The monumental lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and the Fashion District BID for their abominable treatment of street vendors was set for trial in January. However, papers filed with the court yesterday announce that the plaintiffs have reached a settlement with the City and as soon as it’s approved, a process which can take many months for it to work its way through Committees and Council, they will drop the case against both the City and the BID. Hence they asked Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell to put the calendar on hold until the settlement is approved.
A number of new documents have been filed in the National Lawyers’ Guild’s suit against the City of Los Angeles and the Fashion District business improvement district for their disgraceful treatment of street vendors. Here’s a list, followed by my usual uninformed commentary:
Joint Rule 26(f) report — This is a surprisingly interesting document. It’s evidently required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), which regulates pretrial discovery agreements. For our purposes, though, it also seems to require that all the parties lay out their views of the case. This is especially interesting with respect to the Fashion District, which, even though it did answer the complaint, did so in a completely vacuous manner. There’s some substance here, and I discuss it after the break.
Court Order re: Scheduling Conference — Here Judge O’Connell cancels a settlement conference that was to be held Monday, orders that the parties complete the dispute resolution process by December 4, 2017, and file a joint report on it within 7 days of its conclusion.
This is just a quick note to memorialize the fact that, after the City of Los Angeles filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against it and the Fashion District BID brought by a number of downtown street vendors, tonight Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell filed a 16 page order denying everything, which of course means that the case will go on.1 The standard for denying a motion to dismiss is essentially that the plaintiff “…pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” The Judge found that they had, so the case will go on. Recall also that there was a hearing on the City’s motion scheduled for Monday, November 21. O’Connell canceled this hearing because “the Court deems this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument of counsel.” That’s gotta hurt.
Good evening, Friends! I haven’t had time to write much recently and I won’t have time for another day or two because the latest installment in the MK.Org LAMC 49.5.5 project is turning out to be more complex than I’d anticipated. I expect to have it done with by the end of this week. This is just a short interim post to announce some new records.
A request to reschedule the settlement conference in the Street Vendors v. City of LA and the Fashion District BID just hit PACER. A settlement conference was scheduled for tomorrow before magistrate judge Charles Eick, but:
The Defendant City of Los Angeles advised Plaintiffs’ counsel earlier today that the City needs additional time to consider the revised settlement proposal by the Plaintiffs.
The request states that the earliest possible time for the rescheduled conference would be July 18, 2016, but that the Fashion District BID’s lawyer hasn’t gotten back to everyone with confirmation that this date will suit. If you’ve been following the story, you may remember that July 18th is also the date that Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell shifted the defendants’ response deadline to, so something’s got to give.
Recall that there is a settlement conference in the street vending lawsuit scheduled for June 22, 2016. Today the parties filed a joint stipulation asking the judge to give the defendants more time to respond. The reason given is:
The parties have made substantial progress in settlement discussions: they have held two settlement conferences with Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick and have scheduled a third settlement conference for June 22, 2016;
On April 11, 2016, the Court granted the Fourth Stipulation filed by the parties to extend the time to file responsive pleadings to the Complaint, with the current extension set to expire on June 1, 2016.
Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell filed an order today in Santiago et al. v. Fashion District BID et al. setting a settlement conference to convene on Wednesday, June 22 in front of magistrate judge Charles Eick. These things are surely top secret, so there’s nothing to report or to attend, but I thought I’d drop the filing on you. It suggests that nothing much is going to happen in this case for a few weeks, anyway.
A collaborative denunciation of Business Improvement Districts in Los Angeles