involved

12 with the particular Plaintiff pursuant to the Government Code, including Govt.

13 Code § 910. Each such claim was filed on behalf of the individual Plaintiff and on

14 behalf of all persons similarly situated.

15

3. Federal jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343.

16 Plaintiffs’ state law claims are so related to Plaintiffs’ federal law claims that they

17 form part of the same case or controversy. Accordingly, supplemental jurisdiction

18 over those claims is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

19

4. Venue is proper in this District because Plaintiffs reside in this District.

20 The events of which Plaintiffs complain occurred in this District, as well as

21 throughout the State.

22

5. As used throughout this Complaint, the phrase “Plaintiffs” refers to both

23 individual Plaintiffs, and to the class that they seek to represent. The phrase

24 “Defendants” refers to the named Defendants, and in the case of injunctive relief, to

25 the class of Defendants that Plaintiffs seek to certify.

26

CLASS PLAINTIFFS

6. As used throughout this Complaint, the phrase “Plaintiffs” refers to the

27

individual Plaintiffs, and to the class that they seek to represent. The phrase

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

2
-7-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 8 of 43 Page ID #:1793

1 “Defendants” refers to the named Defendants, and in the case of injunctive relief, to

2 the class of Defendants that Plaintiffs seek to certify.

3

7. Plaintiff Armando Miranda is an individual and resides in Los Angeles

4 County, where the events alleged herein occurred.

5

8. Plaintiff Eric Flores is an individual and resides in Los Angeles County

6 where the events alleged herein occurred.

7

9. Plaintiff Jorge Heredia is an individual born in Torrance, California, and

8 resides in the County of Los Angeles, City of Long Beach.

9

10. Plaintiff Julia Giron is an individual. She resides in the County of Los

10 Angeles, City of Los Angeles.

11

11. Plaintiffs Miranda, Flores, Heredia and Giron (hereafter the “Named

12 Plaintiffs”) sue on their own behalf, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated

13 individuals throughout the State of California, for each class for which they act as a
class representative. These individuals had their cars vehicles seized, towed, and 14
impounded for up to 30 days under Cal. Veh. Code §14602.6 because the vehicles’ 15
drivers did not hold a valid California driver’s license. 16
12. When the Named Plaintiffs’ vehicles were seized and impounded 17
pursuant to Cal. Veh. Code §14602, in no instance was the driver arrested. On 18
information and belief it is the policy, custom and practice of law enforcement 19
agencies throughout the State of California, when citing for violation of Vehicle
20 Code §14602.6, to treat the matter as an infraction, and not arrest the driver.

21

13. For purposes of standing to bring a injunctive relief claim, Plaintiffs

22 Miranda and Lopez’s vehicles were in impound as of the filing of the original

23 complaint; Plaintiff Heredia’s vehicle was in impound as of when he was first

24 named as a Plaintiff (First Amended Complaint), and Plaintiff Giron’s vehicle

25 presently is in impound.

26

27

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

3
-8-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 9 of 43 Page ID #:1794

1

CLASS DEFENDANTS

2

14. Defendant Dale E. Bonner was, and at all times relevant hereto, the

3 Secretary of the State of California’s Business, Transportation and Housing Agency

4 (“BTH”) beginning about March 2007. Defendant Sunne Wright McPeak was the

5 Secretary of the State of California’s Business, Transportation and Housing Agency

6 (“BTH”) during the class period until approximately March 2007. The BTH is an
7 agency of the Executive Branch of the California government and oversees the
8 activities of the California Highway Patrol. The Secretary’s supervisorial powers
9 over the BTH and the CHP can be found at Government Code §§13975, 13976,
10 13978, et seq. Defendant J.A. Farrow is, and at all times herein mentioned was, the 11 Commissioner of the CHP. The Commissioner’s supervisorial powers over the CHP 12 can be found at Vehicle Code §§ 2108 and 2400. Each of the foregoing Defendants 13 is being sued herein in their individual official capacities and as representatives of a
Defendant Injunctive Relief Class, which is defined below, as it relates to the claims 14
of the Plaintiff Injunctive Relief Class, which is also defined below. Each of the 15
foregoing Defendants is also being sued herein in their individual capacities by the 16
CHP Damages Class, which is defined below. 17
15. Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Los Angeles”) is a political subdivision, 18
i.e., a city duly organized under the laws of the State of California. Defendant Los 19
Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) is an agency of Los Angeles. These 20 defendants routinely enforce California Code § 14602.6 by engaging in the conduct 21 alleged herein, i.e., seizing and impounding vehicles on the basis that the driver 22 does not have a current, valid California driver’s license, including when the vehicle 23 was not presenting a hazard or a threat to public safety; keeping the vehicle for a
24 period longer than someone was available to pay the impound fee to date, usually
25 for the 30 day period specified by §14602.6; seizing and impounding vehicles even
26 when the driver has a valid license from another jurisdiction; and, on information
27 and belief, charging an above-cost administrative fee. Defendants Los Angeles and

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

4
-9-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 10 of 43 Page ID #:1795

1 LAPD are sued as representatives of the Defendant Injunctive Relief Class, which is

2 defined below, as well as in its own behalf. These defendants are also sued in their

3 own behalf by the City of Los Angeles Damages Class, which is defined below.

4

16. Defendant City of Signal Hill (“Signal Hill”) is a political subdivision,

5 i.e., a city duly organized under the laws of the State of California. Defendant

6 Signal Hill Police Department (“SHPD”) is an agency of Signal Hill. These

7 defendants routinely enforce California Code § 14602.6 by engaging in the conduct

8 alleged herein, i.e., seizing and impounding vehicles on the basis that the driver

9 does not have a current, valid California driver’s license, including when the vehicle
10 was not presenting a hazard or a threat to public safety; keeping the vehicle for a
11 period longer than someone was available to pay the impound fee to date, usually
12 for the 30 day period specified by § 14602.6; seizing and impounding vehicles even 13 when the driver has a valid license from another jurisdiction; and, on information
and belief, charging an above-cost administrative fee. Defendants Signal Hill and 14
SHPD are sued as representatives of the Defendant Injunctive Relief Class, which is 15
defined below, as well as in its own behalf. Defendants Signal Hill and SHPD are 16
also sued in their own behalf by the Signal Hill Damages Class, which is defined 17
below. 18
17. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants 19
sued herein as DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, and therefore sue these Defendants by 20 such fictitious names. Plaintiffs sue Doe Defendants for two reasons: 1) to add, if 21 necessary, other class representative Defendants, and 2) to add, if necessary for any
22 state law claims, individuals responsible for implementing § 14602.6 for a particular
23 Defendant agency, and who otherwise are appropriate and/or necessary to allow
24 Plaintiffs to fully pursue their claims.

25

18. Defendants, and each of them, at all times relevant hereto were acting

26 under color of state law.

27

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

5
-10-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 11 of 43 Page ID #:1796

1 THE SEIZURES AND IMPOUNDS OF THE VEHICLES OWNED BY THE

2

REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS

3

Armando Miranda

4

19. On or about April 23, 2008, Mr. Miranda’s 1995 blue Honda Accord

5 station wagon was being driven by his wife. She was stopped in the driveway of

6 their residence by LAPD Officer Griffith, serial #34467, for failure to proceed on a

7 green light. The wife was cited for failure to have a driver’s license. To the extent

8 the car was blocking the driveway as a result of the LAPD stop, it could readily

9 have been moved a few feet away. Instead, the LAPD officer ordered the vehicle

10 towed to be seized and impounded for 30 days. Mr. Miranda is the registered owner

11 of the vehicle in question, has been a licensed California driver since 1997, and has 12 a currently valid California driver’s license. On April 24th, he went to both the Van

13 Nuys police station and the Foothill station to claim his vehicle. He presented his

ownership papers and his valid California driver’s license, and asked to speak with 14
someone in charge about reclaiming his station wagon. Mr. Miranda was not 15
allowed to speak with anyone in either police station except the secretary at the 16
front desk, and was told that there was no way he could claim his car before the 30 17
days was up. He was never told that he had a right to request a hearing, or that he 18
had any options except to wait out the 30 days. As of the time of the filing of the
19 original complaint, the car was still impounded on the 30-day hold. Plaintiff

20 Miranda sues in his own behalf and on behalf of the Plaintiff Injunctive Relief Class

21 and the LA Damages Class, as defined below.

22

Eric Flores

23

20.On or about April 23, 2008, Eric Flores’ wife was driving north on the 605

24 Freeway near Santa Fe Springs, California, when she was stopped by an officer of

25 the California Highway Patrol. She was told that she was stopped because the 2004

26 Cadillac Escalade she was driving had tinted windows and tinted taillights. The

27 officer then proceeded to order the vehicle towed on the ground that the driver

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

6
-11-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 12 of 43 Page ID #:1797

1 could not produce a driver’s license. The officer ordered the tow even though the

2 driver offered to contact a licensed driver, Mr. Flores, to come and drive the vehicle

3 away. Mr. Flores is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, has been a

4 licensed California driver for approximately 18 years, and has a currently valid

5 California driver’s license.

6

21. On April 23rd, Eric Flores went to the CHP office in Whittier, to claim

7 his vehicle. He was informed that the vehicle would remain in tow for thirty days.

8 He was never told that he had a right to request a hearing. As of the filing of the

9 original complaint, the car was still impounded on the 30-day hold. Plaintiff Flores

10 sues in his own behalf and on behalf of the Plaintiff Injunctive Relief Class and the

11 CHP Damages Class, each of which is defined below.

12

Jorge Heredia

13

22. Four days a week Mr. Heredia works as a delivery driver for Republic

Master Chiefs. Five days a week he is also responsible for the care of his one and 14

one-half year old son. Mr. Heredia and his father Jose Tirado are co-registered 15

owners of one 2005 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, license no. 5HMZ365 (“Monte 16
Carlo”). They purchased the car in 2005. Mr. Heredia is the principal driver and 17
user of the Monte Carlo since it is the sole vehicle he has for work and, when

18 needed, the care of his son.

19 23. Early Sunday morning, July 6, 2008, Mr. Heredia and friends left a club

20 in Signal Hill in Mr. Heredia’s Monte Carlo. Because Mr. Heredia had consumed

21 alcohol and believed it was not safe for him to drive, Mr. Heredia allowed his

22 companion Alfonso to drive the Monte Carlo (Alfonso had not consumed any

23 alcohol). At about 2:00 a.m., a Signal Hill police officer stopped the Monte Carlo

24 because, he claimed, the license plate light was not functioning. Additional Signal

25 Hill officers responded to the scene. Upon learning that the driver Alfonso was not a

26 licensed driver, the officers proceeded to removes the care from the public

27 thoroughfare, and impound the car for 30 days under Cal. Veh. Code §14602.6(a).

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

7
-12-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 13 of 43 Page ID #:1798

1

24. Mr. Heredia identified himself as a licensed California driver and a

2 registered owner of the Monte Carlo. Mr. Heredia sought permission to call his

3 father Jose Tirado, a licensed California driver, so that his father could drive the car

4 home. After being initially denied permission, Mr. Heredia was finally permitted to

5 call his father. Mr. Heredia’s father and mother, who is also a licensed California

6 driver, arrived together in about 15 minutes. The Monte Carlo was still at the scene,

7 not yet having been towed. Even though Mr. Heredia explained to the officers that

8 his father was the Monte Carlo’s co-registered owner and could drive the car, the

9 officers refused to release the car. Instead, they removed the car and had it

10 impounded for 30 days under §14602.6(a).

11

25. Using the CHP form 180 (see Exhibit A) Signal Hill officials informed

12 Mr. Heredia he had a right to a hearing to contest the legality of the decision to

13 seize and remove from the public roadway; officials did not, however, inform him
he had any right to present mitigating circumstances to secure release of the car. 14
Nor did the CHP form 180 or Cal. Veh. Code § 22852. Nevertheless, on Tuesday, 15
July 8, 2008, at about 9:30 a.m., Mr. Heredia appeared at the Signal Hill police 16
department, requesting a hearing. (He had been told that the first available date for 17
the hearing was that day.) The hearing commenced at about 10:00 a.m. Mr. Heredia 18
explained his need for the Monte Carlo, why he was not driving it Sunday morning 19
(because he felt it was not safe for him to drive given his consumption of alcohol),
20 and the hardship he faced if he could not secure immediate release of the car. The

21 Signal Hill hearing official denied Mr. Heredia’s request, informing him that the car

22 would have to be held for 30 days. The official told Mr. Heredia that “Sometimes,

23 life is hard.”

24

26. The 30 day impound of Mr. Heredia’s Monte Carlo imposes an

25 immediate hardship on Mr. Heredia. As of the filing of the First Amended

26 Complaint, he faced the possible loss of his job and the inability to provide care for

27 his one and one-year old son should the need arise where he needs to transport his

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

8
-13-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 14 of 43 Page ID #:1799

1 son for medical care. He may also be unable to afford the accumulated impound

2 fees that will have accrued after 30 days. Attached as Exhibits A and B are copies

3 of the post-impound hearing notices that Mr. Heredia received from Signal Hill.

4

27. Plaintiff Heredia sues in his own behalf and on behalf of the Plaintiff

5 Injunctive Relief Class and the SHPD Damages Class which are defined below.

6

Julia Giron

7

28. Plaintiff Julia Giron is the registered and legal owner of a 2000 Toyota

8 Corolla. On September 14, 2011, Ms. Giron’s son David Giron was driving the

9 vehicle in the City of Los Angeles, on Vermont Avenue near Slauson, when an

10 LAPD officer stopped him, in a grocery market’s parking lot. The officer claimed

11 Mr. Giron made an unlawful turn into the parking lot. Mr. Giron had an expired

12 California driver’s license, and a driver’s license issued by the Republic of

13 Guatemala. Mr. Giron showed the LAPD officer both licenses. The officer stated

that having an expired California license would be treated as if he had no license 14
and that the car would be impounded for 30 days. 15
29. Mr. Giron repeatedly advised the officer that his mother, the car’s 16
registered owner, is nearby and that if he could call her she would be there in about 17
10 minutes to take possession of the car. The officer rejected the offer, at one point 18
stating he would arrest Mr. Giron if he persisted in seeking to have his mother pick
19 up the car.

20

30. The officer seized and impounded the car under the authority of Cal. Veh.

21 Code §14602.6. At the time the car was seized, the car was lawfully parked in the

22 market’s parking lot. The car was not blocking traffic.

23

31. On September 14, 15 and 19 Ms. Giron went to the tow yard where the

24 car was held and attempted to retrieve it. Tow yard personnel informed her that the

25 car was impounded for 30 days, that the police had to release the car.

26

32. On October 5, 2011, Ms. Giron appeared at the LAPD’s 77th Division,

27 seeking to have her car released. She showed an LAPD officer her valid California

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

9
-14-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 15 of 43 Page ID #:1800

1 driver’s license, and she asked for an impound hearing. The officer informed her the

2 car was on a 30 day hold, that she had no right to an impound hearing.

3

33. Ms. Giron returned to the tow yard seeking to have her car released. Tow

4 yard personnel stated the car would not be released for 30 days. Personnel also

5 stated that if Ms. Giron did not pay the impound fee the car would be sold at a lien

6 sale and that her credit may be ruined if the lien sale did not satisfy the total amount

7 owed for the impound charges.

