Case: Labor/Community Strategy Center v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

2:94-cv-05936 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: Aug. 31, 1994

Closed Date: 2009

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On August 31, 1994, the Labor/Community Strategy Center, the Bus Riders Union (a community organization formed to represent the interests of bus riders), and other organizational plaintiffs filed a class action law suit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and related individuals, on behalf of users of public transportation in Los Angeles County. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Plaintiffs were repres…

On August 31, 1994, the Labor/Community Strategy Center, the Bus Riders Union (a community organization formed to represent the interests of bus riders), and other organizational plaintiffs filed a class action law suit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and related individuals, on behalf of users of public transportation in Los Angeles County. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Plaintiffs were represented by attorneys from the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the ACLU of Southern California.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the MTA unlawfully discriminated against the predominantly minority class of inner-city and transit-dependent bus riders in its allocation of public transportation resources. They alleged that the MTA's decisions to increase bus fares, to cut access to bus passes, and to divert funding from the bus system toward the construction of light rail and subway systems, which would disproportionately benefit suburban riders not dependent on public transportation, had a discriminatory and disparate impact on plaintiff class members. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fourteenth Amendment (by way of 42 U.S.C. 1983) and Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., among other causes of action. The Clearinghouse has not obtained a copy of the original complaint in the case.

In March 1995, the Court certified the plaintiff class, defining it to include all "poor minority and other riders of MTA buses who are denied equal opportunity to receive transportation services because of the MTA's operation of a discriminatory mass transportation system."

After a long discovery period, the parties agreed to settle the case and on October 29, 1996, shortly before the trial was scheduled to start, they entered into a comprehensive Court-approved Consent Decree, which ran for a period of ten years and which was enforced by a Special Master (Donald T. Bliss) who was granted the authority of the Court to resolve any disputes. The Consent Decree had three major components:

  • It created a new weekly unlimited bus pass, priced at $11, and reduced the cost of a monthly pass from $49 to the prior rate of $42; and froze the fare rates through November 1998, thereafter for the remainder of the Decree allowing only inflationary increases.

  • It obligated the MTA to reduce overcrowding on its buses and established a calendar for meeting target values of the average peak-period passenger-to-seat ratio ("load factors"). The calendar required progress from a maximum ceiling of 1.45 at the effective date of the Decree, to 1.35 by December 31, 1997, to an ultimate goal of 1.2 by June 30, 2002, which was to be maintained for the period of the Decree. To meet this requirement, the MTA would have to increase the number of buses for many routes.

  • It committed the parties to developing a five-year plan for providing additional bus services or other transit services designed to increase access to employment opportunities, health care, and educational facilities, to be approved by a Joint Working Group (JWG) composed of representatives from the parties. The JWG was scheduled to reach an agreement on this plan by December 31, 2008.

By the end of 2008, the JWG had not agreed on a five-year plan, and the MTA had not yet reached the first target load factor milestone of 1.35. These issues were presented to the Special Master for resolution. In a Memorandum Decision and Order dated March 8, 1999, Special Master Bliss ordered the city to add 430 buses to its fleet in order to reduce its load factor sufficiently to meet its next scheduled milestone. He also ordered addition the MTA to remedy several other failures to adhere to the Consent Decree. Working from the remnants of the JWG's effort to produce a five-year plan, the Special Master developed a plan to bring the MTA into compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree. The Special Master also ordered the JWG to develop a New Service Plan in place of its unfinished five-year plan.

The MTA objected to the Special Master's findings, and asked the District Court to review his March Order and a second Order dated May 14, 1999. On September 29, 1999, the Court affirmed the Special Master's Orders in part, but did direct him to reconsider the necessity of purchasing a number of buses as spares and the likelihood of the MTA reaching its June 2000 load factor goals, pursuant to newly available data.

The MTA appealed the September 1999 order to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which on August 31, 2001, affirmed the lower court's order. Labor/Community Strategy Center v. Los Angeles County MTA, 263 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2001). In March 18, 2002, the United States Supreme Court rejected MTA's request for certiorari (review) of the Appellate Court's decision.

The MTA failed to fully meet its target load factors milestones in 2000 and again in 2002, which prompted several further remedial Orders from the Special Master. In the summer of 2003, 57 of the bus lines monitored for compliance had peak load factors above 1.35, the 1997 goal, and 15 had peak load factors above 1.7. On January 15, 2004, the Special Master issued a Memorandum Decision and Final Order, which together with its supplements totaled 92 pages, and which among other things ordered the MTA to add 28 additional buses and over 370,000 additional in-service hours distributed across various bus routes annually. The MTA asked the Court to review the Special Master's orders, arguing that their funding was insufficient to meet its requirements. The Court affirmed the Order on June 24, 2004.

On April 14, 2005, Special Master Bliss issued one last 45 page Memorandum and Order, in response to the JWG's continuing failure to develop its own New Service Plan, which adopted elements from proposals submitted by both parties to expand bus service and which was to be completely implemented by the end of 2008.

In February 2006, Special Master Bliss resigned, and on February 23, 2006 the Court ordered the parties to propose a successor to the position. The parties submitted the proposal on April 17, 2006, but on May 3 the court declined to appoint a new Special Master, given that the Consent Decree was set to expire in October that year. The Court determined that it would decide the issues that would have been brought to the Special Master.

On May 17, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed a contempt motion against the MTA for its alleged continuing non-compliance with the Consent Decree and with the Special Master's January 15, 2004 Final Order. On May 24, 2006, the Plaintiffs motioned to have the Consent Decree extended until compliance was achieved. On October 24, 2006, the Court denied both of these motions, finding the MTA in substantial compliance with the Decree, and thus the Consent Decree expired.

On December 19, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, contesting the denial of its motions. On May 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's order.

The case is closed and the Consent Decree is no longer in effect.

Summary Authors

Alex Colbert-Taylor (6/27/2013)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7359049/parties/laborcommunity-v-la-county-mta/


Judge(s)

Hall, Cynthia Holcomb (California)

Hatter, Terry J. Jr. (California)

McMahon, James W (California)

Silverman, Barry G. (Arizona)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Chachkin, Norman J. (New York)

Garcia, Robert (California)

Godsil, Rachel D (New York)

Larson, E. Richard (California)

Lee, Bill Lann (District of Columbia)

Munger, Molly (California)

Judge(s)

Hall, Cynthia Holcomb (California)

Hatter, Terry J. Jr. (California)

McMahon, James W (California)

Silverman, Barry G. (Arizona)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Chachkin, Norman J. (New York)

Garcia, Robert (California)

Godsil, Rachel D (New York)

Larson, E. Richard (California)

Lee, Bill Lann (District of Columbia)

Munger, Molly (California)

Rice, Constance L. (District of Columbia)

Rosenbaum, Mark Dale (California)

Schreier, James S. (California)

Shaw, Theodore M. (New York)

Sonn, Paul K. (New York)

Teasley, Erica Juleen (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Fortner, Raymond G. Jr. (California)

Glaser, Patricia L. (California)

Hamilton, James A. (California)

Hufstedler, Shirley Ann Mount (California)

Kallman, H Jay (California)

Katzman, Richard A (California)

Kelley, Pamela M (California)

Kelsey, David B (California)

Klein, Kenneth D (California)

Mankey, Caroline H (California)

Safer, Charles Morton (California)

Tobisman, Cynthia E (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Bliss, Charles R. (Georgia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

Nov. 23, 2011 Docket
321

Consent Decree

Labor/Community Strategy Center v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Oct. 29, 1996 Order/Opinion
330? 394?

Special Master Memorandum Decision and Order

Labor/Community Strategy Center v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority

March 6, 1999 Order/Opinion
330? 394?

Special Master: Memorandum Decision & Order Re: Motion for Clarification and Modification

Labor/Community Strategy Center v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority

May 14, 1999 Order/Opinion
365

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Labor/Community Strategy Center v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Sept. 29, 1999 Order/Opinion

Opinion

Labor/Community Strategy Center v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

263 F.3d 1041

Aug. 31, 2001 Order/Opinion
390

Memorandum Decision II and Final Order on Remedial Service Plan to Meet 1.25 and 1.20 Load Factor Target Requirements

Labor/Community Strategy Center v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Jan. 15, 2004 Order/Opinion
395

Order

Labor/Community Strategy Center v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority

June 24, 2004 Order/Opinion
394

Special Master: Memorandum and Order In Re New Service Plan

Labor/Community Strategy Center v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority

April 14, 2005 Order/Opinion

Opinion

Labor/Community Strategy Center v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

564 F.3d 1115

May 5, 2009 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

Consent Decree Compliance Campaign - Overview & Demands

Bus Riders Union

In October of 1996, the BRU [Bus Riders Union] won a landmark civil rights Consent Decree, following the class action civil rights lawsuit brought against the Los Angeles MTA in 1994. The case, Labor… http://oldbru.thestrategycenter.org/...

Crossroad Blues: The MTA Consent Decree and Just Transportation,

Robert García & Thomas A. Rubin

This chapter describes how a team of US civil-rights attorneys worked with grassroots organisations to file and win a landmark environmental-justice class action against the Los Angeles Metropolitan … Jan. 1, 2004 None

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7359049/laborcommunity-v-la-county-mta/

Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued) (referred to Discovery James W. McMahon ) (am) (Entered: 09/06/1994)

Aug. 31, 1994 PACER
2

EX PARTE APPLICATION for TRO by plaintiffs (mm) (Entered: 09/08/1994)

Aug. 31, 1994 PACER

LODGED/PROPOSED Order (FWD TO CRD) (mm)

Aug. 31, 1994 PACER
3

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of ex parte application for TRO & applic for Prelim inj [2-1] (mm) (Entered: 09/08/1994)

Aug. 31, 1994 PACER
4

DECLARATIONS by plaintiff in spprt re [2-1] ex parte applic for TRO & Prelim inj. (mm) Modified on 09/15/1994 (Entered: 09/08/1994)

Aug. 31, 1994 PACER
5

EXHIBITS in spprt of ex parte applic for TRO & Prelim inj. (mm) (Entered: 09/08/1994)

Aug. 31, 1994 PACER
6

DECLARATION of Constance L. Rice re ex parte ntc by plaintiff (mm) (Entered: 09/08/1994)

Aug. 31, 1994 PACER
7

MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to ex parte application [2-1] for TRO. (mm) (Entered: 09/08/1994)

Aug. 31, 1994 PACER
8

DECLARATION of Keith L. Killough by defendants in opp re [2-1] ex parte applic for TRO. (mm) (Entered: 09/08/1994)

Aug. 31, 1994 PACER
9

ORDER: Re jnt rpt of early mtg of cnsl... by Judge Terry J. Hatter (mm) (Entered: 09/08/1994)

Aug. 31, 1994 PACER
10

ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter granting ex parte application [2-1] ; IN COURT HEARING RE: OSC set on 3:00 9/12/94 (mm) (Entered: 09/08/1994)

Sept. 1, 1994 PACER
11

MINUTES: granting application for TRO [2-1]. Stg Hrg re Prelim inj for 9/12/94 @3Pm... by Judge Terry J. Hatter CR: Maria Beesley (mm) (Entered: 09/08/1994)

Sept. 1, 1994 PACER
12

EX PARTE APPLICATION to stay TRO pending flng & determination of petn for Writ of Mandamus..by defendants (mm) (Entered: 09/09/1994)

Sept. 1, 1994 PACER
13

DECLARATION of Terry Matsumoto by defendant in spprt re req for stay of TRO [12-1] (mm) (Entered: 09/09/1994)

Sept. 1, 1994 PACER
14

DECLARATION of Richard A. Katzman by defendants in spprt re req for stay of TRO [12-1] (mm) (Entered: 09/09/1994)

Sept. 1, 1994 PACER
15

OPPOSITON by plaintiff to applic to stay TRO [12-1] (mm) (Entered: 09/09/1994)

Sept. 2, 1994 PACER
16

ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter denying application to stay crts TRO pending app [12-1] (mm) (Entered: 09/09/1994)

Sept. 7, 1994 PACER
17

MEMO OF PA IN OPPOSITION to mot for prelim inj..by defendants (mm) (Entered: 09/09/1994)

Sept. 7, 1994 PACER
18

DECLARATIONS in opp to mot for prelim inj by defendant (mm) (Entered: 09/09/1994)

Sept. 7, 1994 PACER
19

REPLY MEMO in spprt of applic for prelim inj...by plaintiff (mm) Modified on 09/15/1994 (Entered: 09/15/1994)

Sept. 9, 1994 PACER
20

REPLY DECLARATIONS in spprt of applic for prelim inj.. by plaintiff (mm) (Entered: 09/15/1994)

Sept. 9, 1994 PACER
21

REPLY EXHIBITS in spprt of applic for prelim inj..by plfs (mm) (Entered: 09/15/1994)

Sept. 9, 1994 PACER
22

OBJECTIONS to exhs & decls subm in spprt of mot for prelim inj...by plaintiff (mm) (Entered: 09/15/1994)

Sept. 9, 1994 PACER
23

OBJECTIONS to addtl exhs & decls sybm in spprt of mot for prelim inj... by defendant (mm) (Entered: 09/15/1994)

Sept. 12, 1994 PACER
24

MINUTES: P/I granted. Dfts to file fur papers, incl Joint-Power Agreement, Internal memos re policies re minorities.. ; IN COURT HEARING RE: Preliminary Injunction cont 3:00 10/17/94 for recon of gr of P/I.. by Judge Terry J. Hatter CR: Maria Beesley (mm) (Entered: 09/15/1994)

Sept. 12, 1994 PACER
25

ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter : that purs to FRCP 65(a), dfts MTA & White, & all in active concert, are enjoined frm raising the fares on MTA buses & frm discontinuing the general availability of MTA bus passes pending trial on the merits in this actn. Security is excused. (mm) (Entered: 09/15/1994)

Sept. 12, 1994 PACER

LODGED 9th C/A Order petn for writ of mandamus is denied. (fvap)

Sept. 13, 1994 PACER

LODGED 9th C/A Order Petnrs emerg mtn for stay of temp restraining ord pending consid of petn for writ of mandamus is denied. Petn will be consid at next reg sched mtns panel. (fvap)

Sept. 13, 1994 PACER
26

NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant LA County MTA, defendant Franklin E White to 9th C/A from Dist. Court minute ord fld 9/12/94. (cc: Constance L. Rice.) Fee: Paid. (dlu) Modified on 04/10/1996 (Entered: 09/15/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994 PACER
27

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by defendant to stay prelim inj pending app, or to stay prelim inj pending flng & determination of mot for stay in CCA (mm) (Entered: 09/21/1994)

Sept. 15, 1994 PACER
28

MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to stay prelim inj pending app [27-1], of motion to stay prelim inj pending flng & determination of mot for stay in CCA [27-2] (mm) (Entered: 09/21/1994)

Sept. 15, 1994 PACER
29

EX PARTE APPLICATION to shorten time for consideration of mot to stay prelim inj..by defendant (mm) (Entered: 09/21/1994)

Sept. 15, 1994 PACER

LODGED/PROPOSED Order (FWD TO CRD) (mm)

Sept. 15, 1994 PACER
30

DECLARATION of Richard A. Katzman by defendant in spprt re [29-1] (mm) (Entered: 09/21/1994)

Sept. 15, 1994 PACER
31

OPPOSITON by plaintiffs to ex parte applic to shorten time [29-1] (mm) (Entered: 09/21/1994)

Sept. 15, 1994 PACER
32

ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter granting application to shorten time on mot to stay prelim inj pending app [29-1] setting hearing on motion to stay prelim inj pending app [27-1] 2:00 9/20/94, setting hearing on motion to stay prelim inj pending flng & determination of mot for stay in CCA [27-2] 2:00 9/20/94. Plfs opp, if any, shl be fld & srvd by 9/20/94 10am (mm) (Entered: 09/21/1994)

Sept. 16, 1994 PACER
33

OBJECTIONS to prop findings of fact & concl of law...by defendant (mm) (Entered: 09/21/1994)

Sept. 19, 1994 PACER
34

Opp by plaintiff to motion to stay prelim inj pending app [27-1], motion to stay prelim inj pending flng & determination of mot for stay in CCA [27-2] (mm) (Entered: 09/21/1994)

Sept. 20, 1994 PACER
35

Decls in spprt of opp by plaintiff to motion to stay prelim inj pending app [27-1], motion to stay prelim inj pending flng & determination of mot for stay in CCA [27-2] (mm) (Entered: 09/21/1994)

Sept. 20, 1994 PACER
43

MINUTES: denying motion to stay prelim inj pending app [27-1], denying motion to stay prelim inj pending flng & determination of mot for stay in CCA [27-2] by Judge Terry J. Hatter CR: Maria Beesley (mm) (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 20, 1994 PACER
44

FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law by Judge Terry J. Hatter (mm) (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 21, 1994 PACER
42

RECEIPT OF TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 9/1/94 (Re: [26-1] ) CR: Maria Beesley. (ghap) (Entered: 10/03/1994)

Sept. 22, 1994 PACER
45

EX PARTE APPLICATION for ord shortening time...by intervenor defendant Pasadena City of (mm) (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 22, 1994 PACER

LODGED/PROPOSED Order & mot (FWD TO CRD) (mm)

Sept. 22, 1994 PACER
46

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by intervenor defendant Pasadena City of for leave to intervene (no hrg date) (mm) (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 22, 1994 PACER
47

DECLARATIONS by intervenor defendant Pasadena City of in spprt re mot to intervene [46-1] (mm) (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 22, 1994 PACER
48

DECLARATION of Daniel Scott Schecter by intervenor defendant Pasadena City of (mm) (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 22, 1994 PACER
36

ANSWER by defendant LA County MTA, defendant Franklin E White to cmp [1-1] (mm) (Entered: 09/26/1994)

Sept. 23, 1994 PACER
38

TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and ordering form for dates: 9/1/94,9/12/94 & 9/20/94 CR: Maria Beesley. (ghap) (Entered: 09/28/1994)

Sept. 23, 1994 PACER
40

RECEIPT OF TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 9/12/94 (Re: [26-1] ) CR: Maria Beesley. (ghap) (Entered: 10/03/1994)

Sept. 25, 1994 PACER
49

OPPOSITION by plaintiff to ex parte applic for ord shortening time [45-1] (mm) (Entered: 10/07/1994)

Sept. 26, 1994 PACER
50

ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter denying application to shorten time to move to intervene [45-1] (mm) (Entered: 10/07/1994)

Sept. 26, 1994 PACER
51

PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff of Opp to ex parte applic to shorten time to interested prtys on 9/26/94 by hand & on 9/27/94 by U.S. Mail. (mm) (Entered: 10/07/1994)

Sept. 27, 1994 PACER
39

RETURN OF SUMMONS and proof of service executed upon defendant L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, defendant Franklin E White on 9/1/94 by srvng Carlos Regan. (mm) (Entered: 09/29/1994)

Sept. 28, 1994 PACER
52

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by intervenor defendant Pasadena City of for leave to intervene ; motion hearing set for 10:00 10/24/94 (mm) (Entered: 10/07/1994)

Sept. 28, 1994 PACER
41

RECEIPT OF TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 9/20/94 (Re: [26-1] ) CR: Maria Beesley. (ghap) (Entered: 10/03/1994)

Sept. 29, 1994 PACER
53

Memo of PA for hrg re: vacating the prelim inj..by dfts (mm) (Entered: 10/07/1994)

Oct. 3, 1994 PACER
54

DECLARATION of Terry Matsumoto, Dana Woodbury, Keith Killough, etc in sppprt of req to vacate or mod the prelim inj... by defendant (mm) (Entered: 10/07/1994)

Oct. 3, 1994 PACER
55

DECLARATION of Richard Clark in spprt of req to vac or mod prelim inj..by defendant (mm) (Entered: 10/07/1994)

Oct. 3, 1994 PACER
56

OBJECTIONS to decl of Thomas A. Rubin & by defendant (mm) (Entered: 10/07/1994)

Oct. 4, 1994 PACER
57

MINUTES: setting hearing on motion for leave to intervene [52-1] 10:00 10/24/94, setting hearing on motion for leave to intervene [46-1] 10:00 10/24/94 by Judge Terry J. Hatter (mm) (Entered: 10/07/1994)

Oct. 5, 1994 PACER
60

NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter that ntc ofmot to file cmp for intv is to be fld & processed. (Not #'d consecutively, not hole punched, no title on backings, hrg date not available) (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 5, 1994 PACER
61

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by intervenor plaintiff Henry Frederick Ramey Jr, H. Watts, W. Hayes, Jr., V. Dibas to file cmp for intervene ; motion hearing set for 10:00 10/24/94 (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 5, 1994 PACER
62

INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT by intervenor plaintiffs (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 5, 1994 PACER
58

DECLARATION of Jeffrey Zupan in spprt of req to vac or mod prelim inj...by defendant (mm) (Entered: 10/07/1994)

Oct. 6, 1994 PACER
59

DECLARATION of Richard Clark in spprt of req to vac or mod prelim inj ..by defendant (mm) (Entered: 10/07/1994)

Oct. 6, 1994 PACER
63

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Aida Lagrimas by defendant (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 11, 1994 PACER
64

OPPOSITION to obj to decl of Thomas A. Rubin, etc.. by plaintiff (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 11, 1994 PACER
65

OPPOSITION to req to vac or mod prelim inj...by plaintiff (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 11, 1994 PACER
66

Opp by plaintiff to motion for leave to intervene [52-1] (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 11, 1994 PACER
67

PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff of doc re opp to req to vac or mod prelim inj to interested prtys on 10/11/94 by hand delivery & U.S. Mail. (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 11, 1994 PACER
68

Opp by plaintiff to motion for leave to intervene [52-1] (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 12, 1994 PACER
69

OPPOSITION to req to vac or mod prelim inj... by plaintiff (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 12, 1994 PACER
70

DECLARATION by plaintiff in spprt re opp [69-1] (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 12, 1994 PACER
71

EXHIBITS to opp to req to vac or mod prelim inj..by plfs (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 12, 1994 PACER
72

DECLARATION of Richard Biddle (w/o exhs) by defendant (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 13, 1994 PACER
73

DECLARATION of Richard Biddle (w/exhs) by defendant (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 13, 1994 PACER
74

OPPOSITION by plaintiff to [73-1], to [72-1] (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 14, 1994 PACER
75

OBJECTIONS to first suppl decl of Martin Wachs... by defendant (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 14, 1994 PACER
76

OBJECTIONS to decl of Antonio Villaraigosa ..by defendant (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 14, 1994 PACER
77

OBJECTIONS to decl of James E. Moore, II...by defendant (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 14, 1994 PACER
78

OBJECTIONS first suppl decl of Thomas A. Rubin...by defendant (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 14, 1994 PACER
79

OPPOSITION to obj to decl of Thomas A. Rubin...by plaintiff (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 17, 1994 PACER
80

Reply to opp by intervenor defendant Pasadena City of to motion to file cmp for intervene [61-1] (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 17, 1994 PACER
81

MINUTES: ; in court hearing re Reconsideration re P/I vacated, Crt has no juris on this mttr pending app in USCA. ; IN COURT HEARING RE: Perm inj set on 9:30 10/27/94 by Judge Terry J. Hatter CR: Maria Beesley (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 17, 1994 PACER
82

PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE by intervenor defendant Pasadena City of, plaintiff Labor/Community of doc re mot to intervene on 9/22/94 to Constance L. Rice. (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 17, 1994 PACER
83

PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE by intervenor defendant Pasadena City of of docs re mot to intervene on 9/22/94 to Dewitt W. Clinton. (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 17, 1994 PACER
84

PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE by intervenor defendant Pasadena City of of doc re mot to intervene on 9/22/94 to Paul Hoffman, Esq. (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 17, 1994 PACER
85

Memo of PA in reply to opp by intervenor plaintiff Henry Frederick Ramey Jr, intervenor plaintiff O Howard Watts, intervenor plaintiff William Tut Hayes, intervenor plaintiff Victor Dibas to motion to file cmp for intervene [61-1] (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 18, 1994 PACER
86

EX PARTE APPLICATION for an ord clarifying scope of trial.. by plaintiff (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 18, 1994 PACER

LODGED/PROPOSED Order (FWD TO CRD) (mm)

Oct. 18, 1994 PACER
87

NOTICE of assn..by defendants (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 19, 1994 PACER
88

ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter denying motion to file cmp for intervene [61-1], (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 19, 1994 PACER
89

ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter denying motion for leave to intervene [52-1] (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 19, 1994 PACER
91

ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter granting plfs ex parte application for an ord clarifying the scope of the trial [86-1]. Ord that because the propriety of dfts fare increases & pass elimination is intertwined w/the issue of whether dfts are operating a two tier public transportation system, both issues must be tried together. Fur ord that the trial on all issues will commence a 9:30am on 10/27/94, & will cont until completed. Fur Ord that any mots to cont trial shl be ntcd & fld in accordance w/the L.R. (mm) (Entered: 10/28/1994)

Oct. 19, 1994 PACER

LODGED (9th CC: Order): Appellants' emergency mot for a stay pending appeal is held in abeyance pending the dist crt's decision on appellants' request to vacate the prelimary inj, which is scheduled for hearing on 10/17/94. (dlu)

Oct. 19, 1994 PACER
90

RESPONSE by defendant LA County MTA, defendant Franklin E White to applic for ord clarif scope of trial [86-1] (mm) (Entered: 10/22/1994)

Oct. 20, 1994 PACER
92

PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff of ex parte applic, prop ord; P/S to Richard Katzman on 10/19/94 (mm) (Entered: 10/28/1994)

Oct. 20, 1994 PACER
96

EX PARTE APPLICATION for a cont & ord shortening time by plaintiff (mm) (Entered: 11/04/1994)

Oct. 21, 1994 PACER
93

RESPONSE to ex parte applic for a cont & ord shortening time.. by defendant (mm) (Entered: 10/28/1994)

Oct. 24, 1994 PACER

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 31, 1994

Closing Date: 2009

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The Labor/Community Strategy Center and the Bus Riders Union, together with other organizational plaintiffs, on behalf of the class of predominantly minority inner-city and transit dependent public transportation users in Los Angeles County.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU of Southern California

NAACP Legal Defense Fund

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Los Angeles, Los Angeles), County

Defendant Type(s):

Transportation

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1996 - 2006

Content of Injunction:

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)

Hire

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Monitor/Master

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Issues

General:

Access to public accommodations - governmental

Disparate Impact

Funding

Discrimination-basis:

National origin discrimination

Race discrimination

Race:

Black

Race, unspecified

Type of Facility:

Government-run

National Origin/Ethnicity:

Hispanic