Tag Archives: City of Los Angeles

City of LA Files Answer in Mitchell, Hearing on Order to Clarify Injunction Postponed to July 25

June 3, 2016 Mike Leave a comment

City of LA's cut and paste response to Mitchell complaint. TL;DR: Either we didn't do it or they didn't say we did so we don't even have to say we didn't. — City of LA’s cut and paste response to Mitchell complaint. TL;DR: Either we didn’t do it or they didn’t say we did so we don’t even have to say we didn’t.

(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).

On May 20¹ the City of Los Angeles filed its response to the complaint in Mitchell v. Los Angeles. It’s 13 pages of unenlightening denial, punctuated only with an occasional “they didn’t accuse us of anything so we’re not even gonna deny it” moment. Also, the parties are negotiating something, and evidently it’s going well, so yesterday they jointly asked the judge to put off the hearing on the City’s motion for a clarification of Otero’s injunction against the City. Well, evidently they showed good reason, because today Otero filed an order granting the continuance and that hearing is now scheduled for July 25.
Continue reading City of LA Files Answer in Mitchell, Hearing on Order to Clarify Injunction Postponed to July 25 →

Lawsuits

Settlement Almost Finalized in LA Catholic Worker, LA CAN v. City of LA, Central City East Association

May 26, 2016 Mike Leave a comment

Recall that, towards the end of March of this year, the parties to this case began making noises about a potential settlement. This evening, all parties to the suit, begun in 2014, filed a Joint Progress Report on the Status of Potential Settlement. They evidently reached a tentative agreement on April 5, and, according to this status report:

The parties have been diligently working to draft the final terms and language of the settlement agreement and to obtain approval from all parties to finalize the agreement.

The parties remain confident that they will be able to reach final agreement on all matters and will be able to obtain approval from all parties to settle this matter in its entirety.

They promise to update the court on the status of this settlement on July 26, 2016.

Lawsuits

City of Los Angeles asks Judge Otero to Clarify Last Month’s Preliminary Injunction Against Full Enforcement of LAMC 56.11

May 11, 2016 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).

Recall that last month Judge Otero issued a preliminary injunction forbidding the City of Los Angeles from confiscating the property of homeless people in and/or around Skid Row without following required due process. Today the City filed a motion asking Otero to clarify what he meant. They also filed a proposed order for the Judge’s signature which, I imagine, is mostly of value here as it shows what the City wishes the injunction means.

Additionally the city filed a map of Skid Row, a copy of LAMC 56.11, and a declaration of Scott Marcus, the assistant chief of the Civil Litigation Branch of the City Attorney’s office. Marcus’s main point seems to be that he met with Carol Sobel for four hours in the company of Magistrate Judge Carla Woerhle and they couldn’t come to a common understanding about what the order meant.
Continue reading City of Los Angeles asks Judge Otero to Clarify Last Month’s Preliminary Injunction Against Full Enforcement of LAMC 56.11 →

Lawsuits

Judge Otero Mostly Denies City of LA’s Motion to Dismiss

May 6, 2016 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).

On April 5, 2016, the City of Los Angeles filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit and a hearing was set for May 9. Subsequently a number of motions were filed by both parties. Today Judge James Otero filed an order on the motion and cancelled Monday’s hearing. While he did grant the City’s request to dismiss two of the causes of action, he declined to dismiss the main substance of the complaint. You can read it yourself, and some details follow after the break.
Continue reading Judge Otero Mostly Denies City of LA’s Motion to Dismiss →

Announcements, Downtown Center BID, Hollywood Property Owners Alliance

Huge Document Dump: HPOA Quarterly Reports, DCBID Emails, Central Crime Control Documents

April 26, 2016 Mike Leave a comment

We're out here having fun in the warm California sun! — We’re out here having fun in the warm California sun!

It’s been a while since I’ve announced a pure, old-fashioned document dump, but the records just keep pouring in, and I have loads of them to lay on you this evening. First, from our friends at the Hollywood Property Owners Alliance, we have pretty much all their Quarterly Reports, even going back to the 1990s. I also put these on the Archive:

BIDs are required to send these reports to the City Clerk, who keeps them on file. They contain detailed narratives of the BIDs’ activities and are invaluable for understanding what’s going on. I have a ton of these from other BIDs as well, but they’re not quite ready for prime time. If there’s something you need urgently, though, drop me a line and I will try to fix you up.

Also, courtesy of the much-more-helpful-lately-than-she-has-been-in-the-past Suzanne Holley of the Downtown Center BID we have a massive pile of Central Area Crime Control stuff from the LAPD. This is valuable because getting it out of the LAPD would be practically impossible, and yet here it is. See what Compstat output looks like and much else of interest.

Finally, I have a bunch of emails, and there are details after the break:
Continue reading Huge Document Dump: HPOA Quarterly Reports, DCBID Emails, Central Crime Control Documents →

Lawsuits

Defendant City of Los Angeles Files Reply in Support of Their Pending Motion to Dismiss

April 25, 2016 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).

On April 5, 2016 the City of Los Angeles, defendant in Mitchell v. Los Angeles,filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit (the actual pleading is here). The plaintiffs replied to this last Friday. Today the City of LA filed a reply to the plaintiffs’ reply. I don’t even know where to start with this, so I’m just announcing its existence and making it available for free here so you can save 60¢ on PACER. By the way and completely off-topic: PACER is the subject of a class action lawsuit filed last Thursday alleging illegal overcharging. Go team!

Lawsuits

Plaintiffs File Opposition to City of LA’s Motion to Dismiss, Alleging Blatant Violations of Local Court Rules in Addition to All-Around Wrongness

April 18, 2016 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).

On April 5, 2016 the City of Los Angeles, defendant in Mitchell v. Los Angeles, the latest homeless-rights lawsuit to come off the line at Carol Sobel‘s magic workshop, filed a motion to dismiss, staking their position on the seemingly (even to me, who knows little to nothing about the legal issues at stake) very thin grounds that they had the right to destroy whatever they wanted to because they passed a law saying that they did.¹

Today the plaintiffs filed a response to the City’s motion which was supported by a declaration of Carol Sobel and a bunch of exhibits. This stuff is pretty much too technical for me to even discuss, but, as always, I got the pleadings from PACER so I want to make them available here for you. However, I suppose that if the court has already found that the plaintiffs’ arguments are likely to succeed on their merits and issued an injunction, it’s not too very likely that he’s going to grant a motion to dismiss. Like I said, though, I have no idea what I’m talking about.² Continue reading Plaintiffs File Opposition to City of LA’s Motion to Dismiss, Alleging Blatant Violations of Local Court Rules in Addition to All-Around Wrongness →

Lawsuits

Court Finds Plaintiffs’ Arguments Likely to Succeed on their Merits, Issues Preliminary Injunction Limiting Confiscation of Homeless People’s Property on Skid Row

April 13, 2016 Mike Leave a comment

Judge James Otero issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the City of LA from wantonly confiscating homeless people's property on Skid Row. — Judge James Otero issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the City of LA from wantonly confiscating homeless people’s property on Skid Row.

Judge James Otero just today issued an order granting an injunction prohibiting the City of Los Angeles from confiscating the property of homeless people living on Skid Row without following a detailed procedure meant to protect their property rights. In order to grant this order, Otero had to find that the claims of the plaintiffs against the City were likely to succeed, and this he did. In particular, he analyzed the evidence that the City submitted in opposition to the request for a restraining order and stated unequivocally that “The counterevidence submitted by Defendants, including the videos, are at best inconclusive.” This strikes my (uninformed) eye as a fairly bad start to the City’s defense of this case, which is a fairly good omen for justice, fairness, and humanity in this City of Angels.

You can see the conditions under which the City is allowed to confiscate property after the break, but they seem to be essentially the conditions (notification, health hazards, storage for 90 days, etc.) that are already prescribed by LAMC 56.11. My superficial reading of the situation is that he’s ordering them to stick to what the law already allows, but now they have a federal judge ordering them to stick to what the law allows. After all, it’s one thing to have to follow the law because it’s the law. It’s another more serious thing entirely to have to follow the law because a federal judge is watching you to make sure you follow it. Anyway, that’s what I think is going on here.
Continue reading Court Finds Plaintiffs’ Arguments Likely to Succeed on their Merits, Issues Preliminary Injunction Limiting Confiscation of Homeless People’s Property on Skid Row →

Lawsuits

Deadline for Defendants to Respond to Initial Complaint in Street Vending Lawsuit Re-Extended to June 11

April 12, 2016 Mike Leave a comment

The Fashion District as a hall of mirrors: Outside Michael Levine's. — The Fashion District as a hall of mirrors: Outside Michael Levine’s.

UPDATE 2:35 pm PDT: Judge O’Connell just now filed a scheduling order setting the upcoming settlement conference in this case for Monday, May 16 at 1:30 pm.

In February, Federal Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell extended the deadline for the City of LA and the Fashion District BID to reply to the initial complaint, which was filed in October of 2015 in the case of Aureliano Santiago v. City of LA and Fashion District BID. Last Thursday all parties to the case asked the Judge to allow the defendants more time to respond, as settlement negotiations are still ongoing. Yesterday the Judge entered an order putting the deadline off until June 11, 2015. The parties are presently trying to reschedule settlement discussions.
Continue reading Deadline for Defendants to Respond to Initial Complaint in Street Vending Lawsuit Re-Extended to June 11 →

Lawsuits

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,

April 9, 2016 Mike Leave a comment

(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, →