8

34. Plaintiff Ms. Giron is informed and believes and based thereon alleges

9 that she can not retrieve the car during the 30 day impound because under official

10 and written LAPD policy, she had to “wait until the 30-day period is over prior to

11 requesting a release.” Moreover, the “storage” hearing under Cal. Veh. Code

12 §22852 was limited, per LAPD official written policy, to determining whether the

13 “officer [was] authorized to legally remove [the] vehicle” from the street.

35. Plaintiff Ms. Giron sues in her own behalf and on behalf of the Plaintiff 14

Injunctive Relief Class and the LA Damages Class which are defined below. 15

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

16

36. When the Named Plaintiffs’ vehicles were seized and impounded

17 pursuant to the authority of Cal. Veh. Code § 14602, in no instance was the driver

18 arrested. On information and belief it is the policy, custom and practice of law

19 enforcement agencies throughout the State of California, when citing for violation

20 of Cal. Veh. Code § 14602.6, to treat the matter as an infraction, and to not arrest

21 the driver.

22

37. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of a statewide policy, custom, pattern and

23 practice of violating the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs based on Cal. Veh. Code § 24 14602.6 (hereafter “§ 14602.6”). Section 14602.6 provides, among other things, that 25 a peace officer may “cause the removal and seizure of” a vehicle if a person was 1) 26 “driving a vehicle while his or her driving privilege was suspended or revoked” or, 27 2) was “driving a vehicle without ever having been issued a driver’s license.”

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

10
-15-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 16 of 43 Page ID #:1801

1 §14602.6(a)(1). In such a situation, a “vehicle so impounded shall be impounded for

2 30 days.” Id.

3

38. Under the statute, the registered and legal owner of such a vehicle is

4 entitled to a “storage hearing” at which the hearing officer shall “determine the

5 validity of, or consider any mitigating circumstances attendant to, the storage.” Id.

6 sub-section (b). The impounding agency shall release the vehicle to the owner if A)

7 it is a stolen vehicle, B) the vehicle is subject to bailment and is driven by an

8 unlicensed employee of a business establishment, including a parking service or

9 repair garage, C) the driver’s license was suspended for certain specified offenses,

10 D) the vehicle was seized under this section for an offense that does not authorize

11 the seizure of the vehicle, or E) the driver reinstates his or her driver’s license or

12 acquires a driver’s license and proper insurance. Id. sub-section (d)(1).

13

39. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the registered and legal owner

of a vehicle that is removed and seized under Vehicle Code §14602.6(a), or their 14

agents, shall be provided the opportunity for a “storage hearing” to determine the 15

validity of, or consider any “mitigating circumstances” attendant to the “storage,” in 16
accordance with Cal. Veh. Code §22852. See Cal. Veh. Code §14602.6(b). 17
40. By its terms Cal. Veh. Code §22852 does not require that an owner be

18 notified of his or her right to a hearing to determine whether “mitigating

19 circumstances” justify or require the release of the vehicle. By its terms Vehicle

20 Code §22852 does not require a hearing to determine justification for a 30

21 impoundment of the vehicle, as distinguished from justification for the vehicle’s

22 storage, i.e., removal of the vehicle from the public thoroughfare.

23

41. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that, when

24 informing owners of their right to a “storage hearing,” Defendants represent to the

25 owners of seized vehicles that the only matter that Defendants will consider at

26 “storage hearings” is whether there was justification to seize the vehicle in the first

27 place and remove the vehicle from the street. This constitutes a violation of the

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

11
-16-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 17 of 43 Page ID #:1802

1 combined terms of Vehicle Code §§14602.6(b) and 22852, which require

2 consideration of “mitigating circumstances.” This is also a violation of due process

3 of law by failing to provide notice, and indeed providing misleading notice, of the

4 owner’s rights under the statutory scheme, by not providing notice of, and an

5 opportunity to contest, the justification for a 30 day impoundment.

6

42. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that

7 Defendants, or at least some of them, may now contend that the seizures of vehicles

8 under Cal. Veh. Code §14602.6 is not based on the community caretaking doctrine

9 but instead is “punishment” for violation of California’s “criminal laws.” If made,

10 Plaintiffs contend that seizures and impoundments of Plaintiffs’ vehicles for the

11 purpose of punishing Plaintiffs, the vehicles’ owners, for alleged violations of

12 California’s criminal laws, violates Plaintiffs’ Due Process protections, under both

state and federal constitutions, for the following reasons: 13

A. California lawmakers have not authorized Defendants to punish 14

owners by seizing their vehicles for alleged violations of California’s 15
criminal statutes. 16
B. Plaintiffs are entitled to a pre-seizure hearing, at least to the extent 17
that the seizure is based on the contention that the seizure is a punishment for

18 violation of criminal law, or constitutes a penalty.

19

C. Plaintiffs were not provided any and/or adequate notice that they

20

were subject to loss of their vehicles under §14602.6 as a punishment for

21

violation of California’s criminal statutes.

22

D. Defendants did not provide any and/or adequate notice to Plaintiffs

23

that Defendants seized Plaintiffs’ vehicles for the purpose of punishing

24

Plaintiffs for the violation of criminal statutes.

25

E. Defendants did not provide any and/or adequate notice to Plaintiffs

26

of what criminal statutes Plaintiffs were accused of violating.

27

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

12
-17-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 18 of 43 Page ID #:1803

1

F. Defendants wrongly presumed Plaintiffs were guilty of violating

2

California’s criminal statutes.

3

G. Defendants failed to inform and/or wrongly informed Plaintiffs that

4

Defendants presumed Plaintiffs guilty of violating California’s criminal

5

statutes.

6

H. Defendants’ wrongly placed on Plaintiffs the burden of proving

7

Plaintiffs were not guilty of violating California’s criminal statutes.

8

I. Defendants punished Plaintiffs for a violation of California’s

9

criminal statutes by seizing Plaintiffs’ vehicles without providing Plaintiffs a

10

prior opportunity to be heard.

11

J. Defendants did not provide any and/or inadequate notice to Plaintiffs

12

that Plaintiffs were entitled to a hearing to contest defendants’ punishing

Plaintiffs for the violation of criminal statutes. 13

K. Defendants did not provide any and/or inadequate notice to 14

Plaintiffs of what defendants considered to be “mitigating circumstances.” 15
L. “Mitigating circumstances” are nowhere defined. 16
M. The post-seizure hearings are not conducted according to any 17
standardized rules or procedures, but instead rely on the subjective, ad hoc

18 attitude of the hearing officer.

19

N. Many if not most agencies made no record of evidence considered

20

and/or rejected by the hearing officer.

21

O. Often times, the owner is not informed of the basis of the hearing

22

officer’s decision.

23

P. The owner is not informed of any review process for challenging the

24

hearing officer’s decision.

25

Q. The hearing officer’s decision is “final,” i.e., there is no review

26

process for challenging his or her decision.

27

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

13
-18-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 19 of 43 Page ID #:1804

1

R. The hearing officer is an employee of the agency that seized the

2

vehicle, and that agency has a financial interest in favor of both seizing and

3

holding the vehicle for a 30 day impound.

4

S. The 30 day impound frequently results in the owner losing the car

5

because he or she is unable to afford the storage and administrative fees

6

which, plaintiffs are informed, usually amount to about $1,000 and more.

7

T. The 30 day impound often imposes great hardship on the owner and

8

his or her family, because the vehicle is the only family vehicle for work and

9

for attending to the other necessities of life (e.g., attending medical

10

appointments, etc.).

11

U. The hearing procedure provides fewer safeguards and is more likely

12

to lead to erroneous decisions than the administrative procedure for

contesting parking tickets. 13

43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendants 14

do not consider “mitigating circumstances” at storage hearings, and/or that 15
Defendants have either no or inadequate standards for determining what constitutes 16
“mitigating circumstances.” Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants’ 17
interpretations of what constitutes “mitigating circumstances” are so varied and

18 arbitrary that there is no clear guidance as to what constitutes “mitigating

19 circumstances.”

20

44. Pursuant to Cal. Veh. Code § 22852(c) the “hearing officer” at a “storage

21 hearing” may be an employee of the law enforcement agency that authorized the

22 impound. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendants

23 utilize employees of the seizing agency as “hearing officers,” including employees

24 who are closely connected associates of the seizing officer. Plaintiffs are informed

25 and believe that the “hearing officers,” because they are employees of the seizing

26 agency as “hearing officers,” including employees who are closely connected

27 associates of the seizing officer, are not impartial.

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

14
-19-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 20 of 43 Page ID #:1805

1

45. Pursuant to the authority of Vehicle Code § 14602.6, city and county law

2 enforcement agencies throughout the State of California seize and impound

3 vehicles, and keep them for 30 days, under the following circumstances:

4

A. If a person is driving a vehicle without any license, the vehicle is

5

impounded for 30 days on the authority of § 14602.6 even though the

6

existence of probable cause to believe that the driver committed a traffic

7

violation is not a sufficient basis under the Fourth Amendment to make the

8

30 day vehicle impoundment reasonable. The only constitutionally

9

permissible basis for such impoundment is where the vehicle jeopardizes

10

public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic and, therefore,

11

comes within the community caretaking doctrine which allows a seizure of a

12

vehicle. See Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2005).

13

Defendants routinely impound vehicles for 30 days when the requirements of

the community caretaking doctrine are not met. 14
B. Seizure and impoundment of a vehicle for 30 days also routinely 15
occurs where the seizure and removal of the vehicle from the public 16
thoroughfare is justified by the community caretaking doctrine, e.g., where 17
the driver did not have a valid driver’s license and the vehicle could not be 18
safely left where it was stopped, but the seizing agency then continues to hold
19 the vehicle for 30 days (the 30 day impoundment) even though a person with

20

a valid driver’s license is available to drive the vehicle away from impound,

21

either the owner, or someone with the owner’s authorization.

22

C. In connection with the seizure and 30 day impoundment of vehicles

23

pursuant to § 14602.6, the impounding agencies impose additional fees to the

24

impound fee as an administrative fee, which fees, on information and belief,

25

are not cost based. Vehicle Code § 22850.5(a) provides that a “city, county,

26

or city and county, or a state agency may adopt a regulation, ordinance, or

27

resolution establishing procedures for the release of properly impounded

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

15
-20-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 21 of 43 Page ID #:1806

1

vehicles and for the imposition of a charge equal to its administrative costs

2

relating to the removal, impound, storage, or release of the vehicles.” Thus,

3

the fees routinely imposed by Defendants violate § 22850.5(a).

4

46. In addition to violation of the Fourth Amendment, the customs, policies

5 and practices described above deprive Plaintiffs of Procedural Due Process of Law,

6 the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause, and the California analogues to each of the

7 foregoing, including the Fourth Amendment.

8

47. For purposes of standing to bring a statewide injunctive relief claim, each

9 Named Plaintiff’s vehicle was in impound as of the date of filing the original
10 complaint, except as to Plaintiff Heredia and Plaintiff Lopez. As to Mr. Heredia, his
11 car was impounded as of the date of filing the First Amended Complaint wherein he
12 was added as a party. 13 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS – PLAINTIFFS’ CLASSES
48. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, and on behalf of the class 14
of all other persons similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil 15
Procedure. 16
49. The “Plaintiff Injunctive Relief Class” is defined under Rule 23(b)(2) as 17
all persons in the State of California who have had cars seized/impounded for thirty 18
days pursuant to § 14602.6, or may in the future have them so seized/impounded. 19
This class seeks relief against a statewide class of government entities, defined 20 further on in this Complaint. The class includes at least: A) those whose vehicles 21 were impounded for thirty days because the driver did not have a currently valid
22 California driver’s license, even though the driver had previously been issued a
23 driver’s license from a jurisdiction other than California; and B) those whose
24 vehicles were impounded for 30 days pursuant to § 14602.6 because the driver had

25 an expired California license.

26

27

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

16
-21-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 22 of 43 Page ID #:1807

1

50. There are six Plaintiff Damages Classes, all brought under Rule 23(b)(3).1

2

51. The “LA Damages Class” is defined as (a) as those vehicle owners whose

3 vehicles were seized and stored even though, at the time of the vehicles’ seizure,

4 justification for seizure pursuant to the community caretaking doctrine did not exist,

5 and/or (b) those vehicle owners who had cars impounded for thirty days by the

6 LAPD pursuant to §14602.6 where the purpose of the 30 day impound was

7 punishment for alleged crimes.

8

52. The LA Impoundment Class includes at least the following subclasses:

9

A. Vehicle owners who were being punished, via a 30 day impound,

10

for allegedly violating Cal. Veh. Code §14604 (allowing an unlicensed driver

11

to drive one’s vehicle),

12

B. Vehicle driver/owners who were being punished, via a 30 day

13

impound, for allegedly violating Cal. Veh. Code §12500 (driving without a

valid license). 14
C. Vehicle owners who were never given notice that their vehicles 15
were impounded for 30 days for alleged violations of Cal. Veh. Code 16
§§14604 and/or 12500; 17
D. Vehicle owners who were never given notice of a hearing to contest 18
the claim that they had violated Cal. Veh. Code §§14604 and/or 12500;
19 E. Vehicle owners who were never given notice of a hearing to contest

20

the lawfulness of the 30 day vehicle impoundment, as distinguished from a

21

hearing to contest lawfulness of the decision to remove the vehicle from the

22

public thoroughfare for storage;

23

24
25 1 Plaintiffs also assert for all the classes pled herein Rule 23(b)(1) as a basis for class certification but, to make clear the distinction between the injunctive relief and
26 damages classes have referred to the different classes as (b)(2) and (b)(3) classes. 27 Thus, (b)(1) is sought as an alternative basis for any of the alleged classes to the
extent the Court deems it appropriate. 28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

17
-22-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 23 of 43 Page ID #:1808

1

F. Vehicle owners who were only provided a hearing to contest “the

2

validity of the storage,” i.e., the decision to remove the vehicle from the

3

public thoroughfare and store, and not the decision to impound the vehicle for

4

30 days.

5

53. The “CHP Damages Class” is defined as two classes, as follows:

6

A. “CHP Seizure/Storage Class” defined as those vehicle owners

7

whose vehicles were seized and stored even though, at the time of the

8

vehicles’ seizure, justification for seizure pursuant to the community

9

caretaking doctrine did not exist;

10

B. “CHP Impoundment Class” defined as those vehicle owners whose

11

cars were impounded for thirty days by the CHP pursuant to § 14602.6 where

12

the purpose of the 30 day impound was punishment for alleged crimes and the

13

vehicles’ drivers held either an expired California driver’s license or a license

from a jurisdiction other than California. 14

54. The CHP Impoundment Class includes at least the subclasses defined 15

above at ¶53. 16
55. The “Signal Hill Damages Class” is defined as two classes, as follows: 17
A. “SHPD Seizure/Storage Class” defined as those vehicle owners

18 whose vehicles were seized and stored even though, at the time of the

19 vehicles’ seizure, justification for seizure pursuant to the community

20

caretaking doctrine did not exist;

21

B. “SHPD Impoundment Class” defined as those vehicle owners who

22

had cars impounded for thirty days by the SHPD pursuant to § 14602.6 where

23

the purpose of the 30 day impound was punishment for alleged crimes.

24

56. The SHPD Impoundment Class includes at least the subclasses defined

25 above at ¶55.

26

27

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

18
-23-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 24 of 43 Page ID #:1809

1

57. On information and belief, the damages class numbers at least in the

2 hundreds, and, for the Plaintiff Injunctive Relief Class, thousands. The members of

3 the classes are so numerous that joinder is impracticable.

4

58. Questions of law and fact common to each class include:

5

A. Whether the provisions of § 14602.6 at issue herein are

6

constitutional, under either and/or both United States or California law,

7

including under the Fourth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, the Fifth

8

Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, or their California analogues.

9

B. Whether, even if it is valid to seize and impound a vehicle for thirty

10

days under the authority of § 14602.6 because the driver has never been

11

issued a California license (but had been issued a license from another

12

jurisdiction), it is lawful under the Fourth Amendment or its California

13

analogue to do so where the vehicle 1) could be left without posing a hazard

to public safety, or 2) could be so left by moving the vehicle to a nearby 14

location (such as a legal parking spot) and allowing the driver to contact a 15

person to come and get the vehicle. 16
C. Whether, even if the seizure and impoundment of the vehicle under 17
the circumstances was legal under the Fourth Amendment or its California

18 analogue, it violates the Fourth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, the

19 Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, or their California analogues

20

to keep the vehicle for any period longer than that needed for a person with a

21

valid driver’s license (or alternatively a valid California driver’s license) to

22

drive the vehicle away and to pay the impound fee accrued to that date.

23

D. Whether, even if the seizure and impoundment of the vehicle under

24

the circumstances was legal under the Fourth Amendment or its California

25

analogue, it violates the Fourth Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment or their

26

California analogues to automatically keep the vehicle for 30 days and to

27

charge a 30-day impound fee.

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

19
-24-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 25 of 43 Page ID #:1810

1

E. Whether the provisions of § 14602.6 at issue in this Complaint (i.e.,

2

seizure and impoundment of a vehicle being driven by a person without a

3

valid California license, and continuing impoundment for 30 days) are

4

unconstitutional on their face pursuant to any of the constitutional provisions

5

cited above.

6

F. Whether, if the relevant provisions of Vehicle Code § 14602.6 are

7

not unconstitutional on the face of the statute, they are unconstitutional as

8

applied, specifically regarding 1) seizures and impoundments in violation of

9

the community caretaking doctrine, 2) keeping seized and impounded

10

vehicles for 30 days, and 3) failing to provide hearings that comport with due

11

process.

12

G. Whether it is permissible under Vehicle Code § 22850.5(a) to

13

charge an administrative fee greater than the costs associated with

administration of the impound. 14

H. Whether the Defendants engage in the conduct challenged in this 15

complaint and, if so, which Defendants engage in which conduct. 16
59. The claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of members 17
of each class on whose behalf they are acting as a class representative.

18 60. The Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of

19 each class on whose behalf they are acting as a class representative. The Named

20 Plaintiffs have no interest which is now or may be potentially antagonistic to the

21 interests of each class on whose behalf they are acting as a class representative. The

22 attorneys representing the Plaintiffs are experienced civil rights attorneys, and are

23 considered able practitioners in federal constitutional and statutory adjudications.

24

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

25 separate actions by individual members of each class would create a risk that

26 inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the

27

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

20
-25-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 26 of 43 Page ID #:1811

1 class would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the

2 class.

3

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

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

5 adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would, as a

6 practical matter, substantially impair or impede the interests of the other members

7 of the class to protect their interests.

8

63. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs are informed

9 and believe and thereon allege that the Defendants have acted, threaten to act, and

10 will continue to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making

11 appropriate final injunctive relief or declaratory relief with respect to the class as a

12 whole.

13

64. Plaintiffs seek not only injunctive and declaratory relief, but equitable

relief in the form of restitution to the Plaintiffs for the fees and costs paid, and 14

property lost, as a result of the unlawful conduct alleged herein. 15

65. Even if the fees and costs are not considered equitable restitution, or 16
ancillary or incidental damages pursuant to the provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 17
23(b)(1) or (b)(2), the class qualifies for certification pursuant to the provisions of

18 Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3) in that 1) the questions of law or fact common to the

19 members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual

20 members, and 2) this class action is superior to other available methods for the fair

21 and efficient adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

22

66. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the interests

23 of members of each class in individually controlling the prosecution of a separate

24 action are low. Most class members would be unable to individually prosecute any

25 action at all. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the

26 amounts at stake for individuals are so small that separate suits would be

27

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

21
-26-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 27 of 43 Page ID #:1812

1 impracticable. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that most

2 members of the class will not be able to find counsel to represent them.

3

67. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that it is desirable

4 to concentrate all litigation in one forum because § 14602.6 is a California-wide

5 statute presumptively enforced by law enforcement agencies throughout the state. It

6 would consume undue and unnecessary resources to litigate the identical issues in

7 forums throughout the state.

8

68. Plaintiffs do not know the identities of the class members. Plaintiffs are

9 informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the identities of the class members

10 may be ascertained from the records of the various law enforcement entities who act

11 for the Defendants, and from the towing companies who contract with the

12 Defendants. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that these

13 records will contain the identities, including addresses and telephone numbers, of
the persons whose vehicles have been seized, and that these records will likely be 14
computerized in most cases. Accordingly, the membership of the Plaintiff Class is 15
readily ascertainable. Plaintiffs believe the size of each class is at least in the 16
thousands, and, for the Injunctive Relief Class, more likely in the tens of thousands. 17
69. Plaintiffs know of no difficulty that will be encountered in the 18
management of this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. 19
The class action is superior to any other available means to resolve the issues raised
20 in this action. The class action will be manageable because the issues are discrete,

21 and the law enforcement and towing company records will allow a determination of

22 class members, or potential class members, from the records of these entities, and

23 the amount of any restitution due to the class.

24

70. Liability can be determined on a class-wide basis regarding what

25 provisions of § 14602.6, and what policies, practices and customs adopted to

26 enforce it, are lawful. There are available methods to determine which Defendants

27 engaged in one or more of the prohibited acts alleged herein, which issues will

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

22
-27-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 28 of 43 Page ID #:1813

1 mostly be determinable from the available records, and which will likely lead to

2 resolution through summary judgment.

3

71. To the extent it is determined that notice is required for the Plaintiff

4 Class, then, class members will be identified by the records of Defendants.

5

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS – DEFENDANT CLASS

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ONLY 6
72. Plaintiffs seek certification of a Defendant Class pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 7
23(b)(2) as a class action composed of all local governmental entities, or, in the case 8
of the State, governmental officials, that have the authority to enforce § 14602.6, to 9
wit, each political subdivision within the State of California, including any state or

10 municipal agency, or any other political subdivision or governmental

11 instrumentality in the State of California.2

12

73. The Named Defendants are cities, counties, and governmental officials,

13 that are responsible to enforce and implement the provisions of § 14602.6, or

14 supervise and control the agencies that do so, and thereby violate the constitutional

15 and other rights of the Plaintiffs.

16

74. Defendants are so numerous that joinder is impracticable. Upon

17 information and belief, the number of Defendants, including local governmental

18 entities, and their law enforcement agencies, numbers at least several hundred.

19

75. The defenses of the representative parties are typical of the defenses of

20 the class.

21

76. The members of the Defendant Class are readily ascertainable, as they are

22 matters of public record.

23

77. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the Named Defendants

24 will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Defendants have no

25 interest which is now or may be potentially antagonistic to the interests of the

26
27 2 Plaintiffs incorporate Fn.1 regarding an alternative basis for certification of a Defendant Class under Rule 23(b)(1).
28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

23
-28-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 29 of 43 Page ID #:1814

1 Defendant Class and have an interest in retaining attorneys with sufficient

2 experience and ability in federal constitutional and statutory adjudications to

3 represent the interests of a Defendant Class. In particular, Named Defendants

4 include Los Angeles, the largest City population in California, Signal Hill, and

5 representatives of the State of California. These Defendants, as well as the others

6 named, have the resources and experience to fully litigate the issues herein.

7

78. Adjudications with respect to individual class members would, as a

8 practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to

9 the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their

10 interests.

11

79. The Defendant Class members have acted or refused to act on grounds

12 generally applicable to the Plaintiff Class, specifically in enforcing the terms of the

13 § 14602.6, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding
declaratory relief with respect to the Defendant Class as a whole. 14
80. Plaintiffs presume that early notice will be appropriate for the Defendant 15
Class to allow the class members to participate in the litigation should they so 16
choose. Such notice is relatively simple, as, by class size standards, the Defendants 17
Class is relatively small. 18
81. If it is determined that notice is required for the Defendant Class, their 19
identities are readily available and determinable.
20 COUNT ONE

21

Unlawful Search and Seizure Against All Defendants for Wrongful

22

Seizure/Impoundment (42 U.S.C. §1983/Cal. Civil Code §52.1)

23

24

82. By this reference, Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previous and

25 following paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

26

83. The seizure and storage of Plaintiffs’ vehicles when the conditions

leading up to the seizure did not meet the requirements of the community caretaking 27

doctrine, i.e., the vehicle did not present a threat to public safety, violated the Fourth 28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

24
-29-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 30 of 43 Page ID #:1815

1 Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, §13 of the California

2 Constitution. Specifically, the seized vehicles owed by the Named Plaintiffs (except

3 as to Plaintiff Lopez), and the class they seek to represent, were seized in

4 circumstances where the car did not “impede traffic, threaten public safety, or

5 be[come] subject to vandalism,” see, United States v. Jensen, 425 F.3d 698, 706

6 (9th Cir.2005), or where the car readily could have been parked in a manner in

7 which the car did not present such a hazard. This included circumstances in which a

8 licensed driver associated with the unlicensed driver was reasonably available at the

9 time of the seizure, and was capable and willing to drive the car away.

10

84.The impoundment for 30 days of Plaintiffs’ vehicles pursuant to the

11 provisions of §14602.6, even when there was an available driver with a valid

12 driver’s license to drive the car away from the storage yard and the owner was

13 prepared to pay the accrued storage fee, violated the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, and Article I, §13 of the California Constitution, 14
whether the initial seizure and removal of the vehicle was constitutionally valid or 15
not. 16
85. The acts alleged herein were the product of a custom, practice and/or 17
policy of the Defendants, which custom, practice and/or policy caused the 18
constitutional violation alleged herein. 19
86. All acts of Defendants alleged herein – including those alleged in
20 subsequent counts in this complaint – occurred under color of state law.

21

87. The conduct alleged herein deprived Plaintiffs and the classes they

22 represent, via threats, intimidation and/or coercion, of the protections afforded by

23 provisions of federal constitutional and state constitutional and statutory law,

24 including but not limited to rights protected under the Fourth and Fourteenth

25 Amendments to the United States Constitution; and Article I, § 13 of the California

26 Constitution. Therefore, Plaintiffs and the class members they represent are entitled

27

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

25
-30-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 31 of 43 Page ID #:1816

1 to bring suit and obtain equitable relief and damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §

2 52.1(b).

3

88. As to the state law aspects of this claim, the entities are liable for the

4 actions of their employees pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.

5

89. The aforementioned acts of Defendants directly and proximately caused

6 Plaintiffs to be deprived of their rights as stated above, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to

7 injunctive relief and restitution of losses to property and/or damages proximately

8 caused by Defendants’ wrongful acts, including but not limited to, 1) payment of

9 unlawful impound fees and administrative fees, 2) loss of their vehicles through sale

10 by Defendants by virtue of their inability to pay the unlawful impound and/or

11 administrative fees, and 3) interest on said payments or losses.

12

COUNT TWO Uncompensated Takings Claim Against All Defendants

13

(42 U.S.C. §1983/Cal. Civil Code § 52.1/Article 1 §19

14

of the California Constitution/Inverse Condemnation)

15

90. By this reference, Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previous and

16 following paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

17

91. The seizure/impoundment of Plaintiffs’ vehicles when the conditions

18 leading up to the seizure did not meet the requirements of the community caretaking

19 doctrine, i.e., the vehicle did not present a threat to public safety, violated the

20 Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I,

21 §19 of the California Constitution, and constituted an inverse condemnation under

22 California law.

23

92. The 30 day impoundment of Plaintiffs’ vehicles because, according to

24 defendants, §14602.6 applies to vehicles who’s drivers hold an expired California

25 license or an expired license from another jurisdiction, or where the driver only

26 holds a valid driver’s license from another jurisdiction and defendants claim the
driver is suppose to have a valid California license, violated the express terms of 27
§14602.6. The 30 day impoundment thus also violates the Takings Clause of the 28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

26
-31-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 32 of 43 Page ID #:1817

1 Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I, § 19 of the California

2 Constitution, and constituted an inverse condemnation under California law.

3

93. The acts alleged herein were the product of a policy or custom of the

4 Defendants, which policy or custom caused the constitutional violation alleged

5 herein.

6

94. The acts alleged herein occurred under color of state law.

7

95. The conduct alleged herein deprived Plaintiffs and the classes they

8 represent, via threats, intimidation and/or coercion, of the protections afforded by

9 provisions of federal constitutional and state constitutional and statutory law,
10 including but not limited to rights protected under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
11 Amendments to the United States Constitution; and Article I, §19 of the California
12 Constitution. Therefore, Plaintiffs and the class members they represent are entitled 13 to bring suit and obtain equitable relief and damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code
§52.1(b). 14
96. As to the state law aspect of this claim, the entities are liable for the 15
actions of their employees pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior. 16
97. The aforementioned acts of Defendants directly and proximately caused 17
the Plaintiffs to be deprived of their rights as stated above, thereby entitling 18
Plaintiffs to injunctive and declaratory relief and restitution of losses to property 19
and/or damages proximately caused by Defendants’ wrongful acts, including but not 20 limited to, 1) payment of unlawful impound fees and administrative fees, 2) loss of 21 their vehicles through sale by Defendants by virtue of their inability to pay the
22 unlawful impound fees, and 3) interest on said payments or losses.
23

24

25

26

27

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

27
-32-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 33 of 43 Page ID #:1818

1

COUNT THREE

2

Against All Defendants for Violation of Procedural Due Process For

3

Misleading Hearing Notices and Inadequacy of Hearing Officers, Standards and Procedures

4

(42 U.S.C. §1983/Cal. Civil Code §52.1)

5

98. By this reference, Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previous and

6 following paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

7

99. Pursuant to Cal. Veh. Code § 14602.6(b), the registered and legal owners

8 of a vehicle that is seized/stored and then impounded for 30 days pursuant to Cal.

9 Veh. Code §14602.6(a), shall be provided the opportunity for a “storage hearing” to

10 determine the validity of, or to consider any "mitigating circumstances" attendant to

11 the “storage,” in accordance with Vehicle Code §22852.

12

100. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that, when

13 informing owners of their right to a “storage hearing,” Defendants and the

14 Defendant Classes represent to the owners of seized/impounded vehicles that the

15 only matters that they will consider at “storage hearings” is whether there was legal

16 justification for the officer to “legally remove” the vehicle; defendants will NOT

17 consider whether justification for a 30 day impound exist. However, the statute

18 requires that “mitigating circumstances” be considered. Accordingly, such limited

19 representations constitute a misleading statement to class members.

20

101. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that it is the

21 custom, policy, and practice of most if not all members of the Defendant Class not

22 to consider “mitigating circumstances” at “storage hearings.”

23

102. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that it is the

24 custom, policy and practice of those members of the Defendant Class who do

25 consider "mitigating circumstances" at “storage hearings” to have no standards or

26 guidelines and/or inadequate standards or guidelines for determining what
constitutes “mitigating circumstances.” Plaintiffs are informed and believe that 27
Defendants’ interpretations of what constitutes “mitigating circumstances” are so 28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

28
-33-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 34 of 43 Page ID #:1819

1 varied and arbitrary that there is no clear guidance as to what constitutes “mitigating

2 circumstances.”

3

103. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code §22852(c) the “hearing officer” at

4 a “storage hearing” may be an employee of the law enforcement agency that

5 authorized the seizure. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that

6 Defendants utilize employees of the seizing agency as “hearing officers”, including

7 employees who are closely connected associates of the seizing officer. Plaintiffs are

8 informed and believe that the “hearing officers”, because they are employees of the

9 seizing agency as “hearing officers”, including employees who are closely

10 connected associates of the seizing officer, are not impartial.

11

104. Defendants’ wrongful customs, practices and policies caused Plaintiffs

12 and the class members they represent not to request “storage hearings,” and/or not

13 to present potentially valid claims for the return of Plaintiffs’ vehicles, and/or for
Defendants to reject Plaintiffs’ valid claims for the return of Plaintiffs’ vehicles. 14
The conduct of 1) misleading class members regarding the issues that may be raised 15
at a “storage hearing”, 2) failing to consider mitigating circumstances at a “storage 16
hearing”, 3) having no or no adequate guidelines or standards where mitigating 17
circumstances are considered at a “storage hearing”, and 4) using employees of, or 18
individuals closely associated with, the seizing and impounding entity each 19
constitutes violations of due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth
20 Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, §7 of the California

21 Constitution.

22

105. The conduct alleged herein deprived Plaintiffs and the classes they

23 represent, via threats, intimidation and/or coercion, of the protections afforded by

24 provisions of federal constitutional and state constitutional and statutory law,

25 including but not limited to rights protected under the Fifth, and Fourteenth

26 Amendments to the United States Constitution; and Article I, §7 of the California

27 Constitution. Therefore, Plaintiffs and the class members they represent are entitled

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

29
-34-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 35 of 43 Page ID #:1820

1 to bring suit and obtain equitable relief and damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code

2 §52.1(b).

3

106. As to the state law aspect of this claim, the entities are liable for the

4 actions of their employees pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.

5

107. The aforementioned acts of Defendants directly and proximately

6 caused the Plaintiffs and the class they represent to be deprived of their rights as

7 stated above, thereby entitling Plaintiffs and the class they represent to injunctive

8 and declaratory relief and restitution of losses to property and/or damages

9 proximately caused by Defendants’ wrongful acts including, but not limited to, 1)

10 payment of unlawful impound fees and administrative fees, 2) loss of their vehicles

11 through sale by Defendants by virtue of their inability to pay the unlawful impound

12 and/or administrative fees, and 3) interest on said payments or losses.

13

COUNT FOUR Against All Defendants for Violation of Procedural Due Process For Seizing

14

Vehicles to Punish Owners for Violation of California Criminal Statutes

15

(42 U.S.C. §1983/Cal. Civil Code §52.1)

108. By this reference, Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previous and 16

following paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 17

109. Defendants’ 30 day impound of Plaintiffs’ vehicles for the purpose of 18
punishing Plaintiffs for alleged violations of California’s criminal laws, whether the 19
violation was supposedly committed by Plaintiffs (Cal. Veh. Code §14604) or the

20 vehicles’ drivers (Cal. Veh. Code §12500) violates Plaintiffs’ Due Process

21 protections, under both state and federal constitutions, for the following reasons:

22

A. California lawmakers have not authorized defendants to punish

23

Plaintiffs by impounding their vehicles for 30 days for alleged violations of

24

California’s criminal statutes.

25

B. Plaintiffs are entitled to a pre-impoundment hearing, at least to the

26

extent that the impoundment is based on the contention that the impoundment

27

is punishment for violation of criminal law, or constitutes a penalty.

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

30
-35-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 36 of 43 Page ID #:1821

1

C. Plaintiffs were not provided any and/or adequate notice that they

2

were subject to a 30 day impoundment of their vehicles under §14602.6 as

3

punishment for Plaintiffs’ violation of criminal statutes.

4

D. Defendants did not provide any and/or adequate notice to Plaintiffs

5

that Defendants impounded Plaintiffs’ vehicles for 30 days for the purpose of

6

punishing Plaintiffs for the violation of criminal statutes.

7

E. Defendants did not provide any and/or adequate notice to Plaintiffs

8

of what criminal statutes Plaintiffs were accused of violating.

9

F. Defendants wrongly presumed Plaintiffs were guilty of violating

10

California’s criminal statutes.

11

G. Defendants failed to inform and/or wrongly informed Plaintiffs that

12

Defendants presumed Plaintiffs guilty of violating California’s criminal

statutes. 13

H. Defendants’ wrongly placed on Plaintiffs the burden of proving 14

Plaintiffs were not guilty of violating California’s criminal statutes. 15
I. Defendants punished Plaintiffs for a violation of California’s 16
criminal statutes by impounding Plaintiffs’ vehicles for 30 days without 17
providing Plaintiffs an opportunity to be heard before imposing punishment.

18 J. Defendants did not provide any and/or adequate notice to Plaintiffs

19

that Plaintiffs were entitled to a hearing to contest defendants’ punishing

20

Plaintiffs for the violation of criminal statutes.

21

K. Defendants did not provide any and/or adequate notice to Plaintiffs

22

of what defendants considered to be “mitigating circumstances.”

23

L. “Mitigating circumstances” are nowhere defined.

24

25

26

27

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

31
-36-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 37 of 43 Page ID #:1822

1

COUNT FIVE

2 Against All Defendants for Failure to Comply with Vehicle Code §22850.5(2)

and With Due Process Of Law

3

42 U.S.C. §1983/Cal. Civil Code §52.1)

4

110. By this reference, Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previous and

5 following paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

6

111. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that it is the

7 custom, policy and practice of the Defendant Class, or some of its members, to

8 impose a fee on vehicles seized and impounded pursuant to Vehicle Code §14602.6

9 in excess of the administrative costs associated with the seizure and impound.

10

112. The imposition of a fee separate from the impound fee that exceeds the

11 administrative costs is expressly prohibited by Vehicle Code §22850.5(a) and,

12 therefore, is unlawful under California law. (It therefore also constitutes a violation

13 of due process of law.)

14

113. Because the initial or continuing seizure of Plaintiffs’ vehicles

15 occurred via threats, intimidation and/or coercion, and Defendants have the power

16 to prevent Plaintiffs from recouping their property, thus continuing the seizure via
17 coercion, the conduct alleged herein deprived Plaintiffs and the class they represent,
18 via threats, intimidation and/or coercion, of the protections afforded by provisions
19 of federal constitutional and state constitutional and statutory law, including but not
20 limited to rights protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, §7 of the California Constitution, and
21 Vehicle Code § 14602.6. Therefore, Plaintiffs and the class members they represent
22 are entitled to bring suit and obtain equitable relief and damages pursuant to Cal.
23 Civ. Code §52.1(b).
24 114. As to the state law aspect of this claim, the entities are liable for the
25 actions of their employees pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.
26 115. The aforementioned acts of Defendants proximately caused Plaintiffs
27 to be deprived of their rights as stated above, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to 28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

32
-37-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 38 of 43 Page ID #:1823

1 injunctive and declaratory relief and restitution of losses to property and/or damages

2 proximately caused by Defendants’ wrongful acts, including but not limited to, 1)

3 payment of unlawful impound fees and administrative fees, 2) loss of their vehicles

4 through sale by Defendants by virtue of their inability to pay the unlawful impound

5 fees, and 3) interest on said payments or losses.

6

APPROPRIATENESS OF EQUITABLE RELIEF

7

116. Plaintiffs do not have an adequate remedy at law for the injuries

8 alleged herein. The continuing enforcement of §14602.6 as outlined herein violates

9 Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and causes continuing, sweeping and irreparable

10 harm to Plaintiffs by the constant threat to their property, and their livelihood, from

11 the policies and practices challenged in this complaint.

12

117. Plaintiffs are also entitled to declaratory relief with respect to the

constitutionality of the provisions of §14602.6, and an injunction preventing the 13

enforcement of those aspects determined to be unconstitutional. Such relief is 14

necessary in that an actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiffs, 15
who contend that §14602.6 is unconstitutional, and Defendants, who deny such 16
contention and enforce its provisions. Without such a declaration and injunction, 17
Plaintiffs will face the ongoing threat of its enforcement.

18 118. Injunctive relief does not raise any mootness issues where: A)

19 Plaintiffs presently have standing because their cars are still impounded, and B) the

20 harm alleged may be revisited on the class where it is capable of repetition, yet

21 evading review due to the transitory nature of Plaintiffs’ claims. County of Riverside

22 v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 51-52 (1991).

23

119. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief under both federal and state law.

24

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

25 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this court grant the
26 following relief:
27

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

33
-38-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 39 of 43 Page ID #:1824

1

1. That the Court certify this case pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) as a class

2 action on behalf of a class of Plaintiffs composed of persons who have had, or are

3 subject to having in the future, cars seized and impounded pursuant to the authority

4 of §14602.6 on the ground that they did not have a valid California driver’s license,

5 as set forth in ¶49.

6

2. That this court certify a Defendant Class pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)

7 as a class action composed of all local governmental entities, or, in the case of the

8 State, governmental officials, that have the authority to enforce §14602.6, to wit,

9 each political subdivision within the State of California, including any state or

10 municipal agency, or any other political subdivision or governmental

11 instrumentality in the State of California.

12

3. That the court certify this case pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as a class

13 action on behalf of a class of Plaintiffs composed of all persons in the State of
California who have had, or will have had up through the judgment in this case, 14
cars seized and impounded by the CHP pursuant to the authority of § 14602.6 on 15
the ground that they did not have a valid California driver’s license, including at 16
least those set forth in ¶53, supra. 17
4. That the court certify this case pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as a class 18
action on behalf of a class of Plaintiffs composed of persons who have had, or will 19
have had up through the judgment in this case, cars seized and impounded by the
20 City of Los Angeles pursuant to the authority of §14602.6 on the ground that they

21 did not have a valid California driver’s license, as set forth in ¶51, supra.

22

5. That the court certify this case pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as a class

23 action on behalf of persons who have had, or will have had up through the

24 judgment in this case, cars seized and impounded by the City of Signal Hill

25 pursuant to the authority of §14602.6 on the ground that they did not have a valid

26 driver’s license, including at least those set forth in ¶55, supra.

27

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

34
-39-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 40 of 43 Page ID #:1825

1

6. That the Court issue a declaration that §14602.6, in the respects set forth

2 herein, is unconstitutional on its face and of no force or effect. Specifically, that this

3 court declare that §14602.6 is facially unconstitutional (a) to the extent that it

4 permits or authorizes the seizure and impoundment of a vehicle on the ground that

5 the person driving the vehicle does not have a valid California driver’s license

6 where the criteria of the community caretaking doctrine are not met, (b) to the

7 extent that it mandates or allows a vehicle to be held longer than the time for a

8 person with a valid driver’s license to pick up the vehicle with the owner’s consent

9 and, specifically, that its 30 day impoundment provision is unconstitutional, and (c)

10 to the extent that it fails to require adequate notice that “mitigating circumstances”

11 may be used at a storage hearing, to establish clear standards regarding what

12 constitutes “mitigating circumstances”, and to authorize use of members of the

13 seizing agency as hearing officers at a storage hearing.

7. That the Court issue a declaration that §14602.6, in the respects set forth 14

herein, is unconstitutional on its face and of no force or effect. Specifically, that this 15

court declare that §14602.6 is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it permits 16
or authorizes the 30 day impoundment of a vehicle for the purpose of punishing the 17
owner for alleged violations of California’s criminal laws violates Plaintiffs’ Due

18 Process protections, under both state and federal constitutions, for the reasons state

19 above.

20

8. That the Court issue a declaration that §14602.6, in the respects set forth

21 herein, is unconstitutional as applied. Specifically, that this court declare that it is an

22 unconstitutional application of §14602.6, (a) to seize or impound a vehicle on the

23 ground that the person driving the vehicle does not have a valid California driver’s

24 even though the driver has a valid license from another jurisdiction; (b) to impound

25 the vehicle for 30 days because the driver held an expired license whether from

26 California or another jurisdiction; (c) to impound the vehicle for 30 days under the

27 authority of § 14602.6 even though the owner is lawfully able to take custody of his

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

35
-40-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 41 of 43 Page ID #:1826

1 vehicle and pay the attendant storage fees; and (d) to fail to give adequate notice

2 that (i) Plaintiffs have a right to contest the validity of the 30 day impoundment as

3 distinguished from the decision to seize and store the vehicle, (ii) the 30 day

4 impoundment is for the purpose of punishing Plaintiffs for allegedly having

5 committed one or more crimes, including notice of the specific crime(s) for which

6 Plaintiffs stand accused, and (iii) what constitutes “mitigating circumstances” under

7 §14602.6.

8

9. That the Court issue a declaration that §14602.6, in the respects set forth

9 herein, is unconstitutional as applied. Specifically, that this court declare that

10 §14602.6 is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it permits or authorizes the

11 seizure and 30 day impoundment of a vehicle in order to punish the owner for

12 alleged violations of California’s criminal laws, violates Plaintiffs’ Due Process

13 protections, under both state and federal constitutions, for the reasons stated above.
10. That, after hearing, this Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order and a 14
Preliminary Injunction against Defendants enjoining them from implementing and 15
enforcing the sections of §14602.6 challenged herein, or in the manner challenged 16
herein, and from engaging in the unlawful conduct described herein, as elaborated 17
in the preceding paragraphs of this Request for Relief, and ordering the return of 18
any vehicle seized under §1402.6 to the registered owner. 19
11. That this Court issue a Judgment permanently and forever enjoining
20 Defendants from implementing and enforcing the sections of §14602.6 challenged

21 herein, and from engaging in the unlawful conduct described herein, as elaborated

22 in the preceding paragraphs of this Request for Relief.

23

12. That this Court order equitable relief in the form of restitution to the

24 Plaintiff Class or alternatively a monetary award in the form of damages.

25

13. That this Court award Plaintiffs, on their individual claims only,

26 individually determined compensatory and statutory damages, according to proof;

27

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

36
-41-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 42 of 43 Page ID #:1827

1

14. That this Court award Plaintiffs, on their individual claims only and as

2 against individual Defendants only, punitive damages according to proof;

3

15. That this Court award attorneys fees and costs incurred in this action

4 under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, California CCP §1021.5, California Civil Code §52.1, and

5 any other appropriate statute.

