Case: Flores v. City of Baldwin Park Police Department

BC560031 | California state trial court

Filed Date: Oct. 8, 2014

Closed Date: March 2, 2017

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On October 8, 2014, two individuals filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles under state law against the City of Baldwin Park Police Department. The plaintiffs, represented by public interest counsel, asked the court for damages and injunctive and declaratory relief, claiming that defendants falsely imprisoned one of the plaintiffs; that such imprisonment violated the defendants' obligations under the California TRUST Act; that such imprison…

On October 8, 2014, two individuals filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles under state law against the City of Baldwin Park Police Department. The plaintiffs, represented by public interest counsel, asked the court for damages and injunctive and declaratory relief, claiming that defendants falsely imprisoned one of the plaintiffs; that such imprisonment violated the defendants' obligations under the California TRUST Act; that such imprisonment deprived one of the plaintiffs of his rights under California law and the California Constitution; and that such activities are a wasteful and illegal expenditure of taxpayers' dollars, warranting an injunction.

Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that one of the plaintiffs was held for three days under a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") after being eligible for release from local law enforcement agency custody, in violation of the California TRUST Act. The other plaintiff claimed that the defendants' actions in honoring ICE hold requests in contravention of state and federal law were a wasteful and illegal expenditure of taxpayer dollars, and sought an injunction permanently enjoining Defendants from honoring immigration detainers in violation of the TRUST Act.

On December 3, 2014, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California because of the "claims of constitutional violations and questions relating to federal immigration laws." The plaintiffs moved to remand two weeks later, arguing that there was no substantial federal question. The federal district court granted the plaintiffs' motion and remanded the case back to the Los Angeles Superior Court on February 23, 2015. It held that the cause of action was created by state law, and that the presence of an immigration issue under a federal program (here, the Secure Communities program) did not completely preempt state law. It also rejected the defendants' argument that the plaintiffs' claims were inherently federal in nature and found that the plaintiffs' right to relief did not depend on a substantial, disputed federal question. In addition to not having federal question jurisdiction, there was also no diversity jurisdiction even if the private firm operating the jail in Baldwin Park was outside of California because the firm was not a party to the case.

On February 8, 2016, the defendants moved for summary judgment. Three days later, the plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment.

The parties then settled, notifying the court on March 23, 2016. The defendants agreed to pay $27,500 in damages and attorneys' fees: $15,000 to the named plaintiff and $12,500 to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. The case was then dismissed on May 24, 2016.

Summary Authors

Dan Whitman (12/2/2014)

Lauren Yu (9/4/2021)

People


Judge(s)

Chooljian, Jacqueline (California)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Bansal, Jessica Karp (California)

Barragan, Matthew J. (California)

Attorney for Defendant

Carpenter, Martin Leonard (California)

Coleman, Susan E. (California)

Judge(s)

Chooljian, Jacqueline (California)

Fitzgerald, Michael Walter (California)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:14-cv-09290

Docket [PACER]

Sergio Flores v. City of Baldwin Park Police

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

March 5, 2015

March 5, 2015

Docket

BC560031

Docket [Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County]

March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Docket
59

BC560031

Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Feb. 11, 2006

Feb. 11, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief

BC560031

Complaint for Damages, Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

Oct. 8, 2014

Oct. 8, 2014

Complaint
17

2:14-cv-09290

Order Remanding Claims for Lack of Jurisdiction

Flores v. City of Baldwin Park

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Feb. 23, 2015

Feb. 23, 2015

Order/Opinion

2015 WL 2015

53

BC560031

Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Adjudication; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support

Feb. 8, 2016

Feb. 8, 2016

Pleading / Motion / Brief
72

BC560031

Notice of Settlement of Entire Case

March 23, 2016

March 23, 2016

Settlement Agreement
71

BC560031

Notice of Settlement of Entire Case

March 23, 2016

March 23, 2016

Notice Letter

BC560031

Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims

March 29, 2016

March 29, 2016

Settlement Agreement

Docket

Last updated Sept. 9, 2022, 3 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Key Dates

Filing Date: Oct. 8, 2014

Closing Date: March 2, 2017

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

An individual and a taxpayer

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

MALDEF

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

City of Baldwin Park Police Department (Baldwin Park, Los Angeles), City

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Attorneys fees

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Private Settlement Agreement

Amount Defendant Pays: 27,500

Issues

General:

Over/Unlawful Detention

Terrorism/Post 9-11 issues

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Confinement/isolation

Language:

Spanish

Immigration/Border:

Detention - criteria

Detention - procedures