Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Thank you!

DONATE

Case: Price v. City of Stockton

2:02-cv-00065 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Filed Date: Jan. 10, 2002

Closed Date: Jan. 13, 2011

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On January 10, 2002 a group of low income residents and Metro Ministry filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The plaintiff sued the City of Stockton and the Stockton Redevelopment Agency under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by lawyers from the Public Interest Law Project and Western Center on Law and Poverty, alleged that the defendants shirked their duties under the Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) and the California Community …

On January 10, 2002 a group of low income residents and Metro Ministry filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The plaintiff sued the City of Stockton and the Stockton Redevelopment Agency under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by lawyers from the Public Interest Law Project and Western Center on Law and Poverty, alleged that the defendants shirked their duties under the Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) and the California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) by acquiring and demolishing low-income housing to implement their renewal and development projects. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants accomplished this task through an aggressive, zero-tolerance enforcement of code violations, and that defendants failed to provide a replacement or relocation assistance plan. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief.

On February 28, 2002 plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which was granted on May 2, 2002. Judge Lawrence K. Karlton granted the motion, restricting the defendants from demolishing or converting low-income property in the city until they adopted an acceptable replacement plan in accordance with the HCDA. Judge Karlton also held that the strict code enforcement was purposively carried out for the benefit of the city’s redevelopment plan.

On May 31, 2002 the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal on the court’s order for preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. On December 6, 2004, The 9th Circuit affirmed in part and denied in part, remanding it back to the district court. 390 F.3d 1105 (2004). The per curiam decision focused on the rights of the plaintiffs under the HCDA. The court first established that the Housing and Community Development Act had an enforceable right of action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The court concluded that there were aspects of the law that provided benefits for individuals displaced by renewal projects that granted the plaintiffs a right of action, and that the replacement benefits and plans were a condition for the city to receive federal money for their developments under the HCDA. The court then held that the other provisions of HCDA focused on broad implications for relocation plans, and did not create private rights of action. The court ultimately affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs will likely succeed on the merits for relocation benefits, but that certain aspects of the preliminary injunction needed to be tailored more closely to the actual people being displaced.

In response, Judge Karlton ordered an amendment to the preliminary injunction. 394 F.Supp.2d 1256 (2005).

In it, the court addressed the plaintiffs concerns that the city had not complied with the stipulations of the California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) on replacement plans and assistance. Since the 9th Circuit’s decision held that the plaintiffs could not sue for a relocation plan under the HDCA, the plaintiffs focused on the requirements of the CRL. The CRL requires that, prior to ridding the market of low-income housing, an agency must adopt replacement plants to ensure the units are replaced. The court held that the CRL applied. Furthermore, the court reasserted the holdings that had been made in the original order and affirmed on appeal – that the code violation enforcement was purposively conducted to obtain housing for development, and that homelessness is an extreme hardship for the plaintiffs. The court further held that the plaintiffs’ contention that they did not have replacement plans for the property that they already demolished and had vacated was undisputed. In conclusion, Judge Karlton amended the prior injunction to prevent the defendants from demolishing or converting the low-income housing in question until they produce a replacement and relocation plan under the CRL.

On August 30, 2005 defendants again filed an interlocutory appeal while continuing with discovery and entering settlement negotiations.

The parties ultimately agreed to a settlement agreement, filed on January 11, 2006 and signed by Judge Karlton on January 13, 2006. The agreement was extensive, and it replaced the previous orders from the court. The City of Stockton had to provide a Relocation Assistance Fund of over $1.4 million dollars. The city was required to provide assistance to displaced people, build 340 units of low-income housing in Stockton (giving priority to displaced people), and pay $1.5 million in attorneys’ fees and over $67,000 in costs to the plaintiffs’ attorneys. The settlement ended in 2011 without any further litigation. The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Salvatore Mancina (9/27/2016)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4161459/parties/price-v-stockton-city/


Judge(s)

Alarcón, Arthur Lawrence (California)

Karlton, Lawrence K. (California)

Mueller, Kimberly Jo (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Burrows, Kristina L (California)

Chang, D. Scott (District of Columbia)

Choi, Amy Yeunjean (California)

Collins, Deborah Ann (California)

Daniel, Jack Egan (California)

Edwards, Shirley Rose (California)

Haffner, Stephanie (California)

Judge(s)

Alarcón, Arthur Lawrence (California)

Karlton, Lawrence K. (California)

Mueller, Kimberly Jo (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Burrows, Kristina L (California)

Chang, D. Scott (District of Columbia)

Choi, Amy Yeunjean (California)

Collins, Deborah Ann (California)

Daniel, Jack Egan (California)

Edwards, Shirley Rose (California)

Haffner, Stephanie (California)

Jacobs, Ilene Janet (California)

Kitamura, Deanna R (California)

Martinez, S Lynn (California)

Rawson, Michael F (California)

Rothschild, Richard (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Rishwain, Michael Thomas (California)

Rosenthal, Lee C (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:02-cv-00988

Docket

Feb. 3, 2006

Feb. 3, 2006

Docket
83

2:02-cv-00065

Order [Preliminary Injunction]

May 2, 2002

May 2, 2002

Order/Opinion

02-16155

02-16270

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

July 22, 2002

July 22, 2002

Order/Opinion
280

2:02-cv-00065

Order [Amended Preliminary Injunction]

Aug. 9, 2005

Aug. 9, 2005

Order/Opinion
312

2:02-cv-00065

Judgment Pursuant to Settlement Agreement

Jan. 11, 2006

Jan. 11, 2006

Settlement Agreement

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4161459/price-v-stockton-city/

Last updated Dec. 8, 2022, 3:18 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

Complaint

Jan. 10, 2002

Jan. 10, 2002

PACER
2

Remark - CR

Jan. 10, 2002

Jan. 10, 2002

PACER
3

Remark - CR

Jan. 10, 2002

Jan. 10, 2002

PACER
4

Remark - CR

Jan. 10, 2002

Jan. 10, 2002

PACER
5

Remark - CR

Jan. 10, 2002

Jan. 10, 2002

PACER
6

Remark - CR

Jan. 10, 2002

Jan. 10, 2002

PACER
7

Remark - CR

Jan. 10, 2002

Jan. 10, 2002

PACER
8

Scheduling Order

Jan. 10, 2002

Jan. 10, 2002

PACER
9

Order

Jan. 14, 2002

Jan. 14, 2002

PACER
10

Stipulation

Jan. 30, 2002

Jan. 30, 2002

PACER
11

Remark

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
12

Certificate of Service

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
13

Certificate of Service

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
14

Certificate of Service

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
15

Certificate of Service

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
16

Certificate of Service

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
17

Certificate of Service

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
18

Certificate of Service

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
19

Certificate of Service

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
20

Certificate of Service

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
21

Certificate of Service

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
22

Certificate of Service

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
23

Certificate of Service

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
24

Certificate of Service

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
25

Summons Returned Executed

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
26

Summons Returned Executed

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
27

Summons Returned Executed

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
28

Summons Returned Executed

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
29

Summons Returned Executed

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
30

Summons Returned Executed

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
31

Summons Returned Executed

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
32

Summons Returned Executed

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
33

Summons Returned Executed

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
34

Summons Returned Executed

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
35

Summons Returned Executed

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
36

Summons Returned Executed

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
37

Summons Returned Executed

Feb. 4, 2002

Feb. 4, 2002

PACER
38

Answer to Complaint

Feb. 15, 2002

Feb. 15, 2002

PACER
39

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Feb. 28, 2002

Feb. 28, 2002

PACER
40

Memorandum in Support of Motion

Feb. 28, 2002

Feb. 28, 2002

PACER
41

Notice - Other

Feb. 28, 2002

Feb. 28, 2002

PACER
42

Notice - Other

Feb. 28, 2002

Feb. 28, 2002

PACER
43

Declaration

Feb. 28, 2002

Feb. 28, 2002

PACER
44

Declaration

Feb. 28, 2002

Feb. 28, 2002

PACER
45

Declaration

Feb. 28, 2002

Feb. 28, 2002

PACER
46

Declaration

Feb. 28, 2002

Feb. 28, 2002

PACER
47

Certificate of Service

Feb. 28, 2002

Feb. 28, 2002

PACER
48

Certificate of Service

Feb. 28, 2002

Feb. 28, 2002

PACER
49

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

March 4, 2002

March 4, 2002

PACER
50

Certificate of Service

March 4, 2002

March 4, 2002

PACER
51

Response to Motion

March 18, 2002

March 18, 2002

PACER
52

Declaration

March 18, 2002

March 18, 2002

PACER
53

Declaration

March 18, 2002

March 18, 2002

PACER
54

Declaration

March 18, 2002

March 18, 2002

PACER
55

Declaration

March 18, 2002

March 18, 2002

PACER
56

Declaration

March 18, 2002

March 18, 2002

PACER
57

Trial Exhibit

March 18, 2002

March 18, 2002

PACER
58

Trial Exhibit

March 18, 2002

March 18, 2002

PACER
59

Remark - CR

March 18, 2002

March 18, 2002

PACER
60

Reply to Response to Motion

March 25, 2002

March 25, 2002

PACER
61

Declaration

March 25, 2002

March 25, 2002

PACER
62

Declaration

March 25, 2002

March 25, 2002

PACER
63

Certificate of Service

March 26, 2002

March 26, 2002

PACER
64

Notice - Other - CR

March 27, 2002

March 27, 2002

PACER
65

Notice - Other

March 29, 2002

March 29, 2002

PACER
66

Certificate of Service

March 29, 2002

March 29, 2002

PACER
67

Remark

April 1, 2002

April 1, 2002

PACER
68

Status Report

April 5, 2002

April 5, 2002

PACER
69

Statement

April 5, 2002

April 5, 2002

PACER
70

Scheduling Conference

April 15, 2002

April 15, 2002

PACER
71

Declaration

April 15, 2002

April 15, 2002

PACER
72

Declaration

April 15, 2002

April 15, 2002

PACER
73

Declaration

April 15, 2002

April 15, 2002

PACER
74

Remark

April 18, 2002

April 18, 2002

PACER
75

Declaration

April 18, 2002

April 18, 2002

PACER
76

Supplement

April 18, 2002

April 18, 2002

PACER
77

Certificate of Service

April 18, 2002

April 18, 2002

PACER
78

Transcript

April 19, 2002

April 19, 2002

PACER
79

Notice of Related Case

April 24, 2002

April 24, 2002

PACER
80

Remark

April 29, 2002

April 29, 2002

PACER
81

In Court Hearing

May 1, 2002

May 1, 2002

PACER
82

Remark

May 1, 2002

May 1, 2002

PACER
84

Remark

May 1, 2002

May 1, 2002

PACER
85

Motion for TRO

May 1, 2002

May 1, 2002

PACER
86

Memorandum in Support of Motion

May 1, 2002

May 1, 2002

PACER
87

Declaration

May 1, 2002

May 1, 2002

PACER
88

Declaration

May 1, 2002

May 1, 2002

PACER
89

Declaration

May 1, 2002

May 1, 2002

PACER
83

Order

May 2, 2002

May 2, 2002

PACER
90

Notice of Related Case

May 7, 2002

May 7, 2002

PACER
91

Receipt

May 8, 2002

May 8, 2002

PACER
92

Order

May 14, 2002

May 14, 2002

PACER
93

Notice of Interlocutory Appeal

May 31, 2002

May 31, 2002

PACER
94

Statement

May 31, 2002

May 31, 2002

PACER
95

Appeal Processed to USCA

June 5, 2002

June 5, 2002

PACER
97

Remark

June 12, 2002

June 12, 2002

PACER
96

Scheduling Order

June 13, 2002

June 13, 2002

PACER
98

Order

June 14, 2002

June 14, 2002

PACER
99

In Court Hearing

June 14, 2002

June 14, 2002

PACER
100

Motion to Stay

June 14, 2002

June 14, 2002

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance

Key Dates

Filing Date: Jan. 10, 2002

Closing Date: Jan. 13, 2011

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

A group of low-income individuals and an organization dedicated to helping the homeless.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

California Rural Legal Assistance

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

City of Stockton, California, City

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Fair Housing Act/Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.

State law

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: Over $3,000,000

Order Duration: 2006 - 2011

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General:

Housing

Housing assistance

Poverty/homelessness

Public assistance grants

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Race:

Race, unspecified