6

16. That this Court grant such other and further relief as may be just and

7 proper.

8 DATED: October 17, 2011

9

LITT, ESTUAR & KITSON, LLP

10

ROBERT MANN & DONALD W. COOK

LAW OFFICES OF CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER

11

12

13

14

By____________________________

Donald W. Cook

15

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

37
-42-

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:08-cv-03178-SJO-VBK Document 95 Filed 10/17/11 Page 43 of 43 Page ID #:1828

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.

3

4 DATED: October 17, 2011

5

LITT, ESTUAR & KITSON, LLP

6

ROBERT MANN & DONALD W. COOK LAW OFFICES OF CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER

7

8

9

10

By____________________________ Donald W. Cook

11

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12

13

14 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

38
-43-

EXHIBIT A

 
 1

2

3

JS-6

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 ARMANDO MIRANDA, ERIC

) Case No.: CV 08-03178 SJO (VBKx)

8 FLORES, and JULIA GIRON, individuals,
9

) ) JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF ) DEFENDANTS CITY OF LOS ) ANGELES, DALE E. BONNER, J.A.

10

Plaintiffs,

) FARROW, and SUNNE WRIGHT

) MCPEAK

11

vs.

)

)

12 13 14

CITY OF LOS ANGELES; DALE E. BONNER, J.A. FARROW, and SUNNE WRIGHT MCPEAK, in their individual and official capacities,

) ) ) ) )

15

Defendants.

) )

16

) )

17

)

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

1

The Court having considered and granted Defendant City of Los Angeles’s

2 Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J.A. Farrow, and Sunne

3 Wright McPeak’s Motion for Summary Judgment, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

4 ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

5

1. Judgment in the above-captioned matter be, and hereby is, entered in favor

6 of Defendant City of Los Angeles and against Plaintiffs Armando Miranda and Julia

7 Giron. Plaintiffs Armando Miranda and Julia Giron shall take nothing on their Third

8 Amended Complaint.

9

2. Judgment in the above-captioned matter be, and hereby is, entered in favor

10 of Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J.A. Farrow, and Sunne Wright McPeak and against
11 Plaintiff Eric Flores. Plaintiff Eric Flores shall take nothing on his Third Amended
12 Complaint.
13 IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
14

15

16

3/4/13

17 DATED: _____________

18

19

______________________ S. JAMES OTERO

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 
 Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 1 of 23
(VBKx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,RELATED−G
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:08−cv−03178−SJO−VBK

Armando Miranda et al v. Dale E. Bonner et al Assigned to: Judge S. James Otero Referred to: Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton Related Case: 2:07−cv−01854−SJO−VBK Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Armando Miranda individually and as class representatives

Date Filed: 05/14/2008 Date Terminated: 03/04/2013 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Barrett S Litt Kaye McLane Bednarski and Litt 234 East Colorado Boulevard Suite 230 Pasadena, CA 91101 626−844−7660 Fax: 626−844−7670 Email: blitt@kmbllaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cynthia M Anderson−Barker Cynthia M Anderson−Barker Law Offices 3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−381−3246 Fax: 213−252−0091 Email: cablaw@hotmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald Webster Cook Law Firm of Mann and Cook ATTORNEY HAS NOT CONSENTED TO ELECTRONIC SERVICE 3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−252−9444 Fax: 213−252−0091 Email: manncook@earthlink.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Frederick Mann Mann and Cook 3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−252−9444 Fax: 213−252−0091 Email: manncook@earthlink.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul J Estuar Litt Estuar and Kitson LLP 1055 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−386−3114 Fax: 213−380−4585 TERMINATED: 03/06/2014

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 2 of 23

Plaintiff Eric Flores individually and as class representatives
Plaintiff Jorge Heredia TERMINATED: 09/14/2012

represented by Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia M Anderson−Barker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald Webster Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Estuar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald Webster Cook (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/14/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/14/2012
Paul J Estuar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/14/2012
Robert Frederick Mann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/14/2012

V.
Defendant
Dale E. Bonner individually

represented by Sandra Isabel Barrientos CAAG − Office of Attorney General of California 300 S Spring St, Ste 5000 Los Angeles, CA 90013−1230 213−897−2150 Fax: 213 897 2810 Email: sandra.barrientos@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore B Zinger CAAG − Office of Attorney General of California

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 3 of 23

300 S Spring Street Ste 1702 Los Angeles, CA 90013−1230 213−897−2000 TERMINATED: 01/28/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dale E. Bonner and in their official capacities

represented by Donna M Dean CAAG − Office of Attorney General 300 South Spring St Los Angeles, CA 90013−1230 213−897−9447 Fax: 213−897−2810 Email: donna.dean@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sandra Isabel Barrientos (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
J. A. Farrow individually

represented by Sandra Isabel Barrientos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theodore B Zinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donna M Dean (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
J. A. Farrow and in their official capacities

represented by Sandra Isabel Barrientos (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Sunne Wright McPeak individually

represented by Sandra Isabel Barrientos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theodore B Zinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2009

Defendant
Sunne Wright McPeak and in their official capacities

represented by Donna M Dean (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sandra Isabel Barrientos (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 4 of 23

Theodore B Zinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2009

Defendant City of Los Angeles

represented by Todd T Leung Office of the City Attorney 200 North Main St, Room 900 Los Angeles, CA 90012−4131 213−473−6875 Email: todd.leung@lacity.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Does 1 through 10, all on their own behalf and as representative of a class of Defendants

Defendant
Dale S. Bonner TERMINATED: 07/14/2008

represented by Theodore B Zinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2009

Defendant Los Angeles Police Department

Defendant
City of Signal Hill TERMINATED: 09/14/2012

represented by Glen E Tucker Aleshire and Wynder LLP 2361 Rosecrans Avenue Suite 475 El Segundo, CA 90245 310−527−6660 Fax: 310−532−7395 Email: glenetucker@yahoo.com TERMINATED: 09/14/2012

Grace Midori Fujita Aleshire and Wynder LLP 18881 Von Karman Avenue Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 949−233−1170 Fax: 949−223−1180 TERMINATED: 09/14/2012

Lucy Ann Manfre Aleshire and Wynder LLP 18881 Von Karman Avenue Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 949−250−5403 TERMINATED: 09/14/2012

Defendant
Signal Hill Police Department TERMINATED: 09/14/2012

represented by Glen E Tucker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/14/2012

Lucy Ann Manfre (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/14/2012

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 5 of 23

Date Filed 05/14/2008
05/14/2008
05/14/2008 05/14/2008 05/14/2008 05/14/2008 06/06/2008 06/06/2008
06/09/2008
06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/12/2008 07/02/2008
07/02/2008
07/02/2008

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Defendants Dale E. Bonner(individually), Dale E. Bonner(and in their official capacities), J. A. Farrow(individually), J. A. Farrow(and in their official capacities), Sunne Wright McPeak(individually), Sunne Wright McPeak(and in their official capacities), City of Los Angeles, Does 1 through 10.(Filing fee $ 350 PAID.) Jury Demanded., filed by plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Eric Flores.(ghap) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/19/2008 (ds, ). (Entered: 05/16/2008)
20 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 as to Defendants Dale E. Bonner(individually), Dale E. Bonner(and in their official capacities), J. A. Farrow(individually), J. A. Farrow(and in their official capacities), Sunne Wright McPeak(individually), Sunne Wright McPeak(and in their official capacities), City of Los Angeles, Does 1 through 10. (ghap) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
2 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Eric Flores. (ghap) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/19/2008 (ds, ). (Entered: 05/16/2008)
FAX number for Attorneys Paul J Estuar, Barrett S Litt is 213−380−4585. (ghap) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
FAX number for Attorneys Donald W Cook, Robert Frederick Mann is 213−252−0091. (ghap) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
FAX number for Attorney Cynthia M Anderson−Barker is 213−381−3246. (ghap) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
3 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File response filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner(individually), J. A. Farrow(individually), Sunne Wright McPeak(individually).(Zinger, Theodore) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
4 FIRST STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Dale S. Bonner answer now due 7/10/2008; J. A. Farrow(individually) answer now due 7/10/2008; Sunne Wright McPeak(individually) answer now due 7/10/2008, filed by Defendants Dale S. Bonner; J. A. Farrow(individually); Sunne Wright McPeak(individually).(Zinger, Theodore) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
5 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08−05 −Related Case− filed. Related Case No: CV07−1854 SJO (VBKx). Case transfered from Judge George P. Schiavelli and Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh to Judge S. James Otero and Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge CV08−3178 SJO (VBKx).Signed by Judge S. James Otero (at) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
6 FIRST STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to City of Los Angeles answer now due 7/10/2008, filed by defendant City of Los Angeles.(Leung, Todd) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
7 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by defendant City of Los Angeles. Related Case(s): CV07−1854 (Leung, Todd) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
8 INITIAL STANDING ORDER for cases assigned to Judge S. James Otero, (bp) (Entered: 06/12/2008)
9 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Eric Flores, upon Dale E. Bonner(individually) served on 5/21/2008, answer due 6/10/2008. Answer due 7/10/08 by Stipulation. The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal service, by Federal statute, upon Kathryn, Executive Assistant. Due Dilligence declaration no. Original Summons not returned. (Estuar, Paul) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Eric Flores, upon J. A. Farrow(individually) served on 5/21/2008, answer due 7/10/2008. by Stipulation The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal service, by Federal statute, upon Debra Dias, Assoc. Gvt. Programming Analyst. Due Dilligence declaration none. Original Summons not. (Estuar, Paul) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Eric Flores, upon City of Los Angeles served on 5/21/2008, answer due 7/10/2008. by Stipulation. The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal service, by Federal statute, upon

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 6 of 23

07/02/2008 07/09/2008 07/14/2008 07/14/2008 07/14/2008 07/14/2008
07/14/2008
07/14/2008 07/15/2008
07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/15/2008

Receptionist. Due Dilligence declaration no. Original Summons no. (Estuar, Paul) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
12 Summons Returned Unexecuted filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Eric Flores. as to Sunne Wright McPeak(individually), Sunne Wright McPeak(and in their official capacities). (Estuar, Paul) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
13 Second STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to 07/24/2008 re Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by defendant City of Los Angeles.(Leung, Todd) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
14 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class for Injunctive Purposes filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Eric Flores. Motion set for hearing on 8/4/2008 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order for Injunctive Class)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
15 DECLARATION of Robert Mann In Support Of MOTION to Certify Class for Injunctive Purposes 14 filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Eric Flores. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
16 DECLARATION of Barrett Litt In Support Of MOTION to Certify Class for Injunctive Purposes 14 filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Eric Flores. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
17 DECLARATION of Paul Estuar In Support Of MOTION to Certify Class for Injunctive Purposes 14 filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Eric Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 01, # 2 Exhibit 02, # 3 Exhibit 001, # 4 Exhibit 002, # 5 Exhibit 133, # 6 Exhibit 140, # 7 Exhibit 141, # 8 Exhibit 142, # 9 Exhibit 143, # 10 Exhibit 148, # 11 Exhibit 149, # 12 Exhibit 150, # 13 Exhibit 153, # 14 Exhibit 154, # 15 Exhibit 155, # 16 Exhibit 159, # 17 Exhibit 167, # 18 Exhibit 168, # 19 Exhibit 178, # 20 Exhibit 179, # 21 Exhibit 190, # 22 Exhibit 316, # 23 Exhibit 317, # 24 Exhibit 318)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
18 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants' Los Angeles Police Department, City of Signal Hill, Signal Hill Police Department, Dale E. Bonner(individually), Dale E. Bonner(and in their official capacities), J. A. Farrow(individually), J. A. Farrow(and in their official capacities), Sunne Wright McPeak(individually), Sunne Wright McPeak(and in their official capacities), City of Los Angeles, Does; Party Dale S. Bonner terminated amending Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 ,filed by plaintiffs' Jorge Heredia, Armando Miranda, Eric Flores (bp) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
19 AMENDED NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIES filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores. Amendment to Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties 2 (bp) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
20 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Case number is incorrect or missing. RE: Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (20 days) 11 , Summons Returned Unexecuted 12 , Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (20 days) 9 , Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (20 days) 10 . 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. (csi) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
21 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Shorten Time for Hearing to 8/04/2008 filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration re Ex Parte Application, # 2 Proposed Order Re Ex Parte Application)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
22 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Release of Vehicle Seized under § 14602.6(a) Plaintiff Jorge Heredias Application for Temporary Restraining Order Or, in the Alternative, Order to Show Cause, filed by Plaintiff Jorge Heredia. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Temporary Restraining Order / Order to Show Cause)(Cook, Donald) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
23 MEMORANDUM in Support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Release of Vehicle Seized under § 14602.6(a) Plaintiff Jorge

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 7 of 23

07/15/2008
07/16/2008 07/16/2008
07/16/2008 07/16/2008 07/16/2008 07/16/2008 07/17/2008

Heredias Application for Temporary Restraining Order Or, in the Alternative, Order to Show Cause, EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Release of Vehicle Seized under § 14602.6(a) Plaintiff Jorge Heredias Application for Temporary Restraining Order Or, in the Alternative, Order to Show Cause, 22 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff Jorge Heredias Application for Temporary Restraining Order Or, in the Alternative, Order to Show Cause, filed by Plaintiff Jorge Heredia. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
24 DECLARATION of Jorge Heredia, Jose Luis Tirado, Maria Tirado, Dinorah Pinelo, and Donald W. Cook In Support Of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Release of Vehicle Seized under § 14602.6(a) Plaintiff Jorge Heredias Application for Temporary Restraining Order Or, in the Alternative, Order to Show Cause, EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Release of Vehicle Seized under § 14602.6(a) Plaintiff Jorge Heredias Application for Temporary Restraining Order Or, in the Alternative, Order to Show Cause, 22 Declarations of Jorge Heredia, Jose Luis Tirado, Maria Tirado, Dinorah Pinelo, and Donald W. Cook, in Support of Application for Temporary Restraining Order, filed by Plaintiff Jorge Heredia. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
25 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores, upon City of Signal Hill served on 7/16/2008, answer due 8/5/2008; Signal Hill Police Department served on 7/16/2008, answer due 8/5/2008. The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal Service service, by F.R.Cv.Proc. 4(c)(2) statute, upon Deputy Clerk Rebecca Burlenson, authorized to accept service. Due Dilligence declaration Not Required. Original Summons Not Returned. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
26 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores, re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Release of Vehicle Seized under § 14602.6(a) Plaintiff Jorge Heredias Application for Temporary Restraining Order Or, in the Alternative, Order to Show Cause, EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Release of Vehicle Seized under § 14602.6(a) Plaintiff Jorge Heredias Application for Temporary Restraining Order Or, in the Alternative, Order to Show Cause, 22 , Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 23 , Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related) 24 Proof of Service of Plaintiff Jorge Heredias Application for Tro, Etc., served on 7/16/2008. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
27 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores, re MOTION to Certify Class for Injunctive Purposes 14 Proof of Service of Notice and Motion for Class Certification re Service on Signal Hill Defendants, served on 7/16/2008. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
28 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearing on Motion for Class Certification from 8/4/2008 to 9/15/2008 filed by defendant City of Los Angeles.(Leung, Todd) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
29 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearing on Motion for Class Certification from 8/4/2008 to 9/15/2008 28 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Leung, Todd) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
30 ORDER Granting Plaintiff Jorge Heredia's "Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order or, in the Alternative, Order to Show Cause" 22 by Judge S. James Otero. Because Heredia is likely to succeed and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor, Heredia's Application is GRANTED. Signal Hill and the Signal Hill Police Department are ORDERED to release Heredia's car to him or an authorized and licensed representative without requiring payment. Heredia must popst a $900 security bond. See order for further details. (csi) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
31 ORDER Granting Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Continue the Hearing Date on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 28 by Judge S. James Otero. Defendants' application is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification set for hearing on 8/4/08 is continued to 9/2/08 at 10:00 am. The briefing schedule is modified to reflect the new hearing date. (csi) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 8 of 23

07/17/2008
07/24/2008 07/24/2008
07/25/2008 07/25/2008 07/25/2008 07/28/2008
08/04/2008 08/05/2008 08/05/2008
08/11/2008 08/12/2008 08/12/2008 08/13/2008

32 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME AND FOR WAIVER OF LOCAL RULE 7−3 REQUIREMENT by Judge S. James Otero, re EX PARTE APPLICATION to Shorten Time for Hearing to 8/04/2008 21 (bp) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
33 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case ( Motion set for hearing on 8/18/2008 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero.), MOTION to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint Amended Complaint,, 18 filed by defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Leung, Todd) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
34 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Dismiss Case MOTION to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint Amended Complaint,, 18 MOTION to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint Amended Complaint,, 18 33 filed by defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(Leung, Todd) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
35 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,, 18 JURY DEMAND. Answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial filed by defendants Dale E. Bonner(individually), J. A. Farrow(individually), Sunne Wright McPeak(and in their official capacities).(Zinger, Theodore) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
36 Certificate of Interested Parties filed by defendants Dale E. Bonner(individually), J. A. Farrow(individually), Sunne Wright McPeak(individually), identifying all parties to the lawsuit. (Zinger, Theodore) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
37 STIPULATION for Discovery as to Early deposition of Plaintiffs filed by defendant City of Los Angeles.(Leung, Todd) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
38 ORDER Setting Scheduling Conference by Judge S. James Otero. Counsel are hereby notified that a Scheduling Conference has been set for Monday, 8/25/08 at 8:30 a.m. before District Judge S. James Otero in Courtroom 880, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. Counsel are directed to file a Joint Rule 26(f) Report on or before 8/11/08. (csi) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
39 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Case MOTION to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint Amended Complaint,, 18 MOTION to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint Amended Complaint,, 18 33 filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores. (Estuar, Paul) (Entered: 08/04/2008)
40 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,, 18 DEFENDANT CITY OF SIGNAL HILL'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL filed by DEFENDANT City of Signal Hill.(Tucker, Glen) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
41 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by DEFENDANT City of Signal Hill, identifying Plaintiff Armando Miranda; Plaintiff Eric Flores; Plaintiff Jorge Heredia; Defendant Dale E. Bonner; Defendant J.A. Farrow; Defendant Sunne Wright McPeak; Defendant City of Los Angeles; Defendant City of Signal Hill, also erroneously names as Signal Hill Police. (Tucker, Glen) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
42 REPLY MOTION to Dismiss Case MOTION to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint Amended Complaint,, 18 MOTION to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint Amended Complaint,, 18 33 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Leung, Todd) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
43 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
44 STIPULATION to Reschedule Hearing date and briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Leung, Todd) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
45 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge S. James Otero: Plaintiff must file a Sur−Reply regarding standing to pursue injunctive relief on or before 8/15/08. This brief is limited to argument and evidence that an injunction would benefit Plaintiffs and must not exceed four pages in length. (bp) (Entered: 08/13/2008)

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 9 of 23

08/13/2008 08/14/2008 08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/15/2008
08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/22/2008
08/25/2008

46 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is continued to September 29, 2008, and the briefing schedule on the motion is continued as follows: Oppositions due by September 8, 2008; Reply due by September 22, 2008 by Judge S. James Otero (bp) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
47 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge S. James Otero: The parties are advised that MOTION to Dismiss Case MOTION to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint Amended Complaint, 18 filed 7/24/08, scheduled for hearing on 8/18/08, is taken under submission. Accordingly, the hearing date is vacated. Order will issue. (bp) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
48 OPPOSITION Sur−Reply Requested by the Court filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
49 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores. Motion set for hearing on 9/29/2008 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
50 DECLARATION of Barrett S. Litt In Support Of MOTION to Certify Class 49 filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
51 DECLARATION of Robert Mann In Support Of MOTION to Certify Class 49 filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
52 DECLARATION of Donald Cook In Support Of MOTION to Certify Class 49 filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
53 DECLARATION of Paul J. Estuar In Support Of MOTION to Certify Class 49 filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to Estuar Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2 to Estuar Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 133 to Estuar Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 135 to Estuar Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 140 to Estuar Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 141 to Estuar Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 142 to Estuar Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 143 to Estuar Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 148 to Estuar Declaration, # 10 Exhibit 149 to Estuar Declaration, # 11 Exhibit 150 to Estuar Declaration, # 12 Exhibit 153 to Estuar Declaration, # 13 Exhibit 154 to Estuar Declaration, # 14 Exhibit 155 to Estuar Declaration, # 15 Exhibit 159 to Estuar Declaration, # 16 Exhibit 167 to Estuar Declaration, # 17 Exhibit 168 to Estuar Declaration, # 18 Exhibit 178 to Estuar Declaration, # 19 Exhibit 179 to Estuar Declaration, # 20 Exhibit 190 to Estuar Declaration, # 21 Exhibit 318 to Estuar Declaration)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
54 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Certify Class 49 Supplemental Declaration of Paul J. Estuar filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 25 to Supplemental Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 26 to Supplemental Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 27 to Supplemental Declaration)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
55 PROPOSED ORDER re MOTION to Certify Class 49 filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
56 ORDER by Judge S. James Otero re MOTION to Dismiss Case MOTION to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint Amended Complaint,, 18 MOTION to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint Amended Complaint,, 18 33 . the City's Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' claims based on the initial impoundment of cars driven by persons with non−Californialicenses are DISMISSED with prejudice. Miranda's procedural due process claim based on a failure to consider mitigating circumstances is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiffs must file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") conforming with this Order on or before August 29, 2008. Defendants must answer the SAC on or before September 15, 2008. (rrey) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
57 NOTICE of Change of Address by Glen E Tucker attorney for Defendant City of Signal Hill, changing address to ALESHIRE & WYNDER LLP, GLEN E. TUCKER, Bar No. 54709, glentucker@yahoo.com, GRACE M. FUJITA, Bar No. 236794, gfujita@awattorneys.com, 1515 W. 190th Sreet, Suite 565, Gardena, CA 90248,

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 10 of 23

08/25/2008 08/25/2008 08/25/2008 08/27/2008 08/29/2008
08/29/2008
09/04/2008
09/08/2008 09/10/2008 09/10/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008

Telephone: (310) 527−6660, Facsimile: (310) 532−7395. Filed by Defendant CITY OF SIGNAL HILL (erroneously reffered to seperately as SIGNALL HILL POLICE DEPARTMENT) (Tucker, Glen) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
58 proof of service OF SERVICE filed by Defendant City of Signal Hill, re Answer to Complaint 40 NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERIVCE OF DEFENDANT CITY OF SIGNAL HILL'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL served on August 4, 2008. (Tucker, Glen) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
59 NOTICE OF SERVICE filed by Defendant City of Signal Hill, re Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties, 41 NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE OF CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES served on August 25, 2008. (Tucker, Glen) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
60 CORRECTED NOTICE OF SERVICE filed by Defendant City of Signal Hill, re Proof of Service (subsequent documents), Proof of Service (subsequent documents) 58 NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANT CITY OF SIGNAL HILL'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL served on August 25, 2008. (Tucker, Glen) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
61 INITIAL DISCLOSURE of PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(a)(1) DEFENDANT CITY OF SIGNAL HILL'S INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(a)(1) filed by Defendant City of Signal Hill (Tucker, Glen) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
62 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants' Dale E. Bonner(individually), Dale E. Bonner(and in their official capacities), J. A. Farrow(individually), J. A. Farrow(and in their official capacities), Sunne Wright McPeak(individually), Sunne Wright McPeak(and in their official capacities), City of Los Angeles, Does, Los Angeles Police Department, City of Signal Hill, Signal Hill Police Department amending Amended Complaint,, 18 ,filed by plaintiffs' Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores (bp) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
63 20 DAY Summons Issued re Amended Complaint,, 62 as to defendants' Dale E. Bonner(individually), Dale E. Bonner(and in their official capacities), J. A. Farrow(individually), J. A. Farrow(and in their official capacities), Sunne Wright McPeak(individually), Sunne Wright McPeak(and in their official capacities), City of Los Angeles, Does, Los Angeles Police Department, City of Signal Hill, Signal Hill Police Department. (bp) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
64 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for ALLOWING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A SEPARATE REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO STATE DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by defendants Dale E. Bonner(individually), J. A. Farrow(individually), Sunne Wright McPeak(individually). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order PROPOSED ORDER ALLOWING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A SEPARATE REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO STATE DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.)(Zinger, Theodore) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
65 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Certify Class 49 , MOTION to Certify Class for Injunctive Purposes 14 filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J. A. Farrow, City of Los Angeles, City of Signal Hill. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Leung, Todd) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
66 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,, 62 filed by defendant City of Signal Hill.(Tucker, Glen) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
67 Certificate of Interested Parties of Interested Parties filed by Defendant City of Signal Hill, (Tucker, Glen) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
68 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,, 62 Answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and Demand For Jury Trial filed by defendants Dale E. Bonner(individually), J. A. Farrow(individually), Sunne Wright McPeak(individually).(Zinger, Theodore) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
69 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,, 62 filed by defendant City of Los Angeles.(Leung, Todd) (Entered: 09/15/2008)

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 11 of 23

09/22/2008 09/23/2008 09/25/2008 09/30/2008 11/24/2008 12/02/2008 12/08/2008 12/09/2008 12/10/2008 01/28/2009

70 REPLY Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
71 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge S. James Otero: The parties are advised that Plaintiff's MOTION for Class Certification filed 8/15/08 49 and Motion to Certify Class for injunctive purposes filed by plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Eric Flores filed 7/14/08 (14), scheduled for hearing on 9/29/08, are taken under submission. Accordingly, the hearing date is vacated. Order will issue. (bp) (Entered: 09/23/2008)
72 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge S. James Otero, Last Date to File a Motion or Stipulation to Amend or Add Parties 9/25/2008., Discovery cut−off 3/16/2009., Motion Hearing Cut−off 4/27/2009., Jury Trial set for 6/16/2009 09:00 AM., Pretrial Conference set for 6/8/2009 09:00 AM.Court Reporter: Margarita Lopez. (bp) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
73 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER Staying Plaintiff's Motions for Class Certification 14 49 held before Judge S. James Otero. For the reasons contained in this order, Plaintiffs' Motions are STAYED pending the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in Salazar v. Schwarzenegger, No. 07−01854. Plaintiffs are ordered to file a Notice of Ruling with the Court within 30 days of the Ninth Circuit's decision. (csi) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
74 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Joint MOTION to Stay Case pending resolution from the ninth circuit on Salazar v. Schwarzenegger, USDC case number CV07−01854SJO(VBKx) filed by defendant Dale E. Bonner(individually), J. A. Farrow(individually), Sunne Wright McPeak(and in their official capacities), City of Los Angeles, City of Signal Hill. Motion set for hearing on 12/15/2008 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Leung, Todd) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
75 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Joint MOTION to Stay Case pending resolution from the ninth circuit on Salazar v. Schwarzenegger, USDC case number CV07−01854SJO(VBKx)Joint MOTION to Stay Case pending resolution from the ninth circuit on Salazar v. Schwarzenegger, USDC case number CV07−01854SJO(VBKx) 74 Opposition filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, Jorge Heredia, Eric Flores. (Estuar, Paul) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
76 REPLY in support of Joint MOTION to Stay Case pending resolution from the ninth circuit on Salazar v. Schwarzenegger, USDC case number CV07−01854SJO(VBKx)Joint MOTION to Stay Case pending resolution from the ninth circuit on Salazar v. Schwarzenegger, USDC case number CV07−01854SJO(VBKx) 74 filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak, City of Los Angeles, City of Signal Hill. (Leung, Todd) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
77 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge S. James Otero: re: Joint MOTION to Stay Case pending resolution from the ninth circuit on Salazar v. Schwarzenegger, USDC case number CV07−01854SJO(VBKx)Joint MOTION to Stay Case pending resolution from the ninth circuit on Salazar v. Schwarzenegger, USDC case number CV07−01854SJO(VBKx) 74 filed 11/24/08, scheduled for hearing on 12/15/08, is taken under submission. Accordingly, the hearing date is vacated. Order will issue. (bp) (Entered: 12/09/2008)
78 ORDER by Judge S. James Otero, GRANTING Defendants' Joint MOTION to Stay entire action pending resolution from the ninth circuit on Salazar v Schwarzenegger, No.07−1854 74 . The Court hereby STAYS the entire action pending the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in Salazar v. Schwartzenegger, No.07−1854. Plaintiffs are ordered to file a notice of ruling with the Court within 30 days of the Ninth Circuit's decision. (bp) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
79 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Sandra Isabel Barrientos counsel for Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak. Theodore Zinger will no longer receive service of documents from the Clerks Office for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendants Dale Bonner, Sunne Wright McPeak, Joseph A. Farrow (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 01/28/2009)

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 12 of 23

08/27/2010 08/30/2010
03/08/2011 06/07/2011 07/18/2011 08/15/2011 08/15/2011 08/26/2011 09/14/2011 09/26/2011
09/26/2011
10/17/2011

80 NOTICE of CHANGE IN FIRM NAME filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Jorge Heredia, Armando Miranda. (Estuar, Paul) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
81 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice (Other) 80 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Notice: change of address (also includes change of firm name). In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 08/30/2010)
82 NOTICE of Change of address by Glen E Tucker attorney for Defendant City of Signal Hill. Changing attorneys address to 18881 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1700, Irvine CA 92612. Filed by Defendant City of Signal Hill. (Tucker, Glen) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
83 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge S. James Otero. The Court sets a Status Conference on July 18, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. (sch) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
84 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge S. James Otero:The Court Orders the Stay vacated. The Court sets a Status Conference on Monday, August 29, 2011 8:30 a.m.The parties shall file a joint status report by August 15, 2011. (lc) Modified on 7/21/2011 (lc). (Entered: 07/21/2011)
85 STATUS REPORT JOINTLY filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, City of Los Angeles, City of Signal Hill, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak, Plaintiff Armando Miranda. (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 08/15/2011)
86 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, City of Los Angeles, City of Signal Hill, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak, Plaintiff Armando Miranda. correcting Status Report 85 (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 08/15/2011)
87 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge S. James Otero. The Court continues the Status Conference to Monday, September 26, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. The parties shall file a joint report by September 14, 2011. (sch) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
88 STATUS REPORT JOINTLY filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, City of Los Angeles, City of Signal Hill, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak, Plaintiff Armando Miranda. (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 09/14/2011)
89 MINUTES: STATUS CONFERENCE: Matter is held for hearing. The Court advises counsel to determine the issues that are still remaining before the Court.Court and Counsel confer. The Court advises counsel to re−visit the issue of class certification. The Court advises counsel to re−define the class and submit a new definition. Plaintiff shall re−file a new motion for class certification due on or before October 17, 2011. The Opposition is due on or before November 7, 2011. The reply is due on or before November 14, 2011. The hearing for the motion is to be set for December 5, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. The Ex Parte Application for Order for Allowing Defendants to File a Separate Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to State Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 64 filed by defendants on 09/04/08 is GRANTED by Judge S. James Otero Court Reporter: Margarita Lopez. (ir) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
90 AMENDED MINUTES{89} RE STATUS CONFERENCE held before Judge S. James Otero: The Court advises counsel to determine the issues that are still remaining before the Court. Court and Counsel confer. The Court re−visits the issue of class certification. The Court STRIKES the following pending motions, Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification 14 and Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification − Damages class 49 . Plaintiff shall re−file a new motion for class certification due on or before October 17, 2011. The Opposition is due on or before November 7, 2011. The reply is due on or before November 14, 2011. The hearing for the motion is to be set for December 5, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. The Ex Parte Application for Order for Allowing Defendants to File a Separate Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to State Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 64 filed by defendants on 09/04/08 is GRANTED. (lc) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
91 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Jorge Heredia, Armando Miranda. Motion set for hearing on 12/5/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett)

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 13 of 23

10/17/2011 10/17/2011 10/17/2011
10/17/2011
10/18/2011
11/07/2011 11/07/2011 11/07/2011 11/08/2011
11/14/2011

(Entered: 10/17/2011)
92 DECLARATION of Barrett S. Litt In Support Of MOTION to Certify Class 91 filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Jorge Heredia, Armando Miranda. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Barry Litt CV)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
93 DECLARATION of Robert Mann In Support Of MOTION to Certify Class 91 filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Jorge Heredia, Armando Miranda. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
94 DECLARATION of Paul J. Estuar In Support Of MOTION to Certify Class 91 filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Jorge Heredia, Armando Miranda. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 25, # 4 Exhibit 26, # 5 Exhibit 27, # 6 Exhibit 28, # 7 Exhibit 29, # 8 Exhibit 30, # 9 Exhibit 133, # 10 Exhibit 140, # 11 Exhibit 141, # 12 Exhibit 142, # 13 Exhibit 143, # 14 Exhibit 148, # 15 Exhibit 149, # 16 Exhibit 150, # 17 Exhibit 153, # 18 Exhibit 154, # 19 Exhibit 155, # 20 Exhibit 159, # 21 Exhibit 167, # 22 Exhibit 168, # 23 Exhibit 178, # 24 Exhibit 179, # 25 Exhibit 190, # 26 Exhibit 318)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
95 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Leave to file Third Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief Plaintiffs Notice of Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Class Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Proposed Third Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Jorge Heredia, Armando Miranda. Motion set for hearing on 12/5/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Leave to File Third Amended Class Action Complaint)(Cook, Donald) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
96 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Robert Mann Declaration (Motion related) 93 . The following error(s) was found: Refiling of declaration filed Previously on 8/24/2007 in another case CV 07−1854 SJO. Should have Formal Title page and identification as to what this document is... In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 10/18/2011)
97 OPPOSITION OPPOSITION re: MOTION to Certify Class 91 filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, City of Los Angeles, City of Signal Hill, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak. (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
98 OBJECTION TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION re: MOTION to Certify Class 91 filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, City of Los Angeles, City of Signal Hill, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak. (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
99 DECLARATION of Sandra I. Barrientos re Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 97 filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, City of Los Angeles, City of Signal Hill, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Miranda Depo Transcript, # 2 Exhibit Flores Depo Transcript, # 3 Exhibit Heredia Depo Transcript)(Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
100 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 98 , Declaration (non−motion), 99 , Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 97 . The following error(s) was found: Case number has incorrect Judge and Magistrate Judges initials as : GPS(PJWx). Case was reassigned 6/8/2008). Case number is to correctly read as: CV 08−3179 SJO(VBKx). In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 11/08/2011)
101 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION To Plaintiff's re: MOTION for Leave to file Third Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief Plaintiffs Notice of Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Class Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Pro 95 filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak. (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered:

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 14 of 23

11/14/2011 11/14/2011 11/14/2011 11/14/2011 11/14/2011 11/21/2011
11/29/2011
01/13/2012 01/29/2012 01/29/2012 01/30/2012 01/30/2012
01/30/2012

11/14/2011)
102 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner(and in their official capacities), J. A. Farrow(and in their official capacities), Sunne Wright McPeak(individually), re Objection/Opposition (Motion related), Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 101 was served on 11/14/11. (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
103 Notice of Joinder in opposition re: MOTION for Leave to file Third Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief Plaintiffs Notice of Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Class Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Pro 95 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Leung, Todd) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
104 OPPOSITION Response to Defendants' Objections to Declarations Filed filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Jorge Heredia, Armando Miranda. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
105 REPLY In Opposition To Defendants' Objections to Class Certification Motion filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Jorge Heredia, Armando Miranda. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
106 JOINDER in MOTION for Leave to file Third Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief Plaintiffs Notice of Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Class Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Pro 95 filed by Defendant City of Signal Hill. (Tucker, Glen) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
107 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION for Leave to file Third Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief Plaintiffs Notice of Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Class Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Pro 95 Plaintiffs Reply to Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Class Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Jorge Heredia, Armando Miranda. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
108 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge S. James Otero. The parties are advised that the MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs 91 and the MOTION for Leave to file Third amended Class Action Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief filed by Plaintiffs 95 , scheduled for hearing on December 5, 2011, are taken under submission. Accordingly, the hearing date is vacated. Order will issue. (sch) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
109 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge S. James Otero: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Class Complaint is GRANTED 95 . Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint is DEEMED FILED AND SERVED this date. Defendants have fifteen days to respond. (lc) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
110 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by defendant City of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on 3/5/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Leung, Todd) (Entered: 01/29/2012)
111 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Dismiss Case 110 filed by defendant City of Los Angeles. (Leung, Todd) (Entered: 01/29/2012)
112 JOINDER filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak joining in MOTION to Dismiss Case 110 . (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
113 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: City of Los Angeles MOTION to Dismiss Case 110 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 7.1−1 No Certification of Interested Parties. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
114 JOINDER in MOTION to Dismiss Case 110 AND ADDITIONAL BASIS FOR DISMISSAL AS TO DEFENDANT CITY OF SIGNAL HILL filed by Defendant City of

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 15 of 23

01/31/2012 01/31/2012 02/13/2012
02/17/2012 02/17/2012
02/21/2012 02/21/2012 02/21/2012 02/21/2012
02/21/2012 02/27/2012
02/29/2012
04/26/2012

Signal Hill. (Tucker, Glen) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
115 certificate of Interested Parties filed by defendant City of Los Angeles, (Leung, Todd) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
116 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge S. James Otero: Plaintiffs Motion to Certify Class is DENIED 91 . Plaintiffs may proceed on their individual claims against the named Defendants. (lc) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
117 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Case 110 Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles and Joined by Defendants Bonner, Farrow, McPeak and City of Signal Hill filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Jorge Heredia, Armando Miranda. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 02/13/2012)
118 DECLARATION of Paul Estuar In Support of Ex Parte Application filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Jorge Heredia, Armando Miranda. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Estuar, Paul) (Entered: 02/17/2012)
119 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Permission to file Motion for Class Certification on behalf of Julia Giron filed by Plaintiff Eric Flores, Jorge Heredia, Armando Miranda. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Estuar, Paul) (Entered: 02/17/2012)
120 opposition in opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Permission to file Motion for Class Certification on behalf of Julia Giron 119 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Leung, Todd) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
121 REPLY in support of MOTION to Dismiss Case 110 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Leung, Todd) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
122 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Dismiss Case 110 filed by defendant City of Los Angeles. (Leung, Todd) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
123 JOINDER BY CITY OF SIGNAL HILL IN CITY OF LOS ANGELES' REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SECOND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Dismiss Case 110 filed by Defendant City of Signal Hill. (Tucker, Glen) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
124 JOINDER filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak joining in Reply (Motion related) 121 . (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
125 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge S. James Otero: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE A MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION ON BEHALF OF JULIA GIRON 119 . (lc) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
126 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge S. James Otero: The parties are advised that Motion to Dismiss Case filed by defendant City of Los Angeles 110 is taken under submission. Accordingly, the hearing date is VACATED and taken off calendar. No appearances are necessary on this date. An order will issue. (lc) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
127 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge S. James Otero: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Defendant City of Los Angeles's MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 110 .(1) Plaintiffs Miranda, Flores, and Heredia's § 1983 claims in Counts One and Two are DISMISSED without leave to amend;(2) Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim in Count Three is DISMISSED without leave to amend;(3) Plaintiffs' claim in Count Four alleging a right to pre−seizure notice and hearing is DISMISSED without leave to amend; (4) Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim in Count Five is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and (5) the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all of Plaintiffs' state law claims. The federal claims that remain for Plaintiff Giron are her § 1983 claims for unlawful seizure and uncompensated taking. To the extent that Plaintiffs' fourth cause of action pleads a violation of federal due process due to inadequate notice, Count Four remains as to all Plaintiffs. Defendants shall file an Answer to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint on or before May 10, 2012. (lc) (Entered: 04/26/2012)

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 16 of 23

05/07/2012 05/08/2012
05/08/2012 05/09/2012 06/26/2012 08/02/2012 08/06/2012
08/24/2012 09/11/2012 09/11/2012
09/14/2012 11/08/2012

128 ANSWER to Third Amended Complaint filed by defendant City of Los Angeles.(Leung, Todd) (Entered: 05/07/2012)
129 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge S. James Otero: Scheduling Conference set for 8/6/2012 at 08:30 AM; Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 7/23/2012; in order to assist counsel, court has included a schedule form for pretrial dates to be completed by counsel and submitted in conjunction with their rule 26(f) report; if case is part of ADR program, counsel must confer and jointly complete ADR Pilot Program Questionnaire and to file it concurrently with the Joint Rule 26(f) report; plaintiff counsel directed to give notice of scheduling conference to all parties. (sch) (Entered: 05/08/2012)
130 ANSWER to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint filed by Defendant City of Signal Hill.(Tucker, Glen) (Entered: 05/08/2012)
131 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner(individually), J. A. Farrow(individually), Sunne Wright McPeak(and in their official capacities).(Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 05/09/2012)
132 NOTICE of Change of address by Glen E Tucker attorney for Defendants City of Signal Hill, Signal Hill Police Department. Changing attorneys address to 2361 ROSECRANS AVENUE, SUITE 475, EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245. Filed by Defendants City of Signal Hill, Signal Hill Police Department. (Tucker, Glen) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
133 JOINT STATUS REPORT filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Armando Miranda. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 08/02/2012)
134 MINUTES OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held before Judge S. James Otero. The Court is advised that defendants City of Signal Hill and Signal Hill Police Department have settled. The Court denies plaintiff's request to add new parties. The Court sets the following schedule: As to Plaintiff Eric Flores: Jury Trial set Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.; Pretrial Conference set Monday, April 8, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.; Motion Cutoff Date set Monday, February 11, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.; Discover Cutoff set Wednesday, January 16, 2013. As to Plaintiffs Armando Miranda and Julia Girons: Jury Trial set Tuesday, April 30, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.; Pretrial Conference set Monday, April 22, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.; Motion Cutoff Date set Monday, February 25, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.; Discover Cutoff set Wednesday, December 31, 2013. Court Recorder: Michelle Ortega. (lom) (Entered: 08/06/2012)
135 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Robert Frederick Mann counsel for Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Jorge Heredia, Armando Miranda. Changing address (suite number only) to Suite 2910. Filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda, et al. (Mann, Robert) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
136 STIPULATION to Dismiss Defendants City of Signal Hill, Signal Hill Police Department filed by Plaintiff Jorge Heredia. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Dismissing Claims of Plaintiff Jorge Heredia)(Cook, Donald) (Entered: 09/11/2012)
137 Notice of Electronic Filing re Stipulation to Dismiss Party 136 e−mailed to lmanfre@awattorneys.com bounced due to 5.1.0 − Unknown address error 550−'No such user − psmtp'. The primary e−mail address associated with the attorney record has been deleted. Pursuant to the General Order and Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(tyw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/12/2012)
138 ORDER by Judge S. James Otero, re Stipulation 136 all claims of PlaintiffJorge Heredia are dismissed with prejudice, and defendants City of Signal Hill and the Signal Hill Police Department are hereby dismissed. Each side are to bear their own costs. (lc) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
139 APPLICATION for Order to Show Cause re: On Why Contempt Citation Should Not Issue Plaintiff Eric Flores Application for Issuance of Order to Show Cause on Why Contempt Citation Should Not Issue; Declaration of Donald W. Cook; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Plaintiff Eric Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order To Show Cause On Why Contempt Citation Should Not Issue)(Cook, Donald)

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 17 of 23

11/09/2012 11/09/2012 11/13/2012
11/13/2012
11/27/2012 11/27/2012 11/28/2012 11/29/2012 01/28/2013 01/28/2013

(Entered: 11/08/2012)
140 OPPOSITION OPPOSITION re: APPLICATION for Order to Show Cause re: On Why Contempt Citation Should Not Issue Plaintiff Eric Flores Application for Issuance of Order to Show Cause on Why Contempt Citation Should Not Issue; Declaration of Donald W. Cook; Memorandum of Points a 139 filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sandra I. Barrientos, # 2 Exhibit A & B)(Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
141 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner(and in their official capacities), J. A. Farrow(and in their official capacities), Sunne Wright McPeak(and in their official capacities), re Objection/Opposition (Motion related), Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 140 served on 11/9/12. (Gibson, Andrew) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
142 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Proof of Service (subsequent documents), 141 . The following error(s) was found:Formal Title page with required LR 11−3.8 filer, attorney, party etc information is missing. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
143 ORDER RE FURTHER BRIEFING by Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton. The Court determines that further briefing by Plaintiff and by third party witness California Highway Patrol ("CHP") is necessary. Consequently, within 14 days of the date of this Minute Order, both parties will file Points and Authorities addressing the applicability of sovereign immunity in the discovery context in this case, and other relevant issues such as privilege which may be asserted by CHP. No further briefing will be filed, and the Court will take the matter under submission after receipt of the parties' briefs. IT IS SO ORDERED. 139 [SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS] (gr) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
144 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support filed by Plaintiff Eric Flores. Plaintiff Eric Flores Memorandum Pursuant to Courts 11/13/12 Order; Declaration of Donald W. Cook Re: Order,, 143 (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
145 OPPOSITION OPPOSITION re: APPLICATION for Order to Show Cause re: On Why Contempt Citation Should Not Issue Plaintiff Eric Flores Application for Issuance of Order to Show Cause on Why Contempt Citation Should Not Issue; Declaration of Donald W. Cook; Memorandum of Points a 139 filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sandra I. Barrientos, # 2 Exhibit A & B)(Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
146 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner(and in their official capacities), J. A. Farrow(and in their official capacities), Sunne Wright McPeak(and in their official capacities), re Objection/Opposition (Motion related), Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 145 served on 11/27/12. (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
147 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton: denying 139 Application for Order to Show Cause re Contempt against Third Party California Highway Patrol. (See order for further details) (rh) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
148 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Third Amended Complaint filed by defendant City of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on 2/25/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Supplement)(Leung, Todd) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
149 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint In the Alernative, Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 56, Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner(individually). Motion set for hearing on 2/25/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Barrientos, Sandra) Modified on 1/31/2013 (lc).(STRICKEN PER 1/31/13 ORDER) (Entered: 01/28/2013)

