Case: Latin American Law Enforcement Association v. City of Los Angeles

2:92-cv-01898 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: March 27, 1992

Closed Date: 2013

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On March 27, 1992, minority officers of the Los Angeles Police Department filed two complaints against their employer, along with a proposed consent decree, in the United States District Court, Central District of California. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 1981, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Specifically, the plaintiffs cla…

On March 27, 1992, minority officers of the Los Angeles Police Department filed two complaints against their employer, along with a proposed consent decree, in the United States District Court, Central District of California. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 1981, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that minority LAPD officers were discriminatorily denied promotions, assignments to mobility-enhancing positions, and pay-grade advancements.

The underlying employment discrimination class action lawsuit was initiated on September 12, 1988, when the Latin American Law Enforcement Association filed an administrative complaint alleging employment discrimination against minority LAPD officers. A settlement in the form of a proposed consent decree was reached in late 1991 and was approved by the City Council on November 5, 1991. The proposed decree included an affirmative action plan providing goals and special programs designed to address the underrepresentation of African American, Hispanic, and Asian American sworn officers in promotions and other forms of advancement within the LAPD.

On August 25, 1992, the court (A. Wallace Tashima) approved the consent decree. The consent decree obligated the City to engage in vigorous good faith efforts to promote minority officers in proportion with their representation in the police department. The court, however, amended the terms of the decree in response to criticism from three white officers, changing it from a fixed term of 12 to 15 years to a maximum term of 15 years subject to the right of the City to move at any time to be relieved of its obligations upon a showing that the objectives of the decree had been satisfied. The time to appeal the final order expired on September 26, 1992. On October 16, 1992, the white officers filed their motion to intervene as of right. The district court denied the motion as untimely. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges Robert Beezer, Alex Kozinski, and Dorothy Wright Nelson) affirmed. Latin American Law Enforcement Association v. City of Los Angeles, 29 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 1994).

On July 25, 2002, the Plaintiffs filed an application for an order to show cause why the City should not be held in contempt of the consent decree. The Court issued an order to show cause on August 12, 2002. On August 11, 2003, the District Court (Judge Margaret M. Morrow) found that the City had violated several of its obligations under the Consent Decree and ordered limited discovery to determine an appropriate remedy.

On July 14, 2009, the District Court extended the termination date for the Consent Decree from August 26, 2009, to December 31, 2009.

On December 31, 2009, the District Court again extended the consent decree until February 1, 2010. The parties later stipulated to again extend the consent decree until March 22, 2010, but the District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to again extend the consent decree, confirming the termination date of March 22, 2010.

On January 24, 2013, Judge Morrow ordered the termination of the Consent Decree and dismissed the case with prejudice. The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Haley Waller (8/17/2010)

Lisa Koo (3/15/2019)

People


Judge(s)

Beezer, Robert R. (Washington)

Kozinski, Alex (California)

Morrow, Margaret M. (California)

Nelson, Dorothy Wright (California)

Judge(s)

Beezer, Robert R. (Washington)

Kozinski, Alex (California)

Morrow, Margaret M. (California)

Nelson, Dorothy Wright (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

Jan. 24, 2013 Docket

MEMORANDUM

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

29 F.3d 633

July 21, 1994 Order/Opinion

The Latin American Law Enforcement Association announces that Court-appointed Monitor orders City of Los Angeles to comply with LaLey consent decree

No Court

Feb. 20, 2002 Press Release
66

ORDER GRANTING RE INTERVENING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE CONSENT DECREE

Aug. 11, 2003 Order/Opinion
79

ORDER EXTENDING TERMINATION DATE FOR CONSENT DECREE

July 14, 2009 Order/Opinion
82

ORDER EXTENDING TERMINATION DATE FOR CONSENT DECREE AS TO PLAINTIFF LATIN AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION, PLAINTIFF AFRICAN AMERICAN CLASS AND DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO FEBRUARY 1, 2010

Dec. 31, 2009 Order/Opinion
89

FINAL ORDER RE PLAINTIFF LATIN AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF THE CONSENT DECREE

March 22, 2010 Order/Opinion

Docket

Last updated May 13, 2022

ECF Number Description Date Link
17

STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge A. W. Tashima withdrawing attorney Theresa Fay−Bustillos & the Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund for Latin Ameri Law and Enforcement Associations substituting attorney Stephen H Silver, Susan Silver, Devonne L Midson, Elizabeth Silver Tourgeman of the Law Firm of Silver, Hadden & Silver ; decls of Stephen H Silver & Devonne L Midson in suppt (SEND) (ir) (Entered: 10/04/2000)

Oct. 2, 2000

FOR ALL PREVIOUS DOCKETING, REFER TO THE PAPER DOCKET (ir) (Entered: 10/04/2000)

Oct. 4, 2000
19

MEMORANDUM OF P/A IN SUPPORT by plaintiff Latin Ameri Law of motion for enforcement of the Ord of the Crt−appointed monitor under consent decree [18−1] (rrey) (Entered: 04/01/2002)

March 29, 2002
20

DECLARATION of Susan Silver by plaintiff Latin Ameri Law in suppt of motion for enforcement of the Ord of the Crt−appointed monitor under consent decree [18−1] (rrey) (Entered: 04/01/2002)

March 29, 2002
21

ORIG PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff Latin Ameri Law on 3/29/02 of propsd ord on mot for enforcement (rrey) (Entered: 04/01/2002)

March 29, 2002
22

NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT OF CASE DUE TO UNAVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL OFFICER: The District Judge to whom this cs was previously assigned is no longer available. Purs to the directive of the Chief US District Judge and in accordance w/ the rules of this Court, this cs has been reassigned to Judge Margaret M. Morrow for all further proceedings. Case now reads as CV 92−1898 MMM. (rn) (Entered: 04/02/2002)

March 29, 2002
23

NOTICE by plaintiff Latin Ameri Law of ord re attys fees (rrey) (Entered: 04/04/2002)

April 3, 2002
24

ORIGINAL PROOFS OF SERVICE by plaintiff on 4/2/02 of ntc of mot & mot for enforcement of the ord of the Crt−appointed monitor under consent decree (see doc for fur details) (rrey) (Entered: 04/05/2002)

April 3, 2002
25

MINUTES: (In Chambers) The Crt directs the ptys to file a Joint Rpt not to exceed 5 pgs explaining the history of the case; the current status of the case; & the nature of the current dispute on or bef 5/23/02 by Judge Margaret M. Morrow CR: N/A (rrey) (Entered: 05/15/2002)

May 13, 2002
26

JOINT REPORT filed purs to the Minute Order dated 5/13/02. (nhac) (Entered: 05/24/2002)

May 23, 2002
27

NOTICE by defendant Los Angeles City of of related case(s) LA Superior Court case no. BC 273587 & BC 260644 (rn) (Entered: 09/17/2002)

Sept. 11, 2002
28

MINUTES: The court continues the briefing shcedule set forth in the 10/21/02 minute order as follows: Counsel for the individual officers, as well as class counsel, are instructed to submit their briefs to the court by 12/2/02, replacing the previous date of 11/12/02. Counsel for defendants are instructed to submit their reply briefs to the court by 12/23/02, replacing the previous date of 12/2/02 by Judge Margaret M. Morrow CR: N/A (bg) (Entered: 11/01/2002)

Oct. 31, 2002
29

REQUEST filed by plaintiff Latin Ameri Law to render decision on plaintiffs motion filed 3/29/02 (rrey) (Entered: 12/04/2002)

Dec. 3, 2002
30

MINUTES: setting hearing on motion for enforcement of the Ord of the Crt−appointed monitor under consent decree [18−1] 10:00 2/24/03; the City is directed to file opposition to plaintiffs motion addressing inter alia these same points not to exceed 40 pages by 1/27/03; all positions asserted should be supported by citation to legal authority; plaintiff may submit a reply of the length permitted by the LR on or before 2/3/03 by Judge Margaret M. Morrow CR: N/A (rrey) (Entered: 12/23/2002)

Dec. 16, 2002
31

AMENDED NOTICE OF motion for enforcement of the Ord of the Crt−appointed monitor under consent decree [18−1] filed by plaintiff Latin Ameri Law (rrey) (Entered: 12/27/2002)

Dec. 23, 2002
32

STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Margaret M. Morrow for withdrawal and substitution of class counsel for plaintiff Korean American Law Enforcement Association as class representative for the subclass of Asian American Los Angeles Police Department Sworn Officers (rrey) (Entered: 01/28/2003)

Jan. 27, 2003
33

ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating Asian Pacific American Legal Center by movant Law Enforcement Asso and substituting attorney Walter Cochran−Bond by Judge Margaret M. Morrow (bg) (Entered: 01/30/2003)

Jan. 27, 2003
35

REPLY by plaintiff Latin Ameri Law to memo of p/a of the City of Los Angeles in opp to motion for enforcement of the Ord of the Crt−appointed monitor under consent decree [18−1]; decl of Dean Weinreich (rrey) (Entered: 02/05/2003)

Feb. 3, 2003
36

OPPOSITION by plaintiff Latin Ameri Law to motion for enforcement of the Ord of the Crt−appointed monitor under consent decree [18−1] (rrey) (Entered: 02/06/2003)

Feb. 4, 2003
37

ORDER by Judge Margaret M. Morrow that the application for additional time to file opposition papers is granted and defendant City of Los Angeles shall have up to and including February 7, 2003 in which to file said opposition papers. Plaintiff shall file reply brief on or before february 14, 2003 (bg) (Entered: 02/07/2003)

Feb. 6, 2003
38

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in OPPOSITION by defendant Los Angeles City of to motion for enforcement of the Ord of the Crt−appointed monitor under consent decree [18−1] (bg) (Entered: 02/07/2003)

Feb. 6, 2003
39

REPLY to second memorandum of points and authorities in opposition by plaintiff Latin Ameri Law to motion for enforcement of the Ord of the Crt−appointed monitor under consent decree [18−1] (bg) (Entered: 02/18/2003)

Feb. 14, 2003
40

EX PARTE REQUEST filed by plaintiff Latin Ameri Law for reconsideration of order granting defendant's post hoc ex parte application for additional time to file opposition (bg) (Entered: 02/18/2003)

Feb. 14, 2003
41

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE by defendant Los Angeles City of re ex parte application for reconsideration of order granting defendant's post hoc ex parte application for additional time to file opposition [40−1] (bg) (Entered: 02/20/2003)

Feb. 19, 2003
42

MINUTES: resetting hearing on motion for enforcement of the Ord of the Crt−appointed monitor under consent decree [18−1] 9:30 2/26/03 by Judge Margaret M. Morrow CR: None (bg) (Entered: 02/21/2003)

Feb. 20, 2003
43

Notice of partial resolution of issues by defendant Los Angeles City of to motion for enforcement of the Ord of the Crt−appointed monitor under consent decree [18−1] (bg) (Entered: 02/25/2003)

Feb. 24, 2003
44

OBJECTIONS and motion to strike plaintiff Asian American Subclass's memorandum of points and authorities, etc filed by defendant Los Angeles City of (bg) (Entered: 02/25/2003)

Feb. 24, 2003
45

OBJECTIONS and Motion to strike plaintiff John Hunter's Notice regarding significance of authority of special master etc filed by defendant Los Angeles City of to (bg) (Entered: 02/27/2003)

Feb. 25, 2003
46

NOTICE of lodging of court ordered deposition transcripts of Commander David J Kalish and Frank Piersol by movant Law Enforcement Asso (bg) (Entered: 02/28/2003)

Feb. 26, 2003

LODGED Two deposition transcripts submitted by movant Law Enforcement Asso (FWD TO CRD) (bg) (Entered: 02/28/2003)

Feb. 26, 2003

PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED proposed order in motion for enforcemetn of the order of the Court−appointed monitor under the consent decree (el) (Entered: 03/13/2003)

March 12, 2003
47

MINUTES: Order to show cause further hearing set for 10:00 4/28/03 ; Counsel for each of the plaintiff classes may file brief setting forth his or her clients' position, if any, regarding the current application on or before 4/14/03. Such briefs may not exceed 10 pages. The intervening class members and the City may file replies to any briefs that are filed on or before 4/21/03. Their briefs too may not exceed 10 pages by Judge Margaret M. Morrow CR: N/A (pj) (Entered: 04/03/2003)

April 2, 2003
48

EX PARTE APPLICATION filed by plaintiff Latin Ameri Law Enforcement Association for extension of deadline, from 4/14/03 to 5/5/03, for the parties to submit their joint report for proposing modications to the Supervisory Cross Training Program

April 15, 2003
50

MINUTES: Order granting plaintiffs' ex parte application to continue hearing on order to show cause re contempt and setting date for the filing of plaintiffs' reply order to show cause hearing set for 10:00 6/9/03 by Judge Margaret M. Morrow CR: None (bg) (Entered: 04/25/2003)

April 24, 2003
51

NOTICE OF ERRATA by defendant Los Angeles City of correcting reply [49−1] (bg) (Entered: 04/30/2003)

April 25, 2003
52

JOINT PROPOSAL for modification of the supervisory cross−training program under the Hunter−LA Ley consent decree (jp) (Entered: 05/07/2003)

May 5, 2003
53

NOTICE of change of attorney information by plaintiff (bg) (Entered: 05/14/2003)

May 13, 2003
54

MINUTES: Order directing parties to submit proposed modification of portions of Consent Decree governing Supervisory Cross−Training Program. The parties are instructed to file the proposed modification of the consent decree for the court's consideration and signature on or before June 20, 2003 by Judge Margaret M. Morrow CR: None (bg) (Entered: 05/29/2003)

May 27, 2003

PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED stipulation re proceedings on plaintiff's claim for attorneys' fees and costs; order thereon (bg) (Entered: 06/03/2003)

June 2, 2003
55

MINUTES: Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to pursue and present evidence in support of their application, and they have failed to demonstrate that the testimony they seek to present concerns disputed issues of fact that have been properly raised in declarations or documentary evidence on file with the court. Accordingly, the court denies plaintiffs' request to present witness testimony at the hearing on June 9, 2003. Because it has determined that plaintiffs' attempt to conduct discovery at this stage is untimely, and becuase it has denied plaintiffs' request to present witnesses at the hearing, the court grants the City's ex parte application to quash the subpoenas. Plaintiffs may, however, file declarations from the three intervening plaintiffs who have yet to provide a declaration −Richard Abad, Christopher Montoya and Isais Ornelas − on or before June 4, 2003 by Judge Margaret M. Morrow CR: N/A (bg) (Entered: 06/04/2003)

June 2, 2003
56

MINUTES: Motion to Enforce Consent Decree is submitted. The City is directed to file copies of all documents that reflect certification of candidates during the life of the 2000−2002 sergeant I promotion eligibility list (see document for futher details) by Judge Margaret M. Morrow CR: David Salyer (bg) (Entered: 06/10/2003)

June 9, 2003
57

EX PARTE APPLICATION filed by plaintiff Latin Ameri Law request for clarification of order directing parties to submit proposed modification of protions of consent decree re: supervisory cross−training program Lodged proposed order (bg) (Entered: 06/12/2003)

June 11, 2003
58

RECEIPT OF TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 6/9/03 (Re: ) CR: David A. Salyer. (see CV−92−1897−MMM) (ghap) (Entered: 06/16/2003)

June 13, 2003
59

NOTICE TO COURT Re Request to be Included in Court's decision Re Intervenin Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Consent Decree by plaintiff Latin Ameri Law (yl) (Entered: 07/01/2003)

June 30, 2003
60

NOTICE to court re Request to be included in court's decision re Interventing Plaintiffs' motion to enforce consent decree by plaintiff Latin Ameri Law (bg) (Entered: 07/21/2003)

July 18, 2003
61

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION by defendant Los Angeles City of to ex parte application request for clarification of order directing parties to submit proposed modification of protions of consent decree re: supervisory cross−training program [57−1] (bg) (Entered: 07/28/2003)

July 25, 2003
63

MINUTES: GRANT in part DENY in part ex parte application request for clarification of order directing parties to submit proposed modification of protions of consent decree re: supervisory cross−training program [57−1] The parties are directed to lodge a final order modifying the consent decree for the court's signature on or before August 25, 2003 by Judge Margaret M. Morrow CR: N/A (bg) (Entered: 08/07/2003)

Aug. 4, 2003
64

REPLY by plaintiff Latin Ameri Law to opposition to ex parte application request for clarification of order directing parties to submit proposed modification of protions of consent decree re: supervisory cross−training program [57−1] (bg) (Entered: 08/07/2003)

Aug. 5, 2003
65

MINUTES: Order appointing Richard A Rothschild as Special Master to determine LaLey's attorenys' fees in connection with contempt motion pursuant to Consent Decree. The parties are directed to contact Mr Rothschild within ten days to establish an appropriate briefing schedule and hearing date by Judge Margaret M. Morrow CR: N/A (bg) (Entered: 08/07/2003)

Aug. 5, 2003

PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED proposed order on plaintiffs' joint ex parte request for clarification of order directing parties to submit proposed modification of portions of consent decree re supervisory cross−training program (bg) (Entered: 08/07/2003)

Aug. 6, 2003
66

ORDER by Judge Margaret M. Morrow granting motion for enforcement of the Ord of the Crt−appointed monitor under consent decree [18−1] For the reasons stated, the court finds that the City violated its obligations under paragraphs 26, 27 and 36 in connection with its administration of the 2000−2002 Promotion List for the position of Sergeant I. Because the record is not adequate to permit the framing of an appropriate remedial order, the court refers the matter to Judge dash to oversee a period of limited discovery on the issue of the appropriate remedy that should be ordered. Once Judge Dash has issued his order, any party dissatisified with it may seek to review in this court. The record for any such proceeding will be limited to the matters placed in evidence before Judge Dash (bg) (Entered: 08/12/2003)

Aug. 11, 2003
67

MINUTES: In their opposition, the intervening plaintiffs request leave tof ile additional briefing if the Court determines tha the issues presented by Defendant are appropriate for ruling on an ex parte basis. The City's letter sufficiently identifies the issues actually raised in the ex parte application, and the intervening plaintiffs sufficiently addressed those issues in their opposition to the application. The Court is therefore not in need of additional briefing, and the intervening plaintiffs' request for leave to file such briefing is denied; granting ex parte appliation for order striking Intervenors' motion for atorneys fees, finding the ex parte application for order staying proceedings on said motion moot. denying ex parte application for order extending appeal period on motion to the court to re−tax costs until five days after the court has made a determination as to intervening plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees or in the alternative, intervening plaintiffs' motion to retax costs under Local Rule 54−9; striking motion for award of attorney fees and expenses by Judge Margaret M. Morrow CR: N/A (bg) (Entered: 10/03/2003)

Oct. 2, 2003
68

MINUTES: Order clarifying authority of Special Master. Accordingly, the ocurt clarifies it direction to Special Master Rothschild to indicate that he may consider any request by LaLey for fees incurred in "monitoring and implementation" of the consent decree that led to the filing of the contempt motion. The court expresses no opinion as to whether such fees should be awarded, or on any aspect of the merits of LaLey's request by Judge Margaret M. Morrow CR: N/A (bg) (Entered: 10/17/2003)

Oct. 16, 2003
76

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER REGARDING PAYMENT For Monitoring by Judge Margaret M. Morrow : On 87/25/1992, Judge Tashima entered a judgment and order approving a consent decree between plaintiffs and defendant City of Los Angeles. In 7/2002, several members of the plaintiff class filed a motion alleging that the City had violated the provisions of the consent decree. (See Minute Order for further details) For the foregoign reasons, the court finds that the City is responsible for the payment of any fees associated with proceedings before Judge Dash that are required to by the court's 8/12/2003 order. (yl, ) (Entered: 01/31/2005)

Nov. 4, 2003
70

MINUTES: Order Re: ex parte application for order (1)extending time in which to file reply papers in support of motion for reconsideration and (2) continuance of hearing date. Having reviewed the City's application and the intervening plaintiffs' opposition, the court extends the time by which the City must file any reply in support of its motion for reconsideratrion to Wednesday, November 19, 2003. It requests that counsel deliver a conformed courtesy copy to chambers in the Roybal Building on the day of filing. The court denies the City's request to continue the hearing on its motion to a later date. by Judge Margaret M. Morrow CR: N/A (bg) (Entered: 11/17/2003)

Nov. 14, 2003

PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED proposed order (bg) (Entered: 12/03/2003)

Dec. 2, 2003
71

ORDER by Judge Margaret M. Morrow denying defendant City of Los Angeles MOTION for reconsideration or alternatively clarification of 8/12/03 order.(bg, ) (Entered: 07/08/2004)

July 7, 2004
72

MINUTES OF Proceedings: Order by Judge Margaret M Morrow denying Motion for Reconsideration. Because plaintiffs presented no additional authorities, evidence or written argument regarding the issue, the record necessary to decide the point remains undeveloped. Accordingly, the court declines to reconsider this aspect of its 8/12/03, order before referring the matter to Judge Dash. Accordingly, the court refers the matter to Judge Dash to conduct the proceedings outlined in the 8/12/03, order, and to recommed an appropriate remedy. Court Reporter: Not Present. (bg, ) (Entered: 07/09/2004)

July 7, 2004
73

STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Margaret M. Morrow that The Oscar Joel Bryant Foundation is hereby certified as representative plaintiff for the African American Plaintiff Class in this action. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/01/2004)

Nov. 23, 2004
74

STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Margaret M. Morrow that the Court extends the time for Judge Dash to issue a remedial order from November 1, 2004 to April 15, 2005. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/01/2004)

Nov. 23, 2004
75

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge Margaret M. Morrow : On 9/23/2003, the parties filed a joint request for an order clarifying which of them was responsible for paying Judge Dash's fees and expenses. The Court prepared a minute order dated 11/4/2003. In response to this request. Based upon statements in a recent filing by the parties, it appears that the 11/2003 minute order was never processed and filed. Accordingly, the court directs that it be filed and mailed to the parties forthwith. (yl, ) (Entered: 01/31/2005)

Jan. 26, 2005
77

NOTICE of Proposed Settlement Ratification filed by Plaintiffs Latin American Law Enforcement Association. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/20/2005)

Oct. 17, 2005
78

NOTICE of Change of Address by Walter Cochran−Bond attorney for Movant Law Enfrocement Association of Asian Pacifics, changing address, telephone and facsimile number to 87 North Raymond Avenue Suite 300, Pasadena, California 91103, Telphone number: 626−689−4555 and fax number 626−689−4556. Filed by Movant Law Enfrocement Association of Asian Pacifics. (et) (Entered: 01/16/2008)

Dec. 6, 2007

FAX number for Attorney Walter Cochran−Bond is 626−689−4556. (et) (Entered: 01/16/2008)

Dec. 6, 2007
79

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that termination date for the Consent Decree be extended from August 26, 2009, until December 31, 2009 by Judge Margaret M. Morrow, (bp) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

July 14, 2009
80

NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Beth D Orellana counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles. Adding Beth D. Orellana as attorney as counsel of record for City of Los Angeles for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by defendant Beth D. Orellana (Orellana, Beth) (Entered: 08/19/2009)

Aug. 19, 2009
82

Order extending termination date for consent decree as to plaintiff Latin American Law Enforcement Association, plaintiff African American Class and Defendant City of Los Angeles to February 1, 2010 (kr) (Entered: 12/31/2009)

Dec. 31, 2009
86

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the termination date for the Consent Decree is extended from February 1, 2010 to March 22, 2010. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant City of Los Angeles' opposition papers to Plaintiff Latin American Law Enforcement Association's Motion to Extend the Consent Decree be due on or before February 8, 2010, and that Plaintiff Latin American Law Enforcement Associations reply papers be due on or before February 22, 2010 and that the hearing is continued from February 1, 2010 to March 22, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. (bp) (Entered: 01/21/2010)

Jan. 21, 2010
88

MINUTES OF PLAINTIFF LATIN AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION'S MOTION TO EXTEND HUNTER/LALEY CONSENT DECREE AS TO HISPANIC PLAINTIFF CLASS 270 held before Judge Margaret M. Morrow: The court having carefully considered the papers and evidence submitted by the parties, and having heard the oral argument of counsel, takes the matter under submission. A final order will be issued.Court Reporter: Mark Schweitzer. (bp) (Entered: 03/22/2010)

March 22, 2010
89

FINAL ORDER by Judge Margaret M. Morrow: denying 270 Motion for further extension of the consent decree. The terms of the consent decree will cease to be enforceable against the City after 11:59 p.m. on March 22, 2010. The court notes that paragraph 38 of the decree requires that the court retain jurisdiction over the consent decree until such time as the City files and the court grants a petition for relief. The court agrees with the City that because the decree will expire by its own terms, it is unclear what paragraph 38 means when it states that the court shall retain jurisdiction overthe consent decree until the Citys final petition for relief has been granted. Because, as amended by Judge Tashima, paragraph 38 has an uncertain meaning, and in order to avoid any appellate issues, the court directs the City to prepare and file such a final petition for relief from the consentdecree no later than March 29, 2010. The petition shall be accompanied by a proposed order. (rrey) (Entered: 03/22/2010)

March 22, 2010
92

NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Beth D Orellana counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles. Adding BETH D. CORRIEA as attorney as counsel of record for DEFENDANT for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES (Orellana, Beth) (Entered: 10/29/2010)

Oct. 29, 2010
93

ORDER RE DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM THE CONSENT DECREE AND AGREEMENT by Judge Margaret M. Morrow. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Consent Decree and Agreement is terminated and that Defendant City of Los Angeles is hereby relieved of any and all duties, obligations and/or responsibilities under the terms of the Consent Decree and Agreement entered in this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and that the Court's jurisdiction is terminated. (bp) (Entered: 01/24/2013)

Jan. 24, 2013

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Private Employment Class Actions

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 27, 1992

Closing Date: 2013

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Latin American and African American employees of the City of Los Angeles Police Department

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

City of Los Angeles (Los Angeles), City

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1981

State law

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

State Anti-Discrimination Law

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1992 - 2010

Content of Injunction:

Hire

Promotion

Discrimination Prohibition

Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols

Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Monitoring

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination-area:

Hiring

Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)

Pay / Benefits

Promotion

Testing

Training

Discrimination-basis:

National origin discrimination

National Origin/Ethnicity:

Hispanic