All posts by Mike

Lunada Bay Boys Magistrate Judge Rozella Oliver Schedules Telephonic Hearing To Determine How To Proceed On The Manifold Motions Regarding Discovery Disputes Sent Over By Judge Otero For September 5, Orders, To The Delight Of Everyone Who Has To Pay PACER Fees, That No Further Briefs Be Filed Unless Requested

August 29, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

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

NOTE: Because I was asked, I thought I’d just announce that I’m sorry for the lack of cartoons. For the next week I’m forced to use a substandard computer. The cartoons will return on or about September 5 if all goes as planned.

Yesterday Judge James Otero bestowed sufficient authority upon Magistrate Judge Oliver to decide all the pending motions relating to discovery shenanigans on the parts of the various defendants, including the plaintiffs’ monumental motion for administrative relief. Well, Oliver is no slacker — today the Magistrate Judge issued an order scheduling a telephonic hearing on all the pending discovery matters for September 5. The purpose of this hearing, it seems, isn’t to decide the issues, but to agree on what further briefs and proceedings will be necessary to decide the issues. As always, there’s a transcript after the break.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Magistrate Judge Rozella Oliver Schedules Telephonic Hearing To Determine How To Proceed On The Manifold Motions Regarding Discovery Disputes Sent Over By Judge Otero For September 5, Orders, To The Delight Of Everyone Who Has To Pay PACER Fees, That No Further Briefs Be Filed Unless Requested →

Lawsuits

City of Los Angeles Files Unconvincing Response To Carol Sobel’s Opposition To City’s Motion For Clarification Of Judge Otero’s Preliminary Injunction Against Confiscation Of Homeless People’s Property In Skid Row, Basically Ask Court To Allow Them To Confiscate Incident To Arrest Even If There’s A Third Party To Take Property Cause Cops Don’t Have Time To Do The Right Thing

August 29, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

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. See here to download most of the papers filed in the case.

Last week it came out that ongoing settlement talks in Mitchell v. City of Los Angeles had broken down, leading to the plaintiffs filing an opposition to the City’s motion for clarification of Judge Otero’s April 2016 preliminary injunction against the City. Yesterday the City filed a reply to Sobel’s opposition (PDF, transcription after the break).

The City’s argument is based on the highly dubious assertion that “Throughout all of its efforts, the City strives to balance the need of all of the City’s residents to have clean, sanitary, and accessible public areas, including sidewalks, with the needs of “the City’s large and vulnerable homeless population” and they just need clarification “…to ensure that its employees who are responsible for protecting the health, safety, and welfare of every person living or working in the Skid Row area clearly understand, and are in a position to successfully implement, the terms of the Court’s Order.”

Of course, it’s much, much more likely that the City’s goal is to harass homeless people so mercilessly that they all leave, freeing up the valuable real estate of Skid Row for the Downtown developers who hungering so fiercely for it. And I apologize that I can’t go into more detail, but, as I said, there’s a transcription after the break.
Continue reading City of Los Angeles Files Unconvincing Response To Carol Sobel’s Opposition To City’s Motion For Clarification Of Judge Otero’s Preliminary Injunction Against Confiscation Of Homeless People’s Property In Skid Row, Basically Ask Court To Allow Them To Confiscate Incident To Arrest Even If There’s A Third Party To Take Property Cause Cops Don’t Have Time To Do The Right Thing →

Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

Lunada Bay Boys Judge Otero Kicks Plaintiffs’ Motions For Administrative Relief, Sanctions Against Charlie, Frank Ferrara, Sang Lee, Back To Magistrate Judge Oliver For Decision, Stays Decision On All Other Pending Motions, Continues Trial Date To December 12

August 29, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

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.

Earlier this month the Lunada Bay Boys plaintiffs filed a motion for administrative sanctions asking Judge Otero to deny all the various and sundry motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants. The argument was that the astonishing level of discovery-related obstructionism displayed by the defendants, which has already resulted in some sanctions and will probably result in many more, makes it impossible for the plaintiffs reply effectively to the flurry of motions. Additionally, the plaintiffs filed other motions for discovery-related sanctions against alleged Bay Boys Charlie and Frank Ferrara and Sang Lee with Magistrate Judge Rozella Oliver, who subsequently ruled that the authority to rule rested solely with Otero.

