Filed Date: March 10, 2020
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is a follow-up to Mitchell v. City of Los Angeles, in which advocates for unhoused people successfully pushed the City of Los Angeles to limit its removal of property in encampments in the Skid Row area of the city. LA Alliance for Human Rights, a community group that primarily represents the interests of business owners, homeowners, and property renters, unsuccessfully attempted to intervene in Mitchell and brought this case after that settlement was reached. LA Alliance filed this action against both the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 10, 2020. LA Alliance and several individuals represented by private counsel alleged federal violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and constitutional violations of due process, equal protection, and takings. The plaintiffs also brought state law claims alleging violations of mandatory duty, nuisance statutes, the state constitutional takings provision, the California Disabled Persons Act, as well as negligence and waste of public funds and resources. For federal claims and state constitutional claims, the plaintiffs sought injunctive and equitable relief in addition to damages and attorneys’ fees. For all other state claims, they sought equitable and injunctive relief.
The plaintiffs alleged that the City and County had failed to keep public areas clean and safe by not adequately addressing the homelessness crisis. They claimed that the rights of property owners and renters were impaired by the “constant threat of disease and the experience of human waste, trash, and encampments outside their property.” Their disability claims were based on the impassibility of sidewalks and the impairment to people who use wheelchairs. The case was assigned to District Judge David O. Carter and Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. On March 11, 2020, the parties were directed to participate in an alternative dispute resolution program.
On March 18, 2020, Judge Carter granted an application to intervene from Los Angeles Community Action Network (LA CAN, also sometimes referred to as Cangress) and Los Angeles Catholic Worker (LACW), the organizations that settled with the city in Mitchell v. City of Los Angeles. The intervenors argued that the relief sought by LA Alliance, which largely represented downtown business and property owners and renters, could undermine the settlement agreement reached in Mitchell. In granting the application to intervene, Judge Carter reasoned that the intervenors had a distinct interest as the only parties to represent the interests of unhoused persons. The court also granted an application to intervene from Orange County Catholic Worker (OCCW) on March 17, 2020 because OOCW was party to a consent decree with Orange County regarding the enforcement of anti-camping violations that could have been impacted by the LA Alliance case. The plaintiffs did not oppose either application for intervenor status.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the court ordered sua sponte the installation of fifty additional toilets and sanitation stations in the Skid Row area on April 1, 2020. Three days later, after personally observing conditions in the area and testing the functionality of sanitation stations, Judge Carter determined that the sanitation facilities were inadequate to meet the exigencies of the health crisis posed by the pandemic. After a hearing on the issue, Judge Carter ordered the defendants to submit status reports with plans for maintaining and servicing sanitation facilities.
On April 14, 2020, the Venice Stakeholders Association, a neighborhood association opposed to homeless encampments, sought to intervene on the grounds that the remedy sought by the plaintiffs would directly impact the quality of life of renters and homeowners in Venice. The court denied the request to intervene without comment.
On April 24, 2020, Judge Carter appointed Michele Martinez to serve as Special Master alongside the Honorable James L. Smith, who had previously been appointed Special Master.
The parties were actively engaged in settlement conversations but failed to enter into an initial agreement due to a long-standing dispute between the City and County over responsibility for costs related to unhoused persons. As a result, Judge Carter issued a preliminary injunction sua sponte on May 22, 2020, in accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584, which concluded that the Eighth Amendment “bars a city from prosecuting people criminally for sleeping outside on public property when those people have no home or other shelter to go to.” Judge Carter reasoned that it was likely that if citing a homeless person for sleeping outside is cruel and unusual punishment, then it was “likely also cruel and unusual to act with such indifference that an individual experiencing homelessness is forced to take shelter in an inherently hazardous location.” As such, Judge Carter ordered that unhoused people living near overpasses, underpasses, and ramps be offered alternative housing options with adequate sanitation, security and COVID-testing. The parties subsequently requested a mediator, which the court granted, appointing Judge Birotte to mediate. On June 18, 2020, the City agreed to provide 6,700 beds for unhoused people within 18 months, after which the court vacated the preliminary injunction.
The Latino Coalition of Los Angeles and Pastor Josue Tiguila submitted an additional request to intervene on July 17, 2020. The argued that the Latinx population was underreported in homelessness data and that Latinx interests were not being adequately represented in the case. The court denied this request, finding it impractical to appoint an intervenor for a specific ethnic group.
After extensive negotiations failed to produce a resolution of all claims in the case, the City filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. The district court granted the motion for preliminary injunction on April 20, 2021 and denied the motion to dismiss on May 11, 2021. The court ordered, among other relief: the escrow of $1 billion to address the homelessness crisis, offers of shelter or housing to all unhoused individuals in Skid Row within 180 days, and numerous audits and reports. Judge Carter detailed the County and City’s “historical constitutional violations” stemming from structural racism. 2021 WL 1546235. The defendants and intervenor LA CAN appealed and requested a stay, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they were alleging harms to third parties. Judge Carter denied the stay, finding that there was a plethora of people experiencing homelessness amongst the plaintiffs. 2021 WL 4713179.
The Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction on September 23, 2021 on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Writing for a panel of three judges, Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen found that the district court abused its discretion in relying on evidence outside the record to find facts supporting standing and relying on claims that the plaintiffs had not asserted. The court awarded costs to the appellants. 14 F.4th 947. The Ninth Circuit remanded to the district court, and settlement negotiations continued.
On December 3, 2021, the defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. In response, the court ordered a mandatory settlement conference. The plaintiffs reached an agreement to settle claims against the City on April 1, 2022. The parties agreed to a five-year settlement agreement to increase housing opportunities. The City committed to creating sufficient housing to accommodate 60% of unsheltered persons experiencing homelessness within the City. After conducting public hearings, the court approved the proposed settlement on June 14, 2022 and retained jurisdiction to monitor and enforce the terms of the agreement.
Intervenors LACW, LA CAN, and OCCW opposed the settlement and filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit on July 13, 2022. On July 15, 2022, LA Alliance filed a second amended and supplemental complaint.
On September 16, 2022, the plaintiffs and the City announced that they had reached a preliminary agreement and requested a stay in litigation while the parties finalized the terms. The City tentatively agreed to pay $236 million to fund increased services, outreach, and interim housing for the most vulnerable people experiencing homelessness. The intervenors LACW, LA CAN, and OCCW filed a statement of non-opposition to the settlement between the plaintiff and the City on October 27, 2022. On April 20, 2023, however, the court denied the settlement, finding it to be inadequate. The district court further denied the City’s motions, in a minute order on May 2, 2023, to certify the April 20 order for interlocutory appeal and to stay the case pending that interlocutory appeal.
As a result, the City filed another motion to dismiss on May 3, 2023. On May 5, 2023, the court issued an order setting the scheduling conference for May 9, 2023. On June 29, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendant City’s motion to dismiss. The property-owner plaintiff’s claims for violation of mandatory duty under § 170000 were dismissed with prejudice, but the defendant’s motion to dismiss all other claims was denied.
On August 28, 2023, the parties attended a status conference, and the court later continued the hearing on September 18. The parties represented to Judge Birotte and Special Master Martinez that they had “reached an agreement in principle,” were to “negotiate the few remaining terms,” and would represent the proposed settlement to the court by September 25, 2023. The parties jointly submitted their settlement agreement to the court on September 25, 2023. On September 28, 2023, the parties submitted a joint submission of a second addendum to the settlement agreement and stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice.
Under the terms of the settlement, the City was, by 2026, to: (1) fund 3,000 new mental health and substance use disorder beds by 2026; and (2) make available 450 new subsidies for Adult Residential Facilities (“ARFs”) and Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (“RCFEs”) to serve individuals with mental illness who are at risk of becoming homeless. Judge Jay C. Gandhi (ret). was appointed as monitor of the City’s compliance with the settlement, and the City had quarterly reporting obligations to the plaintiffs.
The court held a hearing on September 28, 2023, and the following day, Judge Carter granted the order to dismiss with prejudice plaintiffs’ cause of action against the City in the second amended and supplemental complaint. The court ordered that it would retain jurisdiction until June 30, 2027 for the purpose of overseeing and enforcing the settlement agreement.
On November 1, 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted the motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal to it. On December 14, 2023, the court held a dispute resolution hearing regarding the City milestones. In its first status report submitted to the court on January 16, 2024, the City reported that it met the or exceeded its obligations under the settlement agreement by developing over 900 mental health and substance use disorder beds and providing over 100 new subsidies for ARFs and RCFEs. On February 7, 2024, however, plaintiffs filed a motion for order of non-compliance and sanctions, arguing that the City willfully violated the settlement agreement and failed to meet its obligations. The plaintiffs argued that the City obstructed efforts to establish encampment milestones and created fewer beds than it promised to. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the City had a milestone of creating 3,700 new beds in the previous fiscal year, but that it only created 1,748 new beds. The plaintiffs asked the court to impose sanctions on the City for being in non-compliance with the settlement agreement for a 447-day period, including paying $100,000 for each week of non-compliance to plaintiffs, which would equal about $6,400,000.
On February 29, 2024, Special Master Michele Martinez issued an Independent Monitor Report for Year One of the settlement agreement. Martinez’s report concluded that although the City created new beds for homeless individuals, it did not meet its targets and it faced challenges related to funding, transparency, and equitable distribution of housing solutions throughout the City. On April 8, 2024, the court held a status conference regarding the defendant’s progress in complying with their settlement agreement obligations. Judge Carter confirmed the firm Alvarez and Marsal as auditors to evaluate the City’s compliance with the settlement agreement.
On April 15 and July 15, 2024, the defendant’s quarterly status report, stating that it had again met or exceeded all its obligations under the settlement agreement during this reporting period.
On September 4, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for enforcement of settlement compliance. On September 10, 2024, Judge Carter issued minute orders about the audit’s proposed amended budget and ordered the City to provide updates on data requests, which it did so by September 18, 2024. On October 25, 2024, an evidentiary hearing was held to address the City’s compliance. On November 20, 2024, the court issued a minute order on audit pricing and delays, with Alvarez and Marsal to present the information at a hearing on November 21, 2024.
On January 7, 2025, Judge Carter issued an amended order addressing matters related to the ongoing audit by Alvarez and Marsal. The court had previously approved an additional budget increase of $440,000 for the audit. On January 14, 2025, the court denied a motion from an interested party seeking to submit documents in connection with the audit.
The City and County filed a status report and reports of its performance under the settlement agreement in late January 2025.
On February 20, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a second motion for an order of settlement agreement compliance, alleging continued failures by the City to meet its encampment reduction milestones and other obligations. After an initial hearing in March 2025, Judge Carter set an evidentiary hearing for May 2025 on potential breach of both the Roadmap Agreement and the LA Alliance settlement by the City. In the meantime, the City continued to file quarterly status reports covering its obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding and LA Alliance settlement agreement. The court held a multi-day evidentiary hearing regarding a potential breach of the Roadmap Agreement and the LA Alliance settlement agreement beginning May 27, 2025. Following the hearing, Judge Carter established a post-hearing briefing schedule.
On March 3 and March 4, 2025, Alvarez and Marsal filed draft and amended draft assessments of Los Angeles City homelessness programs. Judge Carter ordered the amended assessment filed under seal and released it to the parties immediately, with public release set for March 6, 2025.
On June 20, 2025, the County filed a stipulation to appoint Justice Thomas Goethals as the new County Monitor, which Judge Carter granted the same day.
On June 24, 2025, Judge Carter issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motions for settlement compliance. The court found no breach under the Roadmap Agreement, but found breaches under the LA Alliance Settlement Agreement, including outdated bed plans, missed milestones, and inadequate data verification. The court imposed oversight measures such as quarterly in-person hearings, selection of a third-party monitor, and more. The City filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit challenging the order (docket number 25-4623).
On July 21, 2025, the court granted a joint stipulation continuing the deadline for intervenors to file their motion for attorneys' fees. On July 25, 2025, LA Alliance filed a memorandum in support of its own motion for attorneys' fees, including supporting declarations from counsel detailing their work on the case.
The County filed quarterly status reports on July 30, 2025, addressing obligations under both the Memorandum of Understanding and the settlement agreement for the quarter ending June 30, 2025.
On July 31, 2025, LA Alliance filed notice that it had moved to dismiss the City's appeal in the Ninth Circuit.
On August 8, 2025, intervenors filed their motion for attorneys' fees, seeking approximately $200,000 in fees and costs.
Judge Carter denied a motion filed by an interested party on September 2, 2025.
On September 12, 2025, the parties filed a joint submission regarding selection of a third-party monitor. The court held a status conference on monitor selection on September 16, 2025.
The City filed notice of an updated bed plan and milestones, as well as a status report regarding City Council consideration of proposed third-party monitors on October 3, 2025. On October 10, amicus Central City Association filed a status report regarding the third-party monitor and scope of work. LA Alliance filed objections to the City's bed plan and updated milestones on October 13, 2025. The City filed its quarterly status report under the LA Alliance settlement agreement on October 15, 2025.
On October 22, 2025, the City filed a second notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit, this time challenging orders related to the appointment of a third-party monitor (docket number 25-6760). The same day, the City filed an ex parte application to stay the district court's monitor-related orders pending appeal, which was granted in part and denied in part on November 14, 2025.
Judge Carter issued an order to show cause as to why the City should not be held in contempt on November 7. The same day, the City iled a reply in support of its stay application. On November 10, 2025, Judge Carter issued an order regarding the protection of confidential data and information produced to the monitor.
On November 11, 2025, the City filed a supplemental quarterly status report. The court held a status conference on November 12, 2025, addressing the quarterly report, the order to show cause regarding contempt, the motion for attorneys' fees, and the application to stay. The evidentiary hearing on the court's order to show cause regarding contempt resumed on December 2, 2025 and continued through multiple additional hearing dates. On January 12, 2026, Judge Carter stayed the contempt matter.
The City filed a motion to enforce a term of the settlement agreement on December 19, 2025; the motion is still pending.
On January 6, 2026, Judge Carter granted the motions for attorneys' fees filed by both LA Alliance and the intervenors. LA Alliance was awarded $1,600,633 in attorney’s fees and $5,067.21 in costs. LA CAN and LACW were awarded $201,182.50 in attorney’s fees and $160 in costs. The City filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit on January 8, 2026, challenging the attorneys' fees order (appeal docket number 26-221). On January 23, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation requesting a stay of enforcement of the attorneys' fees order pending appeal.
On January 27, 2026, the County filed a status report regarding the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority's recoupment of Measure H funds. The County filed an amended quarterly status report on February 6, 2026.
The court held an evidentiary hearing on February 10, 2026, which was continued to February 18, 2026. The City filed a renewed objection regarding the expanded contempt hearing on February 13, 2026. The same day, the County filed its quarterly status report for the quarter ending December 30, 2025, and Special Master Martinez filed a report. The City also filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit (docket number 26-784). An individual intervenor also appealed to the Ninth Circuit (docket number 26-1589).
As of March 2026, the case remained ongoing with multiple pending appeals in the Ninth Circuit and the district court retaining jurisdiction to oversee and enforce the settlement agreements.
Summary Authors
Robin Peterson (2/3/2023)
Nicole Brigstock (11/30/2024)
Amanda Gao (4/21/2026)
Mitchell v. City of Los Angeles, Central District of California (2016)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16950209/parties/la-alliance-for-human-rights-v-city-of-los-angeles/
Adler, Mr. Daniel (California)
Adler, Daniel Rolf (California)
AT, Ryan Salsig, (California)
Abascal, Manuel A. (California)
Animashaun, Akeeb Dami (California)
Adler, Mr. Daniel (California)
Adler, Daniel Rolf (California)
Attorney, Emily A. (California)
Attorney, Louis R. (California)
Attorney, Byron Jesse (California)
Attorney, Mr. Marcellus (California)
Attorney, Michael Martin (California)
Attorney, Scott D. (California)
Attorney, Hydee Feldstein (California)
Biche, Timothy Daniel (California)
Brody, Lauren Marie (California)
Evangelis, Ms. Theane (California)
Fuster, Patrick James (California)
Fuster, Mr. Patrick (California)
Hashmall, Jennifer Mira (California)
Hoang, Arlene Nancy (California)
Hoang, Mrs. Arlene (California)
Kaounis, Angelique (California)
Lai, Ana Wai-Kwan (California)
McRae, Marcellus A (California)
Rodriguez-Sanchirico, Emily A (California)
Rotstein, James N. (California)
Abascal, Manuel A. (California)
Animashaun, Akeeb Dami (California)
Attorney, George Frederick (California)
Attorney, Faizah Malik, (California)
Attorney, Allyson R. (California)
Attorney, Jason L. (California)
Attorney, Robert Henneke, (California)
Counsel, John Khai (California)
Eisenberg, Jonathan Michael (California)
Esquire, Nadia Ann (California)
Garrie, Daniel B. (California)
Geczy, Isabelle Maxine (California)
Gray, Gregory Edward (California)
Hamburger, Bradley Joseph (California)
Kapur, Theano Evangelis (California)
Martinez, Michele (California)
Myers, Shayla Renee (California)
Reichmann, Joseph (California)
Rowland, Weston C (California)
Sweetser, Ms. Catherine (California)
Sweetser, Catherine Elizabeth (California)
Tokoro, Mr. Jason (California)
Weitzman, Brooke Alyson (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16950209/la-alliance-for-human-rights-v-city-of-los-angeles/
Last updated March 28, 2026, 6:11 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 10, 2020
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
An alliance of business and property owners, renters, and unhoused people in Los Angeles.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
City
City of Los Angeles
County
Los Angeles County
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
Central District of California 2:20-cv-02291
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 21-55395
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25-6760
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25-4623
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 26-221
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 21-55395
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 21-55404
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 21-55408
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 22-55687
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 22-55933
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 26-784
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 26-1385
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 26-1589
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: $1,610,927.42.00
Order Duration: 2022 - 2027
Issues
General/Misc.:
Sanitation / living conditions
COVID-19:
COVID testing ordered/modified
Sanitizer/Handsoap ordered made available/used
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Case Summary of LA Alliance for Human Rights v. City of Los Angeles, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/43959/ (last updated 4/21/2026).