Category Archives: Lawsuits

Save Valley Village Files Suit In Superior Court Against City of Los Angeles Alleging Corruption Via Vote Trading At City Council

September 12, 2016 Mike Leave a comment

Last Thursday, September 8, a group called Save Valley Village filed a petition with the LA County Superior Court (hat tip to Scott Zwartz at Zwartz Talk for breaking the story) alleging that the members of the Los Angeles City Council are violating not only their oaths of office, but a State law, when they pay one another “deference” by never voting against anything that any of them propose within their districts.

The whole thing is worth reading and will be totally convincing to anyone who has ever watched our Council in action. The fact that there is some covert agreement among the Councilmembers is transparently clear. Here’s how SVV’s complaint describes it:

The Councilmembers of the Los Angeles City Council operate according to an agreement, i.e. The Vote Trading Pact, not to Vote No on any Council Project in another council district and said agreement by its very terms requires reciprocality, also called mutuality, whereby the agreement not to Vote No by one Councilmember is given in exchange for the other Councilmember’s not to vote No on a Council Project in his/her council district. Some have described the Vote Trading Pact as an agreement to Vote Yes for all Council Projects, and it has been described as taking the format of, “If you scratch my back on my Council Projects, I will scratch your back on your Council Projects.” Others refer to the agreement as one of deferring or respecting the decision of the Councilmember in whose district the Council Project is located. All the phrases describe the same Vote Trading Pact.

Councilmember David Ryu has described the Vote Trading Pact as one of “respect” for other Councilmember’s Council Projects and in return he expects the same “respect” for his Council Projects.

“For someone to come in at the tail end and to disagree with my recommendation after meetings with the community on dozens of occasions and with other city departments and after I have involved stakeholders,” doesn’t make sense, he said. “I might make a decision…and my colleagues respect it. Even if they might disagree with my decision, they abide by it because they were not there during those community meetings.” Los Feliz Ledger September 1, 2016

Continue reading Save Valley Village Files Suit In Superior Court Against City of Los Angeles Alleging Corruption Via Vote Trading At City Council →

Lawsuits

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

September 9, 2016 Mike Leave a comment

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 →

Announcements, Lawsuits

LAPD to Illegally Incarcerated Michael Brown Protesters: “Your [College] Degrees Don’t Matter Here.” “I Guess No Instagram Or Twitter Tonight.” “You Wanted To Play The Game — This Is How WE Play The Game.” Selection of Documents From Amha v. Los Angeles Available

September 2, 2016 Mike Leave a comment

I’m reporting on the progress of Chua v. Los Angeles (to the best of my legally limited ability) for this blog. The recently filed joint discovery plan in that case mentioned a number of other pending civil suits against the City of Los Angeles arising out of the same set of Michael Brown / Ferguson protests Downtown in 2014. One of these, Amha v. City of LA, caught my eye, so I downloaded a few of the briefs from PACER. I don’t have time to analyze these, but I’m putting them in a directory here, also available through the menu structure above to some extent. I’ll be updating it as new stuff is filed, and may write on it if the mood strikes me. Meanwhile, after the break, see some of the horrid stuff the LAPD did and said to this poor lady after arresting her when she was walking past a protest on her way home from the gym, as alleged in the initial complaint.
Continue reading →

Lawsuits

Discovery Plan Filed in Chua v. Los Angeles, Lawsuit Arising From LAPD Misconduct During 2014 Michael Brown Protests

September 1, 2016 Mike Leave a comment

See this article from the LA Times and our previous posts on the subject for the background to this post. All of the filings can be found here.

Tonight two new filings in this case hit PACER. First and most interesting there is this Joint Discovery Plan. It has statements of the case from both the plaintiffs and the defendant:

PLAINTIFFS:
This case involves the detention and arrests of individuals in November, 2014 during several days of protests related to the events in Ferguson, Missouri and the death of Michael Brown. The case is filed as a class action based on two incidents: one occurring at Beverly and Alvarado in which the sub-class was subject to detention, warrantless search and interrogation before being released by Defendants. The second incident involves a mass arrest at 6^th and Hope in which Plaintiffs contend that they were not given adequate dispersal notice before being surrounded by the LAPD and arrested. The group at 6 th & Hope also contend that they were held in jail for approximately a day when they should have been cited and released pursuant to California Penal Code § 853.6. Both groups also allege that their privacy rights were violated by the collection of personal information and the storage and dissemination of that information by the LAPD and to other law enforcement entities.

Continue reading Discovery Plan Filed in Chua v. Los Angeles, Lawsuit Arising From LAPD Misconduct During 2014 Michael Brown Protests →

Lawsuits, Public Records Act Pragmatics

First Amendment Coalition Sues City of Los Angeles Over Tom LaBonge’s Illegal Records Destruction, Alleges Possible Felony Records Destruction, Eric Garcetti Still Not Held To Account For Similar Crimes

August 28, 2016 Mike Leave a comment

Current CD4 representative David Ryu, whose termed-out predecessor Tom LaBonge ordered the destruction of public records, leading to both an FAC lawsuit and a council motion to prevent this kind of thing in the future.

In January 2016 the Los Feliz Ledger broke the story that termed-out CD4 Councilmember Tom LaBonge had ordered the destruction of public records prior to his leaving office on June 30, 2015. Emily Alpert Reyes, writing in the Los Angeles Times reported on Thursday that the First Amendment Coalition had filed suit against the City of Los Angeles, claiming, among other things, that the destruction of this material either violated the California Public Records Act or else the fairly draconian Government Code section 6200. Thanks to FAC director Peter Scheer I have a copy of the petition to share with you, and you can read some further commentary after the break.
Continue reading →

Lawsuits

City of Los Angeles Will Not (At This Time, Anyway) Oppose Class Action Certification in Chua v. City of LA

August 25, 2016 Mike Leave a comment

See this article from the LA Times and our previous posts on the subject for the background to this post. All of the filings can be found here.

Last month the plaintiffs in Chua v. City of Los Angeles filed a ton of material asking for the case to be certified as a class action. Today the defendant, the City of Los Angeles, filed a notice of non-opposition to that request. They’re doing it for the most altruistic reasons ever:

…in order to conserve party and Court resources, Defendants hereby state that they do not oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification … at this time.

And what have they given up through their kind-hearted and selfless concern for the resources of the court? Well, pretty much nothing:

Since discovery has not yet commenced, Defendants reserve the right to seek decertification of the classes certified (in whole or in part) should discovery reveal that certification is not appropriate.

Obviously these are bog-standard opening moves in a federal class action suit, but they strike me³ as amusing, so I’m sharing with you, lucky reader!
Continue reading City of Los Angeles Will Not (At This Time, Anyway) Oppose Class Action Certification in Chua v. City of LA →

Lawsuits

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

August 1, 2016 Mike Leave a comment

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.”⁴ 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 →

Lawsuits, Venice

City of Los Angeles Files Singularly Unconvincing Response in Support of its Own Motion to Dismiss Venice Justice Committee Lawsuit; (Sarcastically?) Suggests Protestors Would be Better Off Speaking at Neighborhood Council than Leafletting on Boardwalk

July 18, 2016 Mike Leave a comment

Expressive activity on the Venice Boardwalk.

Tonight the City of Los Angeles filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed in February by the Venice Justice Committee. Recall that the motion to dismiss was filed in June and last week the plaintiffs responded to that motion, noting among other things that Abbott Kinney gave the Boardwalk to the City for use as a public sidewalk in perpetuity.

This makes the City’s repeated assertion throughout tonight’s filing that the Boardwalk is a public park particularly galling. If it’s an error, it’s careless beyond belief. The principle of charity compels me to assume it’s more of the dark sarcasm so favored by Feuer’s minions. They just don’t give a fuck, and why should they? They probably already have the million dollar payout to Carol Sobel budgeted for. But I’m getting ahead of the story.
Continue reading City of Los Angeles Files Singularly Unconvincing Response in Support of its Own Motion to Dismiss Venice Justice Committee Lawsuit; (Sarcastically?) Suggests Protestors Would be Better Off Speaking at Neighborhood Council than Leafletting on Boardwalk →

Lawsuits

Sixth Time’s a Charm: Judge O’Connell Yet Again Extends Deadline for City of LA, Fashion District BID to Respond to Initial Complaint in Street Vending Lawsuit

July 18, 2016 Mike Leave a comment

Just a brief note here to memorialize the fact that last week the parties to the street vending lawsuit brought against the Fashion District BID and the City of Los Angeles jointly requested that Judge O’Connell give the defendants more time to respond to the initial complaint. Today Judge O’Connell issued an order granting the request. The new deadline for the defendants’ response is September 12, 2016. As with the five previous extensions, the reason given is that settlement talks are still proceeding fruitfully. So that happened.

Lawsuits

Motion to Certify Class Action in Chua v. City of LA Filed Today, Along With Extensive Supporting Declarations; Hearing Set for Monday, October 24, 2016, at 8 a.m.

July 14, 2016 Mike Leave a comment

See this article from the LA Times and our previous posts on the subject for the background to this post. All of the filings can be found here.

Today the plaintiffs in the case Chua v. City of Los Angeles filed the following pleadings:

Motion for class certification — This motion argues that the suit should be a class action.
Declaration of Barrett S. Litt in support of motion — Here plaintiffs’ attorney Barrett Litt argues that he is sufficiently qualified to represent the class.
Declaration of Carol A. Sobel in support of motion — This is Carol Sobel’s argument that she’s qualified to represent the class.
Declarations of named plaintiffs in support of motion — Here the named plaintiffs themselves explain why they’re qualified to represent the class of others similarly situated.

Continue reading Motion to Certify Class Action in Chua v. City of LA Filed Today, Along With Extensive Supporting Declarations; Hearing Set for Monday, October 24, 2016, at 8 a.m. →