On Friday Judge Otero ruled that the motion for administrative relief could be handled without a hearing, and yesterday he issued an order granting Magistrate Judge Oliver the authority to rule on that motion and also on the motion for sanctions against Charlie and Frank Ferrara and Sang Lee. He also postponed decisions on all other pending motions until Oliver decides on these two. Finally, he also moved the trial date to December 12 at 9 a.m. You can read a transcription of the whole order after the break.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Judge Otero Kicks Plaintiffs’ Motions For Administrative Relief, Sanctions Against Charlie, Frank Ferrara, Sang Lee, Back To Magistrate Judge Oliver For Decision, Stays Decision On All Other Pending Motions, Continues Trial Date To December 12 →

Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

Lunada Bay Boys Magistrate Judge Rozella Oliver Orders Defendants Charlie And Frank Ferrara’s Lawyers Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara To Pay Monetary Sanctions To Plaintiffs Because Of Unjustified Failure To Comply With Discovery Order

August 26, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

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 couple weeks ago the plaintiffs in the Lunada Bay Boys case asked Magistrate Judge Rozella Oliver to order defendants Charlie and Frank Ferrara and their lawyers, Bremer, Whyte, Brown, & O’Meara, to pay more than $32,000 in sanctions for their failure to abide by various discovery orders. On Tuesday the defense filed its opposition and on Wednesday a telephonic hearing was held.¹

Yesterday, Rozella Oliver filed a minute order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions against the Ferraras themselves, but granting it with respect to sanctions against the lawyers. Since not everyone has to pay the plaintiffs don’t get all the money they asked for, and they’re required to recalculate what they’re owed based on this order and brief the judge on it by September 7. Turn the page for a transcription of the order.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Magistrate Judge Rozella Oliver Orders Defendants Charlie And Frank Ferrara’s Lawyers Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara To Pay Monetary Sanctions To Plaintiffs Because Of Unjustified Failure To Comply With Discovery Order →

Fashion District BID, Municipal Ethics, Venice Beach BID

President Tara Devine Begged Fashion District To Hire Her For BID Consulting At $72,000 But They Hired UPC At $55,000 Instead Even Though Estela Lopez Really Loves President Devine And Steve Heumann Had “Front Row Seat” To President Devine’s Work In “Impossible” Venice — President Devine Admits Against Interest That Purpose Of BID Consulting Is To “Effectuate Approval” Of Municipal Legislation

August 26, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

As you may recall, I’ve been studying the relationships between BIDs and the consultants they hire to guide them through the process of establishing or renewing their BIDs. As part of this work I discovered, e.g., that the Fashion District BID is paying $55,000 to FDBID Executive Directrix Rena Leddy’s former employer Urban Place Consulting for renewal services. But before the Board hired UPC they, acting as the fiscally responsible grownups they are, for whatever reason, presumed to be, solicited proposals from the City’s various BID consultants.

And, although it’s probably not such a surprise given how few BID consultants there are in this City, it turns out that famously shadowy BID consultant Tara Devine submitted a proposal! She didn’t get the job, though, possibly because her bid was almost $20,000 higher than UPC’s. And there are many things to be learned from this document, not least of which is the fact that Tara Devine, utilizing the grammatical voice known technically as “unhinged third person,” refers to herself throughout as “President Tara Devine.”¹

The most important information in the document, though, has to do with the scope of services, which contains crucial information for my ongoing project of turning BID consultants in to the Ethics Commission for failing to register as lobbyists. One necessary element of the registration requirement, found in the Municipal Lobbying Ordinance,² is that a lobbyist be employed “…for the purpose of attempting to influence municipal legislation on behalf of any person.”³

BID renewal requires the City Council to pass two distinct ordinances,⁴ and this fact is a key element of my my general argument that BID consulting is lobbying. But how much more effective than me arguing for this position to just have President Tara Devine admit herself, in her own words, that when a BID hires her as a consultant they are hiring her to get some legislation passed. Given this admission against interest, she’ll have a hard time arguing that she’s not a lobbyist:

Coordination with City Clerk, HCED Chair, Council President, and Council District 14 to effectuate scheduling and approval of:
o Ordinance of Intention
o Ordinance of Establishment
o Prop 218 Ballot Issuance

Anyway, the whole document is well worth your time to read, although most of it’s merely mockable rather than substantial. Turn the page for transcriptions of some selections, including a bunch of risible testimonials from President Tara Devine’s cronies in BIDlandia and their comments, as filtered through her considerable third-person ego, about her work in Venice and elsewhere.
Continue reading President Tara Devine Begged Fashion District To Hire Her For BID Consulting At $72,000 But They Hired UPC At $55,000 Instead Even Though Estela Lopez Really Loves President Devine And Steve Heumann Had “Front Row Seat” To President Devine’s Work In “Impossible” Venice — President Devine Admits Against Interest That Purpose Of BID Consulting Is To “Effectuate Approval” Of Municipal Legislation →

Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

Lunada Bay Boys Judge Otero Announces That He Can Decide All Eleventy-Jillion Motions For Summary Judgment, Administrative Relief, Et Damn Cetera, Without Oral Arguments, Cancels September 5 Hearing

August 25, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

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.

Remember all those eleventy-jillion motions everyone in this “over-pled”¹ behemoth of a case has filed over the last weeks? Like first every single defendant filed motions for summary judgment:

Then the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss all those motions because, they plausibly claimed, they were prevented from making an adequate response by the manifold discovery shenanigans perpetrated by the defense. Then all the defendants opposed that motion and of course the plaintiffs subsequently replied to that opposition. And arguments over every last jot and tittle of this stack of claims, counter-claims, cross-counter-claims, and so on and on and on, were scheduled to be heard on September 5.

Well, just this afternoon, Judge Otero announced that he will be deciding all of these motions, oppositions to these motions, replies to oppositions, etc., without oral argument. He therefore cancelled the hearing, and that, I suppose, is that. There’s no PDF associated with this kind of announcement, but you can read the whole thing after the break anyway.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Judge Otero Announces That He Can Decide All Eleventy-Jillion Motions For Summary Judgment, Administrative Relief, Et Damn Cetera, Without Oral Arguments, Cancels September 5 Hearing →

Business Improvement Districts, Municipal Ethics

How I Reported Shadowy BID Consultant Tara Devine To The City Ethics Commission For Failing To Register As A Lobbyist Based On Her Work For The South Park BID In 2017

August 25, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

So you may recall that I’ve been working on establishing the fact that BID consulting constitutes lobbying as defined in the Municipal Lobbying Ordinance. I kicked off this project in February with shadowy BID consultant Tara Devine, whom I reported to the Ethics Commission for working as a lobbyist but failing to register as a lobbyist. Meanwhile, if you have no idea what I’m talking about, here is a reasonable introduction to the concepts of both BID consultancy and why it’s almost certainly the kind of thing for which registration with the Ethics Commission is required.

My theory gained some credibility with the discovery that some BID consultants in Los Angeles do register as lobbyists. Since February I’ve been collecting evidence against Ed Henning for his work with the San Pedro BID and also against Urban Place Consulting for their work on Fashion District BID renewal and also Media District BID renewal.

And, of course, against Tara Devine for her ongoing work with the South Park BID. Finally, a few weeks ago I completed a generic argument¹ that BID consultancy constitutes lobbying. And this morning I’m pleased to announce that, despite the twisted CPRA-defying machinations of South Park BID director of operations² Katie Kiefer and her less-than-competent lawyers,³ I have submitted yet another complaint to the Ethics Commission against Tara Devine, this time for her BID consulting for South Park. You can read the whole complaint here.

And turn the page for a technical discussion of an interesting issue which came up while I was putting this complaint together. Note that I discussed this same issue the other day, so if you read that post, you might want to just skip the rest of this one.
Continue reading How I Reported Shadowy BID Consultant Tara Devine To The City Ethics Commission For Failing To Register As A Lobbyist Based On Her Work For The South Park BID In 2017 →

Municipal Ethics

In Defense Of Detailed Reporting Of Contacts Between Lobbyists And City Officials

August 23, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

On August 15 the City Ethics Commission met and discussed proposed changes to the Los Angeles Municipal Lobbying Ordinance. The Commissioners with one notable exception were disgracefully deferential to the trumped-up concerns of a bunch of lobbyists. You can read the full set of staff recommendations as well.

I hope everyone who cares about government ethics in Los Angeles will write comments to the Commission. I’m currently working on a series of my own positions, to be compiled and submitted as public comment. This post is the second in the series, and the previous item was In Defense of a Compensation-Based Registration Threshold for Lobbyists.

Today I’m defending the proposed change to a requirement that lobbyists report individual contacts with City officials by name and title. Right now there’s a super-minimal reporting requirement which is essentially ineffectual. As always, if you have no idea what I’m talking about, you’re not alone. Turn the page for an introduction to the issue and arguments in favor of making the change.
Continue reading In Defense Of Detailed Reporting Of Contacts Between Lobbyists And City Officials →

Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

Lunada Bay Boys Plaintiffs Reply To Opposition To Their Motion For Administrative Relief, Include Fascinating Transcript Of Yet Another Telephonic Hearing About Discovery Transgressions By Defendants

August 23, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

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 couple weeks ago the plaintiffs asked Judge Otero to deny all the various and sundry motions for summary judgment filed by all the various and sundry defendants in this tangled web of a lawsuit. The basis of this plaintiffs’ motion is their pretty darn plausible assertion that approximately none of the defendants are cooperating with their discovery obligations, making it impossible for the plaintiffs to reply effectively to the defense motions.

Of course, both the City defendants and the individual defendants filed the usual eleventy-jillion briefs in opposition. And yesterday the plaintiffs filed their reply to the opposition. This was written by Kurt Franklin, and is very much worth reading.¹ There is a transcription after the break. The hearing on this motion is scheduled for September 5, 2017 in James Otero’s courtroom 10C in the First Street Federal Courthouse.

The reply came with the usual batch of exhibits, among which is this gem of a transcript of the July 25 hearing before the Magistrate Judge Rozella Oliver about Sang Lee’s discovery failures. If you’ve been following along, this was the hearing after which Oliver issued an order requiring Lee to hand everything over that very day. Another good read is this excerpt from the Steve Barber deposition in which he admits to being a Bay Boy buddy and also discusses at length the phone-carrying habits of the PVEPD.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Plaintiffs Reply To Opposition To Their Motion For Administrative Relief, Include Fascinating Transcript Of Yet Another Telephonic Hearing About Discovery Transgressions By Defendants →

Lawsuits

Discussions On City Of LA’s Motion For Clarification Of Otero’s Preliminary Injunction Forbidding Confiscation Of Homeless Property In Skid Row Finally Break Down, Leading Plaintiffs’ Attorneys To File Scathing Opposition — Hearing Set For September 11 At 10 a.m.

August 22, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

It’s been over a year since anything tangible happened in Mitchell v. City of LA, which is the most recent lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles challenging the City’s abhorrent enforcement of the abhorrent LAMC 56.11 as an abhorrent justification for the illegal and immoral confiscation of the personal property of homeless people in Los Angeles. Here’s a brief timeline of what’s been going on:

April 2016 — Judge Otero issues a preliminary injunction severely limiting the City’s enforcement of LAMC 56.11 in Skid Row.
May 2016 — The City of Los Angeles asks Otero to clarify his injunction. In particular, the City wanted to know the boundaries within which the injunction applies and also how the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment is to be exercised in relation to homeless people’s property.
Subsequently the City and the plaintiffs spent over a year trying to come to an agreement on the motion for clarification.

Well, yesterday Carol Sobel filed this opposition announcing that, while the parties were able to agree on the boundaries within which the injunction applies and some other matters, they most certainly were not able to agree on the community caretaking matter and neither were they able to agree on the City’s proposal for what constitutes a removable “bulky item.” The agreed-upon boundaries, by the way, are:

Second Street to the north, Eighth Street to the South, Alameda Street to the east and Spring Street to the west.

According to the American Bar Association Journal,

The idea behind community caretaking is that police do not always function as law enforcement officials investigating and ferreting out wrongdoing, but sometimes may act as community caretakers designed to prevent harm in emergency situations.

When they’re functioning in that role, the theory goes, they can seize cars without due process, or search houses without a warrant, and so on, as long as they’re “caring for the community” rather than investigating. Thus the community caretaking function justifies some specific exceptions to the Fourth Amendment prohibition on warrantless searches and seizures of property.

And I’m sure you can imagine just what kinds of mischief the City of Los Angeles is capable of getting up to with a tool like that. In particular they’re arguing that they ought to be able to confiscate people’s property when they’re arrested even if the arrestee has someone at the scene who can take custody of the property. The City says yes, sane people say no.

This matter is scheduled for a hearing at 10 a.m. on Monday, September 11, in Otero’s Courtroom 10C in the First Street Federal Courthouse. Anyway, turn the page for some excerpts from the filing which explain things better than I’m capable of doing.
Continue reading Discussions On City Of LA’s Motion For Clarification Of Otero’s Preliminary Injunction Forbidding Confiscation Of Homeless Property In Skid Row Finally Break Down, Leading Plaintiffs’ Attorneys To File Scathing Opposition — Hearing Set For September 11 At 10 a.m. →