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 18 of 23

01/28/2013 01/28/2013 01/28/2013 01/28/2013 01/28/2013
01/28/2013 01/28/2013 01/28/2013 01/29/2013 01/29/2013

150 STATEMENT of STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint In the Alernative, Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 56, Memorandum of Points and Authorities 149 filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak. (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
151 EXHIBIT to MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint In the Alernative, Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 56, Memorandum of Points and Authorities 149 filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−I)(Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
152 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to TO HAVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARD AFTER DEADLINE SET IN THE TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE ORDER filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner(individually), J. A. Farrow(and in their official capacities), Sunne Wright McPeak(individually). (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sandra I. Barrientos, # 2 Proposed Order)(Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
153 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak. correcting MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint In the Alernative, Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 56, Memorandum of Points and Authorities 149 (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
154 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner(and in their official capacities), J. A. Farrow(and in their official capacities), Sunne Wright McPeak(and in their official capacities). Motion set for hearing on 2/25/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
155 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiffs Miranda and Girons Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Armando Miranda. Motion set for hearing on 2/25/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
156 STATEMENT of UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiffs Miranda and Girons Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 155 Plaintiffs Armando Miranda and Julia Girons Separate Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Armando Miranda. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
157 DECLARATION of Donald W. Cook (up thru page 115) In Support Of MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiffs Miranda and Girons Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 155 filed by Plaintiffs Jorge Heredia, Armando Miranda. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement To Declaration of Donald W. Cook (pp. 38−115))(Cook, Donald) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
158 DECLARATION of Donald W. Cook (pp. 116 thru 253 [end]) In Support Of MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiffs Miranda and Girons Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 155 filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Armando Miranda. (Attachments: # 1 Cook declaration − pp. 121 to 253 [end])(Cook, Donald) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
159 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Bonner defendants MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint In the Alernative, Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 56, 149 , Statement (Motion related), 150 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect document attached to # 149, pdf is proposed statement, missing actual motion. Incorrect event selected re #150. Clerk notes an errata was filed re #149 and the

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 19 of 23

01/29/2013
01/29/2013 01/29/2013 01/29/2013 01/29/2013 01/29/2013 01/29/2013
01/30/2013 01/30/2013 01/30/2013

motion was refiled as # 154, However, still missing proposed judgment and the "proposed statement of uncontroverted facts #150...both should have been submitted as separate attachments. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
160 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Plaintiffs MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues 155 , Statement (Motion related), Statement (Motion related) 156 . The following error(s) was found: RE # 155 missing proposed judgment; Incorrect event selected re #156 (pdf is proposed statement of uncontroverted facts). Both the missing Local Rule 56−1 Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and or proposed Judgment should have been submitted as a separate attachment. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
161 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiffs Miranda and Girons Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 155 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cook, Donald) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
162 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Armando Miranda of Exhibit JJ to Doc. # 158−1, Declaration of Donald W. Cook in Support of Motions for Summary Adjudication − CD of radio communications. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
163 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Exhibit JJ (CD of radio communications) re Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related) 158 , Notice of Manual Filing (G−92) 162 (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
164 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Eric Flores, Armando Miranda, re Notice of Lodging 163 of Exhibit JJ to Declaration of Donald W. Cook in Support of Flores' Motion for Summary Adjudication served on 1/29/2013. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
165 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiff Flores Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Plaintiff Eric Flores. Motion set for hearing on 2/25/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
166 STATEMENT of UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiff Flores Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 165 Plaintiff Eric Flores Separate Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law filed by Plaintiff Eric Flores. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
167 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiff Flores Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 165 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cook, Donald) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
168 NOTICE OF LODGING filed CD of LAPD radio communication re MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Third Amended Complaint 148 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Leung, Todd) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
169 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Jorge Heredia, Armando Miranda. correcting Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related) 157 , Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related) 158 , MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiff Flores Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 165 (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 01/30/2013)

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 20 of 23

01/30/2013 01/30/2013
01/30/2013 01/31/2013
01/31/2013 02/04/2013
02/04/2013 02/04/2013 02/04/2013

170 ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO HAVE DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARD AFTER THE COURTS DEADLINE 152 by Judge S. James Otero: Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 148 , 149 , 154 , 155 , 165 is set for hearing on February 25, 2013. (lc) Modified on 1/30/2013 (lc). Modified on 1/30/2013 (lc). Modified on 1/31/2013 (lc). (Entered: 01/30/2013)
171 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner(and in their official capacities), J. A. Farrow(and in their official capacities), Sunne Wright McPeak(and in their official capacities), re MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 154 , Exhibit to Motion, 151 , Statement (Motion related), Statement (Motion related) 150 , EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to TO HAVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARD AFTER DEADLINE SET IN THE TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE ORDER 152 served on 01/28/13. (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
188 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge S. James Otero, ORDERING lodging of exhibits jj−cd submitted by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Armando Miranda received on 1/29/13 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: Notice of lodging shall be filed electronically prior to lodging the exhibits together with its NEF, presented with the exhibit to be lodged. (lc) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
172 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Statement (Motion related), 166 , MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiff Flores Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues 165 . The following error(s) was found: Missing proposed judgment re #165; Incorrect event selected re #166: Both the missing proposed judgment and proposed statement of uncontroverted facts should have been submitted as a separate attachment. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
173 ORDER by Judge S. James Otero: the following document(s) be STRICKEN for failure to comply with the Local Rules, General Order and/or the Courts Case Management Order: MOTION for Summary Judgment 149 , for the following reasons: Document linked incorrectly to the wrong document/docket entry;Wrong document attached as item #149. (lc) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
174 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Hearing on 2/25/13 Eric Flores' Summary Adjudication Motion, re MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiff Flores Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 165 , Plaintiff Eric Flores Ex Parte Application for Order Allowing His Motion for Summary Adjudication to Be Heard 2/25/13 with All the Other Similar Motions; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Donald W. Cook filed by Plaintiff Eric Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff Eric Flores' Ex Parte Application etc.)(Cook, Donald) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
175 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Proof of Service (subsequent documents)) 171 . The following error(s) was found: Title page is missing with required LR 11−3.8 filer, attorney information. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
176 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Barrett S Litt counsel for Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Armando Miranda. Changing firm name to Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt. Changing e−mail to blitt@kmbllaw.com. Filed by Plaintiffs Armando Miranda (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
177 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiffs Miranda and Girons Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues;

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 21 of 23

02/04/2013 02/04/2013 02/05/2013 02/05/2013 02/05/2013
02/05/2013 02/05/2013 02/05/2013 02/05/2013 02/06/2013

Memorandum of Points and Authorities 155 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Leung, Todd) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
178 OPPOSITION OPPOSITION re: MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiff Flores Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 165 filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sandra I. Barrientos; Exhbits A−D)(Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
179 STATEMENT of of Genuine Disputes In Opposition MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiff Flores Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 165 filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak. (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
180 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Third Amended Complaint 148 Plaintiffs Miranda and Girons Opposition to City of Los Angeles Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Armando Miranda. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
181 STATEMENT of GENUINE DISPUTES OF MATERIAL FACT IN OPPOSITION TO CITY OF LOS ANGELES MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Third Amended Complaint 148 Plaintiffs Miranda and Girons Separate Statement of Genuine Disputes of Material Fact in Opposition to City of Los Angeles Motion for Summary Judgment and Statement of Uncontroverted Facts filed by Plaintiff Armando Miranda. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
182 STATEMENT of GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT IN OPPOSITION TO STATE DEFENDANTS MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 154 Plaintiff Flores Separate Statement of Genuine Issues of Material Fact in Opposition to State Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and Statement of Uncontroverted Facts filed by Plaintiff Eric Flores. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
183 DECLARATION of DONALD W. COOK IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Third Amended Complaint 148 Second Declaration of Donald W. Cook in Support of Plaintiffs Opposition to City of Los Angeles Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Armando Miranda. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
184 DECLARATION re Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related) 183 , Statement (Motion related), Statement (Motion related), Statement (Motion related) 182 , MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion 180 , Statement (Motion related), Statement (Motion related) 181 DECLARATION OF DONALD W. COOK PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08−02 RE: INABILITY TO LOG ON TO PACER TO FILE OPPOSITIONS TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Plaintiffs Jorge Heredia, Armando Miranda. (Mann, Robert) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
185 Proof OF SERVICE filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner(individually), J. A. Farrow(and in their official capacities), Sunne Wright McPeak(and in their official capacities), re Statement (Motion related), Statement (Motion related) 179 , Objection/Opposition (Motion related), Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 178 served on 2/5/13. (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
186 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 154 Plaintiff Flores Opposition to State Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Plaintiff Eric Flores. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
187 ORDER by Judge S. James Otero: granting 174 Plaintiff Eric Flores ex parte application is hereby granted and his Motion for Summary Adjudication (doc. 165) is set for hearing on February 25, 2013. (lc) (Entered: 02/06/2013)

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 22 of 23

02/11/2013 02/11/2013 02/11/2013 02/11/2013 02/11/2013 02/11/2013 02/12/2013 02/12/2013 02/15/2013
03/04/2013 03/04/2013

189 REPLY filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak to MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion, 186 (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
190 objection in support re: MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Third Amended Complaint 148 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Leung, Todd) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
191 REPLY in support MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Third Amended Complaint 148 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Leung, Todd) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
192 Proof OF SERVICE filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner(individually), J. A. Farrow(and in their official capacities), Sunne Wright McPeak(and in their official capacities), re Reply (non−motion) 189 served on 2/11/13. (Barrientos, Sandra) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
193 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiffs Miranda and Girons Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 155 Plaintiffs Miranda and Girons Reply to City of Los Angeles Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by Plaintiff Armando Miranda. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
194 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiff Flores Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 165 Plaintiff Flores Opposition to State Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Plaintiff Eric Flores. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
195 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiff Eric Flores. correcting Reply (Motion related), Reply (Motion related) 194 Plaintiff Flores Notice of Erratum Re: Reply to State Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Adjudication (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
196 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiff Flores Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 165 Plaintiff Flores Reply to the State Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by Plaintiff Eric Flores. (Cook, Donald) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
197 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge S. James Otero: The Court finds these matters suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacates the hearing re the MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Third Amended Complaint filed bydefendant City of Los Angeles 148 , the MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint Or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner(and in their official capacities), J. A. Farrow(and in their official capacities), Sunne Wright McPeak(and in their official capacities) 154 , the MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiffs Miranda and Girons Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues filed by Plaintiffs Eric Flores, Armando Miranda 155 , and the MOTION for Summary Adjudication as to Issues Plaintiff Flores Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues filed by Plaintiff Eric Flores 165 , set for February 25, 2013. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). (lc) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
198 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge S. James Otero:The Court vacates and takes off its calendar all the pretrial conferences and trial dates setin this matter. (lc) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
199 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge S. James Otero: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF FLORES'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 165 ; GRANTING STATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARYJUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56 154 ; DENYING PLAINTIFFS MIRANDA AND GIRON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 155 ; GRANTING DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 148 . Judgment is granted in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs'

Case: 2:08-cv-3178 As of: 10/12/2015 07:18 AM PDT 23 of 23

03/04/2013
03/22/2013
01/16/2014 01/17/2014 02/28/2014
03/06/2014 04/18/2014

federal claims. For the reasons stated in the MTD Order, Plaintiffs' state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN STATE COURT. (lc) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
200 JUDGMENT by Judge S. James Otero: 1. Judgment in the above−captioned matter be, and hereby is, entered in favor of Defendant City of Los Angeles and against Plaintiffs Armando Miranda and Julia Giron. Plaintiffs Armando Miranda and Julia Giron shall take nothing on their Third Amended Complaint. 2. Judgment in the above−captioned matter be, and hereby is, entered in favor of Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J.A. Farrow, and Sunne Wright McPeak and against Plaintiff Eric Flores. Plaintiff Eric Flores shall take nothing on his Third Amended Complaint. (MD JS−6, Case Terminated). (lc) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
201 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Donna M Dean counsel for Defendants Dale E. Bonner, J. A. Farrow, Sunne Wright McPeak. Adding Donna M. Dean as attorney as counsel of record for Defendants, Dale E. Bonner, Sunne Wright McPeak, and J.A. Farrow for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Sandra I. Barrientos will no longer receive service of documents from the Clerks Office for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice.Sandra I. Barrientos is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendants Dale E. Bonner; Sunne Wright McPeak; J.A. Farrow (Dean, Donna) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
202 NOTICE OF LODGING filed 1/16/14 on Request for Order to Disburse Funds; Notice of Lodging of proposed Order directing disbursement of funds deposited with the clerk of the court re Order,, 30 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order To Disburse Funds)(Cook, Donald) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
203 ORDER TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge S. James Otero: The Court hereby orders that the security bond posted by Plaintiff Jorge Heredia pursuant to this Courts July 16, 2008 Order 30 ), shall be disbursed to Plaintiff Heredia. The clerk is directed to issue a check in the amount of Nine Hundred Dollars ($900.00), paid to Robert Mann & Donald W. Cook and Jorge Heredia. (lc) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
204 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge S. James Otero:The Court sets an Order to Show Cause hearing re attorney Paul J. Estuar's failure to comply with Local Rule 83−2.4 Notification of Change of Name, Address, Firm Association, Telephone Number, Facsimile Number or E−Mail Address, on Monday,Monday, May 5, 2014 @ 8:30 a.m. If counsel updates his attorney contactinformation prior to the hearing date the Order to Show Cause will be vacated and taken off this Courts calendar. Counsel may use form G−6 on the District Court website to comply and complete this update. (lc) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
205 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Paul J Estuar counsel for Plaintiff Armando Miranda. Paul J. Estuar is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Paul J. Estuar. (Estuar, Paul) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
206 SCHEDULING NOTICE ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING by Judge S. James Otero. Counsel having complied with this Court's order to update attorney contact information, the Court vacates and sets aside the Order to Show Cause hearing set for 5/5/14. No appearance is required. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vcr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/18/2014)