Garcia v. City of L. A.
| Decision Date | 15 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | CV 19-06182-DSF-PLA |
| Parties | Janet GARCIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Catherine Elizabeth Sweetser, Kristina A. Harootun, Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP, Benjamin A. Herbert, Michael Alexander Onufer, William L. Smith, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, Shayla Renee Myers, Romy Colleen Ganschow, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Agnes Patricia Ursea, Felix Lebron, Gabriel Seth Dermer, Los Angeles City Attorneys Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.
Order GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. 22)
Defendant City of Los Angeles moves to dismiss the First, Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action of the Supplemental Complaint to the First Amended Complaint (Suppl. FAC). Dkt. 22 (Mot.).1 Plaintiffs Janet Garcia, Gladys Zepeda, Miriam Zamora, Ali El-Bey, Peter Diocson Jr., Marquis Ashley, James Haugabrook, Ktown for All (KFA), and Association for Responsible and Equitable Public Spending (AREPS) oppose. Dkt. 25 (Opp'n).
In 2016, the Los Angeles City Council amended Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) § 56.11 (the Ordinance).2 Dkt. 20 (Suppl. FAC). The Ordinance regulates the storage of personal property in public areas. Its stated purpose is to "balance the needs of the residents and public at large to access clean and sanitary public areas ... with the needs of the individuals, who have no other alternatives for the storage of personal property, to retain access to a limited amount of personal property in public areas." LAMC § 56.11(1). In most situations, the City is authorized to impound personal property in a public area so long as the City provides pre-removal and post-removal notice. See, e.g., LAMC § 56.11(3)(a)-(b). In other situations, including where the property obstructs City operations or interferes with the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), only post-removal notice is required to impound personal property. See, e.g., id. § 56.11(3)(c)-(f). There are also limited situations where the City can immediately destroy personal property without notice, including if the property "poses an immediate threat to the health or safety of the public," id. § 56.11(3)(g), "constitutes evidence of a crime or contraband," id. § 56.11(3)(h), or is a "Bulky Item" that is not "designed to be used as a shelter," id. § 56.11(3)(i) (Bulky Item Provision). A Bulky Item is "any item, with the exception of a constructed Tent, operational bicycle or operational walker, crutch, or wheelchair, that is too large to fit into a 60-gallon container with the lid closed," but not "a container with a volume of no more than 60 gallons used by an individual to hold his or her Personal Property." Id. § 56.11(2)(c).
To enforce the Ordinance, the City, through the Bureau of Sanitation (Sanitation) and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), conducts noticed cleanups and random rapid responses where personal property that does not comply with the Ordinance is seized or destroyed. Suppl. FAC ¶¶ 21, 69.
The City also adopted the Los Angeles Municipal Code 56.11 Standard Operating Protocols regarding the implementation and enforcement of the Ordinance.3 The Protocols contain detailed instructions on how Sanitation and LAPD should enforce the Ordinance. For example, Procedure 7 explains that items are "health hazards" if "there is statistically significant evidence based on at least one study conducted in accordance with established scientific principles that acute or chronic health effects may occur in exposed persons." RJN, Ex. 2 at 29.
On or about January 29, 2019, without any prior notice, a Sanitation crew seized and destroyed Garcia's tent and all of her belongings, including a vacuum and other cleaning supplies she uses for her work as a domestic cleaner, while she had momentarily left to use the bathroom. Suppl. FAC ¶¶ 24, 125-132. On April 29, 2019, as part of a noticed cleanup, another Sanitation crew seized Garcia's belongings while she was watching her neighbors' property. Id. ¶¶ 24, 133. On August 14, 2019, Sanitation workers again seized and destroyed all of her belongings when she left them to go to work, even though she had attempted to move them out of the noticed cleanup area before leaving for work. Id. ¶¶ 25, 134-145.
On March 21, 2019, without notice, Sanitation workers seized and destroyed all of Zepeda's and Zamora's belongings that could not fit into a single 60-gallon trash bag, including a new tent, tarps, clean clothing, and a chest containing important documents. Id. ¶¶ 28, 155-165. Shortly thereafter, KFA provided Zepeda and Zamora with a new tent. Id. ¶ 166. On or about June 11, 2019, Sanitation again destroyed Zepeda's and Zamora's tent, along with the belongings inside of the tent. Id. ¶ 168.
On January 10, 2019, without notice, Sanitation and LAPD gave El-Bey 10 minutes to pack up his belongings and move. Id. ¶¶ 30, 173-77. When El-Bey required additional time to collect his belongings, one of the LAPD officers threatened him with arrest. Id. ¶ 179. The rest of his belongings, including his ID, medications, and a tent, were destroyed. Id. ¶¶ 30, 178-82. On June 4, 2019, Sanitation workers destroyed his belongings, including his medication, while El-Bey had left to do laundry. Id. ¶¶ 183-87. El-Bey was told that his belongings needed to be destroyed for "safety reasons." Id. ¶ 185.
On or about March 2019, without any notice, Sanitation gave Haugabrook 15 minutes to pack up his belongings and move. Id. ¶¶ 193-95. Sanitation then destroyed Haugabrook's backpack and its contents, including medication and other important items. Id. ¶¶ 32, 196. On another occasion, Sanitation took Haugabrook's chairs as part of a Bulky Item pickup. Id. ¶¶ 32, 197-98. On a third occasion, City workers destroyed his tent and other items while he was gone for a short period of time. Id. ¶ 201.
On April 24, 2019, LAPD and Sanitation, pursuant to a noticed cleanup, seized and destroyed as a Bulky Item Diocson's dog kennel, where his dog slept at night. Id. ¶¶ 34-35, 209-214.
On or about May 21, 2019, as part of a noticed cleanup, Sanitation seized and destroyed as Bulky Items two carts that Ashley used to move his belongings. Id. ¶¶ 37, 218-226.
Rule 12(b)(6) allows an attack on the pleadings for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. "[W]hen ruling on a defendant's motion to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam). However, a court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’ " Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). A complaint must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. This means that the complaint must plead "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. There must be "sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively ... and factual allegations that are taken as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation." Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).
Ruling on a motion to dismiss will be Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ).
As a general rule, leave to amend a complaint that has been dismissed should be freely granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, leave to amend may be denied when "the court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency." Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiffs allege that the subsection of the Ordinance permitting the seizure and immediate destruction of Bulky Items, without a warrant or pursuant to a warrant exception, is an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution.4 Suppl. FAC ¶¶ 231-32. To adequately plead a facial challenge, Plaintiffs must allege sufficient facts to show that the Bulky Item Provision is unconstitutional in all "applications of the statute in which it actually authorizes or prohibits conduct." City of Los Angeles, Calif. v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409, 135 S. Ct. 2443, 2451, 192 L.Ed.2d 435 (2015) ; see also Morrison v. Peterson, 809 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir. 2015) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial