LA says judge repeated opposition claims verbatim in remarks

The City of Los Angeles blasted a federal judge in an objection filed Monday, suggesting that opening remarks he made in a contempt hearing over the city's response to homeless shelter commitments were lifted directly from a motion filed by the opposing counsel. 

The objection came as the city faced a potential contempt ruling by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter for allegedly failing to meet homeless reduction benchmarks it agreed to in a settlement with advocacy group L.A. Alliance for Human Rights. 

The city asserts it has complied with the settlement to the best of its ability. The Alliance says they fell short.

At the beginning of the contempt proceedings on Nov. 19, the city's filed objection claimed, "The court read opening remarks that purported to describe the city's alleged conduct leading to the hearing. In doing so, the court appears to have recited largely verbatim the facts alleged in the Alliance's February 2024 Motion for Settlement Compliance and Sanctions--without disclosing that it was doing that." 

As proceedings continued Tuesday, in a hearing that began at 7:30 a.m., Carter repeatedly overruled objections by the city's counsel from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP partners Poonam G. Kumar and Kahn A. Scolnick. They also objected generally to the plaintiffs' attorneys' questions pertaining to matters the city asserted had already been settled in a previous stipulation. 

The settlement between Los Angeles and the LA Alliance for Human Rights requires the city to provide detailed quarterly reports on homeless mitigation efforts, including the number of housing and shelter opportunities created, offered, accepted or rejected, along with underlying data verified in coordination with the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. LA Alliance for Human Rights et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al., 2:20-cv-02291 (C.D. Cal., filed March 10, 2020).

However, the plaintiffs allege that for more than three years the city has repeatedly failed to provide timely, accurate data or grant needed access to source materials, instead imposing obstacles such as routing all communications through outside counsel.

The plaintiffs are represented by Matthew Umhofer and Elizabeth A. Mitchell of Umhofer Mitchell & King LLP.

The city's objection on Monday cited three specific instances from Carter's opening remarks that seemed to borrow language from the plaintiffs' 2024 sanctions motion, including shared references to a city proposal having "two major problems" and district-by-district numbers reported by the city as "not the product of any consultation with the City Council members who represent those districts."

"Many of the assertions from the Alliance's motion are disputed and are not evidence," the city's Monday objection read. "The court, however, recited many of those assertions verbatim."

"In short," the filing continued, "the city objects to the court commencing a contested evidentiary hearing by essentially adopting as findings of fact and conclusions of law a disputed and slanted series of allegations from one party."

Carter did not address the objection at Tuesday's hearing, where he overruled the majority of the city's objections to the plaintiffs' questioning, including inquiries into whether a request for quotes to outside contractors by the city was successfully realized.

While a witness, Alliance consultant and board member Daniel Conway, said the request had been made, he said a vendor never materialized due to unforeseen complications uncovered by Mercedes Marquez, chief of homeless and housing solutions for Mayor Karen Bass.

"Ms. Marquez tells you that it was more complicated and challenging than she and others at the city anticipated to find a vendor to complete the work. Isn't that right?" Kumar asked Conway. "And actually, you agreed that it is, in fact, more complicated and challenging, right?"

"I agree that it's complicated and challenging, but I think it's doable, which is, again, why we brought this lawsuit in the first place," Conway responded.

Kumar then argued that the issue of the unfulfilled request for quotes was previously settled in a stipulation between the parties.

"Just stating for the record, as we did at the last hearing, that we'd object to this testimony and any testimony related to this issue as it has been resolved by the court and the Alliance pursuant to the stipulation in 2024," Kumar said.

Contempt proceedings were scheduled to continue on Thursday.