Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15286&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 16:35:17+00:00

Document:
On March 14, 2016, several homeless individuals, one with a disability, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, against the City of Los Angeles seeking injunctive relief and damages pursuant to U.S.C. § 1983 and based upon the alleged continuing violation of the plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs alleged that starting at least as early as December 2015, the Los Angeles Police Department had a policy, custom, or practice of arresting homeless individuals for non-violent quality of life crimes (such as sitting/sleeping/lying on the sidewalk, or using, possession, or removing without authorization shopping carts that have affixed to them a sign identifying the private business owners). In arresting homeless persons for these quality-of-life crimes, which the plaintiffs alleged would otherwise be charged as infractions (and therefore not justify the arrest of the individuals charged), the LAPD seized and destroyed the homeless individuals' property. The property that has been disposed of includes: blankets, tents, shoes, clothing, medications, medical assistance equipment such as walkers, diabetes testing machines/nebulizers, personal documents, and other items. The plaintiffs further alleged that after the arrestee was taken into custody, the arrestee was not given a chance to identify or reclaim their items. If the property was saved at all, officers and city employees did not take care to ensure that only the arrestees' property was bagged and tagged, resulting in the commingling of multiple arrestees' property. The property was also oftentimes not transported in a timely way to the "excess property warehouse," making it difficult for homeless arrestees to obtain any property spared destruction. Plaintiffs were represented by the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles and by private counsel.
Plaintiffs stated the following causes of action: the right to be free from unreasonable seizure of their property by confiscating and then destroying property without a warrant, the right to be free from false arrest, and the right to have their personal property protected in custody. Plaintiffs alleged that they were given no notice of their property being at risk of being seized and/or destroyed and were not given an opportunity to reclaim their property in a timely manner. By taking and destroying the medicine, tents, tarps, and blankets of the plaintiffs, plaintiffs claimed, the defendants exposed the plaintiffs to the elements in the winter without adequate shelter on the streets.
All this, the plaintiffs claimed, violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and a number of state law provisions, including: California Civil Code §51, California Civil Code §52.1, California Civil Code §2080, and California Government Code §11135. The complaint also stated counts for common law conversion and false arrest.
The plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction enjoining and restraining defendants from engaging in the discriminatory policies and practices, as well as declaratory judgment that the defendants' policies violate plaintiffs' rights under the US and California constitutions and the laws of California. The plaintiffs additionally requested an order directing defendants to provide replacement items for the property they have destroyed, including: blankets, tents, tarps medications, replacements of critical personal documents, etc. The plaintiffs additionally requested damages and attorneys' fees.
On March 30, 2016, the plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order as to enjoin further property destruction by the defendants.
On March 31, 2016, Judge Philip Gutierrez declined to have the case transferred to him; the judge explained that Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, which was pending before him, was not sufficiently factually related to this case to justify a transfer.
On April 1, 2016, Judge James Otero granted the city defendants’ request for more time to file a written opposition to the plaintiffs’ TRO application.
On April 5, 2016 the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Dismiss, set for hearing on April 9, 2016.
On May 6, 2016, Judge Otero granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs' causes of action for false arrest and conversation were dismissed without leave to amend.
On May 11, 2016, the defendants filed a motion for a clarification of the Court’s Order of April 13, 2016 issuing a preliminary injunction. The parties then entered into settlement negotiations. The settlement negotiations seem to continue to be frustrated by Defendants' requests for clarification on the Court's Order of April 12, 2016.
On December 4, 2017 the Judge ordered the case to a mediation panel for mediation.
As of March 23, 2018 case is ongoing.
Plaintiff Description Several homeless individuals, one with a disability, who had their property confiscated on their arrest. Also two non-profit organizations that serve homeless people.

References: § 1983
 §51
 §52
 §2080
 §11135
 v.