When last I wrote about the street vending lawsuit against the Fashion District BID and the City of Los Angeles, the parties were getting extension after extension based on their mutual representations that settlement talks were proceeding apace. Well, that’s all over with. In fact, at this point I feel like my amateurism has led me down the with-good-intentions-paved garden path like the cat i’ th’ adage and actually no one ever really thought anyone was going to settle, but this is just some ceremony that’s habitually performed for the first year of a federal lawsuit, and now that they have it over with they’re going to get down to tacky brass knuckles. I have no idea, but I do know that recently the following items have been filed on PACER:
- First Amended Complaint (September 9, 2016) — Some problems with the original complaint, this is the revised version. I’m too lazy to track the changes.
- Joint Stipulation to Extend Time for City of LA to Respond (September 22, 2016) — The City of LA will respond with a motion to dismiss by October 11. The plaintiffs will respond by October 24, the City replies to that by November 7, and there will be a hearing on November 21.
- Order Extending Defendants City of LA Time to Respond (September 24, 2016) — Judge O’Connell: “That’s cool.”
- Defendant Fashion District BID’s Answer to Complaint (October 3, 2016) — Read this one if you dare. They deny everything except for a few things which they don’t even know enough to deny and offer as an affirmative defense that the plaintiffs have unclean hands. But ah, my friends and oh, my foes, don’t we all?
- Order Setting Scheduling Conference for November 28 (October 5, 2016) — Deadlines, formats, and you must use a two-hole punch in Beverley Reid O’Connell’s Court!