Central Hollywood Coalition Cleared by Franchise Tax Board of All Fiscal Wrongdoing, Tax Exempt Status Reinstated After Months of Struggle, and it Wasn’t an Audit After All!!
All posts by Mike
Mitchell v. LA Plaintiffs Respond to City’s Opposition to Application for Temporary Restraining Order against Further Property Confiscation, City Files Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application to Strike and/or Seal Publicly Filed Documents,
(See Gale Holland’s excellent story in the Times for background).
Here’s a brief summary of what’s been going on in this turbulent case over the last week: On April 1 the plaintiffs in this already-hotly-contested suit against the City of Los Angeles for its policies regarding the confiscation of the property of the homeless on Skid Row asked the Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the City from further confiscations of their property. On April 6 the City filed a fragmentation grenade of a response accusing both plaintiffs and their attorneys of lying and asking that they be sanctioned by the court. The City’s pleadings had accusations that were sufficiently inflammatory that they prompted the plaintiffs the next day to lodge a request that some of the stuff the City filed be sealed due to privacy concerns.
This brings us to late Thursday afternoon, when the City filed its opposition to the plaintiffs’ application to seal along with a hypertechnical “clarification” that’s beyond my capacity to interpret. And yesterday, April 8, the plaintiffs filed a bunch of stuff in reply to the City’s opposition to the application for the restraining order. You can find it all here or see a list after the break. There’s too much going on for me to discuss it all, but the essential argument (and some pretty convincing photographic proof that the City is misrepresenting facts) can be found after the break.
Continue reading Mitchell v. LA Plaintiffs Respond to City’s Opposition to Application for Temporary Restraining Order against Further Property Confiscation, City Files Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application to Strike and/or Seal Publicly Filed Documents,
Plaintiffs in Mitchell v. City of LA Ask Court to Seal Yesterday’s Pleadings Due to Privacy Concerns
(See Gale Holland’s excellent story in the Times for background).
Yesterday the City of LA filed a bunch of material in support of their opposition to the restraining order requested by the plaintiffs in this case about the illegal seizure of the property of homeless people on Skid Row. The City’s filings included a Declaration of Lt. Andy Mathes, which included a number of videos of the plaintiffs and Carol Sobel in support. These videos were not available through PACER, but presumably they’re part of the public record and can be obtained somehow.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys today filed an application to seal some of the videos, which was supported by a declaration of Catherine Sweetser. Additionally they ask that Lt. Mathes’s declaration be removed from the public docket (which is where I got it), to be refiled once the private information is removed.
Continue reading Plaintiffs in Mitchell v. City of LA Ask Court to Seal Yesterday’s Pleadings Due to Privacy Concerns
LA Catholic Worker et al. v. CCEA, City of L.A. et al. Trial Postponed Till October 4, 2016 Due to Discovery Delays
Over the last few days, but for some reason just hitting PACER today, the parties in the LA Catholic Worker and LA Community Action Network v. the Central City East Association and the City of LA filed a joint stipulation to continue the various scheduled dates in the case due to what’s turned out to be an incredibly grueling discovery process in the case. This is not the first time the trial date has been postponed for this reason. Here is the judge’s order granting the continuance until October 4, 2016.
City of Los Angeles Treats Perfectly Legal Pornography as “Contraband,” Confiscates it from the Homeless and Destroys it
Pleadings filed by the City of Los Angeles yesterday in Mitchell v. Los Angeles reveal that the Bureau of Sanitation confiscates and destroys pornography in the possession of homeless people, putting it on a par with hazardous and/or toxic material and other contraband. This practice is consistent with the moralizing attitude taken by LAPD RESET1 on their Twitter feed towards similarly legal activities when carried out by the homeless, e.g., alcohol consumption.
On Tuesday the City of Los Angeles moved that a number of the causes of action in the case be dismissed. One of their main arguments was that the plaintiffs failed to argue that their property “…was lawful to possess, and was clean or at least uncontaminated by direct contact with or close proximity to the hazardous materials common on a Skid Row street – feces, rats, maggots, blood, etc. – such that the property did not pose an immediate hazard to health.
Continue reading City of Los Angeles Treats Perfectly Legal Pornography as “Contraband,” Confiscates it from the Homeless and Destroys it
City of LA Files No-Holds-Barred Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application for Restraining Order Against Enforcement of LAMC 56.11; Accuses both Plaintiffs and their Attorneys of Lying, Requests Sanctions Against Them
[Updated on April 9 to remove information that the plaintiffs have requested that the court place under seal. I’ll reevaluate this elision after the court rules.]
