University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Youth Justice Coalition v. City of Los Angeles CJ-CA-0018
Docket / Court 2:16-cv-07932-VBF-RAO ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Criminal Justice (Other)
Attorney Organization ACLU of Southern California
Case Summary
On October 25, 2016, Youth Justice Coalition and two Los Angeles men filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs sued the City of Los Angeles (the City), the City Attorney, and the Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department. They ... read more >
On October 25, 2016, Youth Justice Coalition and two Los Angeles men filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs sued the City of Los Angeles (the City), the City Attorney, and the Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department. They sought temporary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the enforcement of "gang injunctions"; a declaration that these injunctions, policies, and practices violated the United States and California Constitutions; class certification; and attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs alleged that the City had violated the two individual plaintiffs' due process through its practice of granting "gang injunctions" against individuals and unincorporated associations. They further claimed that the practice harmed the Youth Justice Coalition by diverting valuable and limited resources from its mission in order to defend these individuals' rights.

Specifically, the plaintiffs brought this case over the City's "unconstitutional enforcement of restrictive 'gang injunctions.'" The complaint detailed a practice whereby the LAPD and the City Attorney named gangs as defendants in cases. As unincorporated associations, these gangs did not receive notification, and therefor failed to appear in court, enabling the court to pass judgements against these gangs in default. The City would then serve suspected members of gangs with 'gang injunctions' prohibiting them from activities such as wearing certain clothing, appearing in public with friends and family, or working next to other members of the community. Violations of these injunctions could result in six months in jail and a fine of $1,000. The two individual plaintiffs had both been subject to these gang injunctions, and as a result had been forced to limit their daily actions within their community. One feared going out in public with his father and another chose to stop taking union jobs in a certain neighborhood for fear of being stopped by the police.

On December 15, 2016, Judge Fairbank granted a joint stipulation dropping the two named defendants. The parties had agreed that in exchange for dropping the named defendants, the City defendant would not file a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint on any grounds.

On January 27, 2017, Judge Fairbank granted one individual plaintiff's unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction barring the City of Los Angeles from enforcing the gang injunction against him. That same day, Judge Fairbanks granted a stipulation to stay the case pending settlement discussions. She ordered the parties to file a status report on Friday, March 17, 2017. 2017 WL 396141. The parties submitted this report on March 16, seeking a further stay. The stay continued for several months as the parties continued negotiating a settlement agreement and submitting status reports. The stay was ultimately lifted on July 3, 2017 because the parties had determined that they could not come to agreement.

The case was reassigned to Judge Virginia A. Phillips on July 21, 2017. Judge Phillips held a hearing on August 30th as to the preliminary injunction, which she granted on September 7th. The preliminary injunction barred the City of Los Angeles from enforcing the specific gang injunction against the other individual plaintiff to the case. 2017 WL 3981122.

In October, the plaintiffs moved for class certification of "[a]ll persons currently, or who are in the future, subject to a Los Angeles Gang Inunction who were not named as defendants in or otherwise parties to the civil nuisance abatement action to obtain that injunction, and who do not have contempt proceedings for violation of an injunction currently proceeding against them." The defendants did not oppose this motion.

As of December 2017, the case was ongoing.

Gabriela Hybel - 12/27/2017


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
Discrimination-basis
Race discrimination
General
Courts
Disparate Treatment
Over/Unlawful Detention
Quality of representation
Racial profiling
Plaintiff Type
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Private Plaintiff
Race
Race, unspecified
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
State law
Defendant(s) City Attorney of Los Angeles
City of Los Angeles
Los Angeles Police Department
Plaintiff Description Two men subject to City of Los Angeles "gang injunctions," and the Youth Justice Coalition.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU of Southern California
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Pending
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Case Ongoing Yes
Docket(s)
2:16-cv-07932-VBF-RAO (C.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0018-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/04/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint [ECF# 2]
CJ-CA-0018-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/25/2016
Source: ACLU
Order Dismissing Complaint Without Prejudice as to Defendants Beck and Feuer Pursuant to Joint Stipulation of All Named Parties [ECF# 37] (C.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0018-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/15/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 69] (C.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0018-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/27/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order GRANTING Plaintiff Peter Arellano’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 106] (C.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0018-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/07/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Fairbank, Valerie Baker (C.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0018-0002 | CJ-CA-0018-0003 | CJ-CA-0018-9000
Phillips, Virginia A. (C.D. Cal.)
CJ-CA-0018-0004
Plaintiff's Lawyers Bibring, Peter (California)
CJ-CA-0018-9000
Green, Joshua D. (California)
CJ-CA-0018-0001 | CJ-CA-0018-9000
Iguina, Carmen G. (California)
CJ-CA-0018-9000
Jhai, Maria (California)
CJ-CA-0018-0001 | CJ-CA-0018-9000
Kreilkamp, Jacob S. (California)
CJ-CA-0018-0001 | CJ-CA-0018-9000
Mandhania, Ankur (California)
CJ-CA-0018-0001 | CJ-CA-0018-9000
Ochoa, Melanie Rose Penny (California)
CJ-CA-0018-9000
Sargent, Amelia L. B. (California)
CJ-CA-0018-0001
Smolowe, Laura Danielle (California)
CJ-CA-0018-0001 | CJ-CA-0018-9000
Wagner, Catherine A. (California)
CJ-CA-0018-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Ursea, Agnes Patricia (California)
CJ-CA-0018-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -