Case: Flores v. City of Baldwin Park Police Department
2:14-cv-09290 | 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 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
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5904480/parties/sergio-flores-v-city-of-baldwin-park-police-department/
Chooljian, Jacqueline (California)
Bansal, Jessica Karp (California)
Bansal, Jessica Karp (California)
Barragan, Matthew J. (California)
Carpenter, Martin Leonard (California)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5904480/sergio-flores-v-city-of-baldwin-park-police-department/
Last updated Sept. 6, 2026, 4:33 a.m.
Docket for: Sergio Flores v. City of Baldwin Park Police Department
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
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):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
City
City of Baldwin Park Police Department
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Other Dockets:
Central District of California 2:14-cv-09290
California state trial court BC560031
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Amount Defendant Pays: 27,500
Issues
General/Misc.:
Affected Language(s):
Immigration/Border:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)
Case Summary of Flores v. City of Baldwin Park Police Department, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/14202/ (last updated 9/4/2021).