Case: Morales v. The City of Indio

18-03060 | California state trial court

Filed Date: Feb. 13, 2018

Closed Date: March 12, 2019

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On February 14, 2018 a property owner in the City of Indio filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside. The plaintiff was represented by the Institute for Justice. The complaint challenged the city of Indio’s code enforcement system. The plaintiff claimed that the law firm of Silver & Wright LLP, which the city delegated its powers of criminal prosecution for code enforcement cases to, had a financial conflict of interest in thes…

On February 14, 2018 a property owner in the City of Indio filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside. The plaintiff was represented by the Institute for Justice. The complaint challenged the city of Indio’s code enforcement system. The plaintiff claimed that the law firm of Silver & Wright LLP, which the city delegated its powers of criminal prosecution for code enforcement cases to, had a financial conflict of interest in these prosecutions. The law firm was recovering lawyers’ fees from those who had committed code violations. The plaintiff brought the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that the defendant had violated her Due Process rights under the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution.

The plaintiff was a property owner whose tenant was raising chickens, which is against the law in Indio. She pled guilty and paid a $225 fine, but nearly a year later received a bill for $3,030.33 in lawyer's fees associated with the proceedings. The class comprised of all individuals who pled guilty or no contest in a criminal case where Silver & Wright LLP, or one or more of its agents, acted as prosecuting city attorney(s) for either the City of Indio or the City of Coachella.

On April 9, 2018, the plaintiff, along with two additional plaintiffs, filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint. On May 4, 2018, counsel for the City sent the plaintiffs' class counsel a settlement offer. Additional settlement discussions ensued, and eventually the parties agreed to settlement terms.

The settlement terms included the city paying back all fees that were collected from named plaintiffs and class members who were criminally prosecuted by Silver & Wright, and relinquished claims to outstanding fees, removing any leins placed on them as a result of being criminally prosecuted by Silver & Wright LLP. The city agreed to no longer seek to recover its attorneys' fees in criminal prosecutions.

The court retained jurisdiction over the parties, the class members, and the settlement with respect to the future performance of the terms of the settlement agreement, and assured that all payments and other actions required by the settlement were properly carried out.

Additionally, legislation was later enacted eliminating the ability of cities to charge defendants for the cost of prosecuting violations of local ordinances.

Summary Authors

Anna Brito (2/6/2019)

People


Attorney for Plaintiff

Barthelmess, Rob (California)

House, Joshua (Virginia)

Orr, Jason (California)

Redfern, Jeffrey H. (Virginia)

Strong, Sabrina H (California)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

RC 1803060

Complaint

Feb. 13, 2018

Feb. 13, 2018

Complaint

RC 1803060

Settlement

Dec. 12, 2018

Dec. 12, 2018

Settlement Agreement

Resources

Docket

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

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Criminal Justice (Other)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 13, 2018

Closing Date: March 12, 2019

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

a property owner in the City of Indio

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

City of Indio (Riverside), City

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Issues

General:

Conflict of interest

Fines/Fees/Bail/Bond