Category Archives: 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 →

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 →

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. →

Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

Tiffany Bacon, Lunada Bay Boys Defense Attorney For Two Thirds Of The Ferraras In The Case, Files Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Motion For $32,000 In Sanctions In Advance Of Tomorrow’s Telephonic Hearing On The Matter, Passively Threatens Retaliatory Abuse Of Process Claim Against Plaintiffs On Charlie’s (But Not Frank’s) Behalf

August 22, 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.

Last week, in yet another thrilling episode in the seemingly neverending saga of discovery disputes in the astonishingly labyrinthine Lunada Bay Boys case, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking magistrate judge Rozella Oliver to make Charlie Ferrara, Frank Ferrara, and their lawyers, Bremer, Whyte, Brown, & O’Meara, represented in the instant matter by Tiffany Bacon, cough up $32,000 in sanctions for failure to abide by the Court’s orders regarding discovery.

Well, there’s a telephonic hearing on the matter tomorrow at 10 a.m., and yesterday Tiffany Bacon, attorney to the particular Ferraras involved here, filed an Opposition to the Motion as well as a big old declaration in support of the opposition and a little tiny objection to evidence, mostly arguing that the fact that Frank Ferrara was quoted in the Daily Breeze about the case before he was served, being hearsay, isn’t adequate evidence that he was aware of the case before he was served.

As the hearing is tomorrow and Rozella Oliver is characteristically quite prompt with orders we should know the outcome within the next few days. Stay tuned, and turn the page for a transcription of some excerpts from the opposition to the motion.
Continue reading Tiffany Bacon, Lunada Bay Boys Defense Attorney For Two Thirds Of The Ferraras In The Case, Files Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Motion For $32,000 In Sanctions In Advance Of Tomorrow’s Telephonic Hearing On The Matter, Passively Threatens Retaliatory Abuse Of Process Claim Against Plaintiffs On Charlie’s (But Not Frank’s) Behalf →

Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

Lunada Bay Boys Judge James Otero Orders Post-Deadline Deposition Of Plaintiff Organization Coastal Protection Rangers To Take Place By August 24 Or, At The Latest, September 15

August 19, 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.

The other day the Lunada Bay Boys defendants asked Judge James Otero if they could depose the Coastal Protection Rangers, who is one of the plaintiffs in the case, despite the fact that the deadline for depositions has passed. Yesterday Otero issued an order allowing them to do so. There’s a transcription of the order after the break.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Judge James Otero Orders Post-Deadline Deposition Of Plaintiff Organization Coastal Protection Rangers To Take Place By August 24 Or, At The Latest, September 15 →

Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

Lunada Bay Boys Defendants Oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion For Administrative Relief With Another ‘Leventy-Dozen Pleadings Filed — Has Angelo Ferrara’s Lawyer Lost His Mind?

August 18, 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.

Recall that about 10 days ago the Lunada Bay Boys plaintiffs filed a motion for administrative relief asking Judge Otero to deny the steaming heap of defense motions for summary judgment. Over the last few days the defendants have filed a ton of stuff in opposition to this motion and there are links to all of it after the break.

The most astonishing item, though, is Angelo Ferrara’s reply. There’s a complete transcription after the break, and it’s certainly worth reading. The words in the cartoon above are taken from this document, and here’s another sample: “If there were an Olympic sport of throwing spaghetti against a wall to see what would stick, Plaintiffs would take home the gold.” Not the least weird aspect of this document is that the lawyer refers to his client (Angelo) by his first name throughout.

Also worth taking a look at are:

More exhibits in support of Papayans’ motion — This has a list of the information that the plaintiffs hope(d) to get from Michael Papayans’ cell phone which, as you may recall, has been the subject of a long strange discovery trip of its own.
Stipulation to take nonexpert deposition of CPR — The time for depositions is done, but the defendants want to depose the Coastal Protection Rangers after the deadline, not sure why.
Blakeman reply brief — “The case against Blakeman can be summed up in one sentence: On January 29, 2016, Blakeman allegedly surfed too close to Spencer, filmed Reed getting sprayed with drops of beer, and then, later that night, missed 61 calls from codefendant Sang Lee. There is no evidence linking Blakeman to any conspiracy without wild and unpermitted speculation.”
Jalian Johnston reply brief — ‘From the video of the incident: “fucking sexy baby…want to film it?”; “I seen you and I think I touched myself a little bit”; “I can do whatever I want.” As stated above, mere words cannot amount to an assault. This statement does not support the Plaintiff’s claim.’

Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Defendants Oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion For Administrative Relief With Another ‘Leventy-Dozen Pleadings Filed — Has Angelo Ferrara’s Lawyer Lost His Mind? →

Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

City of PVE And Jeff Kepley And The PVE Police Officers’ Association File Opposition To Motion Because They Don’t Want To Hand Over Text Messages From Cops’ Personal Phones — No One Seems To Be Discussing The Fact That The California Supreme Court Decided In March That Work Information On Personal Phones Is Public Record

August 15, 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.

Last week the plaintiffs in the Lunada Bay Boys case asked magistrate judge Rozella Oliver to sanction the City of PVE because they refused to hand over work-related text messages. Oliver subsequently denied this motion on technical grounds. At roughly the same time the plaintiffs filed a motion for administrative relief, essentially asking Judge Otero to deny the zillions of defense motions for summary judgment because of various discovery failures on the part of the defense.

And tonight the City of PVE and Jeff Kepley filed their opposition to that motion. The most important item is this memorandum of points and authorities which has, as these all seem to, a good discussion of the facts of the dispute.

The main issue seems to be, though, that the plaintiffs’ asked for material from the personal phones of PVE cops and the cop union intervened and said via their lawyer, Howard A. Liberman, that they weren’t going to hand it over because it would violate the officers’ privacy and also it would violate their contract with the City of PVE. The City also argues that they can’t hand it over since they don’t have control over it.

There are links to all the other goodies after the break, by the way, along with more of the usual uninformed speculation.
Continue reading City of PVE And Jeff Kepley And The PVE Police Officers’ Association File Opposition To Motion Because They Don’t Want To Hand Over Text Messages From Cops’ Personal Phones — No One Seems To Be Discussing The Fact That The California Supreme Court Decided In March That Work Information On Personal Phones Is Public Record →