(See Gale Holland’s excellent story in the Times for background).
Recall that on April 1, the plaintiffs in Mitchell v. Los Angeles asked the court to enjoin the City from confiscating the plaintiffs’ property while the case was pending. Today the City filed its opposition to this application. The pleading pulls no punches:
Defendant City of Los Angeles hereby opposes the Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order. The grounds for the opposition are that the Plaintiffs have misrepresented the facts which led to the destruction of their property, there is no widespread practice violating federal law which requires enjoining, and there is no urgency justifying ex parte relief.
Further, should the Court deem it appropriate, the City requests that the Court set a Rule 11 briefing to determine an appropriate amount of sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel, jointly and severally, for submitting factual contentions which have no evidentiary support. In the alternative, the City requests that the Court set said hearing at least against Plaintiffs Escobedo and Roque and their counsel, jointly and severally.
The relevant part of Rule 11 seems to be:
(b) By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
…
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
The City also filed a number of other interesting items, which I have not yet have time to read in detail. You can find a list of them and some more detailed selections from the Opposition after the break.
Continue reading City of LA Files No-Holds-Barred Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application for Restraining Order Against Enforcement of LAMC 56.11; Accuses both Plaintiffs and their Attorneys of Lying, Requests Sanctions Against Them
City Files Motion to Dismiss Mitchell v. Los Angeles, Hearing Set for Monday, May 9 at 10 a.m.
(See Gale Holland’s excellent story in the Times for background).
Today the City of Los Angeles, defendant in Carol Sobel et al.’s latest suit on behalf of homeless people, filed a motion to dismiss many of the causes of action in the complaint. There is also an associated request for judicial notice regarding one of the facts recited in the motion. The issues seem mostly technical and beyond my capacity to interpret, but I will venture some comments on one claim by the City. They seem to assert (at p.5, L.9) that one of the causes should be dismissed because the initial complaint didn’t argue that the City didn’t have a valid reason for seizing and destroying the property at issue. Specifically that
Plaintiffs never plead that all of the property seized was lawful to possess, and was clean or at least uncontaminated by direct contact with or close proximity to the hazardous materials common on a Skid Row street – feces, rats, maggots, blood, etc. – such that the property did not pose an immediate hazard to health.
And further, that because it’s at least plausible that the property was contaminated just by being on Skid Row, the only allowed relief from the destruction of their property is money damages from the City. I don’t see how this can be right, though.
Continue reading City Files Motion to Dismiss Mitchell v. Los Angeles, Hearing Set for Monday, May 9 at 10 a.m.
Andrews International Arrest Reports and Daily Logs from 2009 Available, Another Victim of False Arrest at Selma Park Uncovered
“A/I says that after looking into this, it is unlikely that any arrests ever were made by A/I in Selma Park with specific regard to the signs and penal code section you recite (as opposed to public urination, drinking, and other reasons)…”
Continue reading Andrews International Arrest Reports and Daily Logs from 2009 Available, Another Victim of False Arrest at Selma Park Uncovered
A Flurry of Filings in Mitchell et al. v. City of LA et al. Suggests that Homeless Advocates May be Trying to have City Enjoined from Enforcing Newly Amended LAMC 56.11
Mitchell v. Los Angeles, the latest in a series of suits filed by homeless people who’ve had their property illegally confiscated by the City (see Gale Holland’s recent article for an excellent summary) took an interesting turn today, when a flurry of filings hit PACER. First of all, the plaintiffs asked the court for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order enjoining the City from confiscating their property while the case is on. They filed a huge number of declarations and other evidence in support of this application, many although not all of which can be found on our page dedicated to the case. The City asked for extra time to respond and the court granted them some.
Continue reading A Flurry of Filings in Mitchell et al. v. City of LA et al. Suggests that Homeless Advocates May be Trying to have City Enjoined from Enforcing Newly Amended LAMC 56.11
Lavan Case Settlement Likely to Come Before Full LA City Council by End of April 2016
I reported last December that court filings suggested that Lavan case was likely to be close to settlement (see here for a summary of the issues involved). A Report on the Status of the Settlement Process that hit PACER just now gives more detail. In particular, the settlement agreement is scheduled for the Claims Board on April 11 and is likely to come before the full City Council by the end of April. Get the PDF here or read the important part after the break. You read it here first!
Continue reading Lavan Case Settlement Likely to Come Before Full LA City Council by End of April 2016