Tag Archives: Motion to Dismiss

Lunada Bay Boys Parties Jointly Ask Judge Otero To Dismiss Suit Against Anonymous Minor Defendant NF, Michael Papayans Files Motion For Summary Judgment

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

A bunch of paper was filed this afternoon in the Lunada Bay Boys surf localism case, including a hitherto unanticipated1 joint stipulation to dismiss the case against the anonymous minor defendant NF. There’s a transcription of this PDF after the break along with a link to the proposed order that the parties submitted with it.

Also, following along with his putative partners in horridity, Lunada Bay beatdown artist Michael Papayans filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of the fact that the named plaintiffs, Cory Spencer and Diana Reed, said in their depositions that he didn’t personally beat up either one of them. As always, this motion comes with a bunch of supporting exhibits, mainly excerpts from the plaintiffs’ depositions. There are links and some brief commentary after the break.

Oh, also! There’s yet another telephonic hearing before the magistrate judge scheduled for tomorrow morning, so we can expect yet another minute order telling everyone to cut out the damn nonsense!
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Parties Jointly Ask Judge Otero To Dismiss Suit Against Anonymous Minor Defendant NF, Michael Papayans Files Motion For Summary Judgment

Share

Lunada Bay Boys Defendant Sang Lee Files Motion To Dismiss All Counts Against Him Except Negligence Cause He Didn’t Do Nothing, Your Honor!

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

You may recall that the other day, the plaintiffs in the Lunada Bay Boys case filed a bunch of paperwork having to do with defendant Sang Lee’s uncooperative attitude towards his discovery obligations, leading to the Honorable Rozella Oliver, magistrate judge in the case, issuing a minute order telling Sang Lee to get moving and hand over the goods.

Victor Otten’s most recent letter to Sang Lee’s attorneys noted that “… you have stated an intention to file a motion for summary judgement, this will be our last attempt to resolve this matter informally. Moreover, should you file a motion for summary judgement without providing adequate discovery responses, that will be a basis to oppose the motion.”

Well, today Sang Lee filed that very motion to dismiss, along with a bunch of supporting exhibits. His main argument seems to be that all of the plaintiffs have admitted that he personally didn’t do anything to them, so how can he be guilty of intimidating them away from the beach?

Of course, with respect to the allegation of conspiracy, and especially given that, according to Victor Otten, Sang Lee has withheld all the essential evidence, the fact, and it does seem to be a fact, that Sang Lee didn’t intimidate anyone in person seems pretty irrelevant. The plaintiffs’ theory seems to be that he coordinated via cell phone with the actual intimidaters, which certainly sounds like conspiracy to me. Well, as Victor Otten said on July 4, “…should you file a motion for summary judgement without providing adequate discovery responses, that will be a basis to oppose the motion.”

Don’t forget, the hearing on this motion and the parallel motion by Jeff Kepley and the City of PVE is scheduled for August 21, 2017, at 10:00 a.m in James Otero’s courtroom 10C in the First Street Federal Courthouse. Maybe I’ll see you there! Meanwhile, turn the page for links to all the new pleadings.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Defendant Sang Lee Files Motion To Dismiss All Counts Against Him Except Negligence Cause He Didn’t Do Nothing, Your Honor!

Share

The Suit Goes On: Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell Files (Moderately Sarcastic) Order Denying City Of LA’s Motion To Dismiss Street Vending Lawsuit

Federal Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell, in whose court the NLG's street vending case is being heard.
Federal Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell, in whose court the NLG’s street vending case is being heard.
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.

Briefly, one of the arguments raised by the City of LA is that the vendors’ organization, the Unión Popular de Vendedores Ambulantes, lacks standing to sue.2 More on this and some quotated snark after the break.
Continue reading The Suit Goes On: Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell Files (Moderately Sarcastic) Order Denying City Of LA’s Motion To Dismiss Street Vending Lawsuit

Share

Defendant City of Los Angeles Files Motion To Dismiss Street Vending Lawsuit, Motion To Strike Putatively Irrelevant Material, Gratuitously Compares Street Vendors To Human Traffickers And Drug Dealers; Hearing Scheduled For November 21 At 1:30 P.M.

An image from a recent journey to the Fashion District, unrelated to anything discussed in this post or, for that matter, on this blog.
An image from a recent journey to the Fashion District, unrelated to anything discussed in this post or, for that matter, on this blog.
Recall that last week we learned that settlement talks in the Street Vendors lawsuit seemed to have fallen through, that the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and that the City of LA denies everything.1 Well, today a couple more items2 hit PACER, which are:

The motion to dismiss isn’t that different from the motion to dismiss that the City filed in May but then withdrew a few days later. It doesn’t seem plausible,3 and you can read it for yourself. The motion to strike is more interesting, and you can read about it after the break.
Continue reading Defendant City of Los Angeles Files Motion To Dismiss Street Vending Lawsuit, Motion To Strike Putatively Irrelevant Material, Gratuitously Compares Street Vendors To Human Traffickers And Drug Dealers; Hearing Scheduled For November 21 At 1:30 P.M.

Share

Venice Justice Committee v. City of Los Angeles: Pregerson Denies Essential Part of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Case Will Proceed

Not every clown on the Boardwalk is benign.
Not every clown on the Boardwalk is benign.
Last month Judge Dean Pregerson heard oral arguments on the City’s motion to dismiss this suit, filed by the Venice Justice Committee against the City of Los Angeles in opposition to its ham-fisted attempts to regulate speech on the Venice Boardwalk. Today he filed his order denying the motion to dismiss in part and granting it in part as well. Pregerson’s a lively writer, and the order makes interesting reading. There are three main issues addressed in the order.

First up, the City regulates vending on the Boardwalk in various ways, but contains an exception for soliciting donations and other activities protected by the First Amendment. Plaintiff Peggy Lee Kennedy was evidently told on a couple of occasions by LAPD officers that asking for donations was vending and that she had to stop or face arrest. Everyone agrees that these cops were in the wrong, but the question before the Court seems to have been whether the law “as applied” was unconstitutional. Pregerson found that it was not, and accordingly dismissed the parts of the complaint that had to do with that claim.

Second,1 the Plaintiffs made claims under the Bane Act, which allows people to sue if their constitutional rights were violated maliciously. Pregerson found that even assuming that the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated, they weren’t violated maliciously. I’m skipping some details, but that’s essentially why he also dismissed this cause of action.

Finally, and most interestingly, we come to the Plaintiffs’ claim that the City’s so-called Sunset Provisions are unconstitutional. This claim has to do with LAMC 42.15, which regulates vending and other activities at Venice Beach. In particular it states that “[n]o person shall set up or set down items in, take down items from or block, or attempt to reserve a Designated Space2 between Sunset and 9:00 am.”
Continue reading Venice Justice Committee v. City of Los Angeles: Pregerson Denies Essential Part of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Case Will Proceed

Share

Further Indication of Lack of Seriousness: City of Los Angeles Sends Attorney to Read Aloud Rather Than Argue its Motion to Dismiss in Venice Justice Committee Case; Judge Pregerson Seems Skeptical

Federal Judge Dean Pregerson
Federal Judge Dean Pregerson
A couple weeks ago the City of Los Angeles phoned in a motion to dismiss Carol Sobel’s lawsuit on behalf of Peggy Kennedy and the Venice Justice Committee. I went out to the Spring Street Federal Courthouse this morning to hear arguments, and it was not a waste of time, although the City still doesn’t seem to be making a serious effort in defending this case. The Deputy City Attorney, Sara Ugaz, didn’t argue so much as read selections from the City’s reply in support of its motion to dismiss. The reply is weak, and so were the selections, even more so for being read verbatim.

You may recall that the City is claiming that linking speech restrictions on the Boardwalk to the time the sun sets is accomplishing some rational purpose. First amendment jurisprudence allows such restrictions, but the purpose must be accomplished by the least restrictive means necessary. Thus it doesn’t portend well for the City, or at least for the fate of the motion to dismiss, that Pregerson repeatedly questioned Ugaz on how using the time of sunset could possibly be the least restrictive means. He mentioned that it occurs at different times during different seasons, for instance. This prompted Ugaz to claim that the City wants to clear the view of the ocean at sunset and that “people are coming home then.”1 The judge noted again that the sun sets at widely varying times, so how does anyone know when people are coming home. This prompted Ugaz to admit that “perhaps that wasn’t the best reason.”
Continue reading Further Indication of Lack of Seriousness: City of Los Angeles Sends Attorney to Read Aloud Rather Than Argue its Motion to Dismiss in Venice Justice Committee Case; Judge Pregerson Seems Skeptical

Share

Judge Otero Mostly Denies City of LA’s Motion to Dismiss

California-central(See Gale Holland’s excellent story in the Times on Mitchell v. LA as well as our other stories on the subject for the background to this post).

On April 5, 2016, the City of Los Angeles filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit and a hearing was set for May 9. Subsequently a number of motions were filed by both parties. Today Judge James Otero filed an order on the motion and cancelled Monday’s hearing. While he did grant the City’s request to dismiss two of the causes of action, he declined to dismiss the main substance of the complaint. You can read it yourself, and some details follow after the break.
Continue reading Judge Otero Mostly Denies City of LA’s Motion to Dismiss

Share

Defendant City of Los Angeles Files Reply in Support of Their Pending Motion to Dismiss

California-central(See Gale Holland’s excellent story in the Times on Mitchell v. LA as well as our other stories on the subject for the background to this post).

On April 5, 2016 the City of Los Angeles, defendant in Mitchell v. Los Angeles,filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit (the actual pleading is here). The plaintiffs replied to this last Friday. Today the City of LA filed a reply to the plaintiffs’ reply. I don’t even know where to start with this, so I’m just announcing its existence and making it available for free here so you can save 60¢ on PACER. By the way and completely off-topic: PACER is the subject of a class action lawsuit filed last Thursday alleging illegal overcharging. Go team!

Share