Case: Williams v. City of Beverly Hills

2:21-cv-08698 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: Aug. 30, 2021

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a lawsuit challenging Beverly Hills Police Department stop, search, and arrest practices as racially discriminatory.  Two individual plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on August 30, 2021, in California Superior Court (County of Los Angeles, Case No. 218TCV31949).  Represented by private counsel, they sued the City of Beverly Hills and individual employees of the Beverly Hills Police Department (“BHPD” or the “Department”), bringing claims for violations of state law and…

This is a lawsuit challenging Beverly Hills Police Department stop, search, and arrest practices as racially discriminatory. 

Two individual plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on August 30, 2021, in California Superior Court (County of Los Angeles, Case No. 218TCV31949).  Represented by private counsel, they sued the City of Beverly Hills and individual employees of the Beverly Hills Police Department (“BHPD” or the “Department”), bringing claims for violations of state law and Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and unreasonable search and seizure.  Plaintiffs sought damages, costs, and fees.  

On November 3, 2021, defendants removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where it was originally assigned to District Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha.  Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on January 19, 2022, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint on February 25, 2022.  On April 7, 2022, the court granted leave for plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, which they filed on April 21, 2022.  Defendants again filed a motion to dismiss, on June 3, 2022.  While the motion to dismiss was pending, the parties began engaging in discovery.  On February 17, 2023, the case was transferred to Judge Fernando M. Olguin.  On May 26, 2023, plaintiffs moved to file a third amended complaint, which the defendants opposed.  On June 29, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs’ request to file a third amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed on June 30, 2023.  

The third amended complaint was filed on behalf of six individual plaintiffs seeking to represent a class of “all Black people who were detained or arrested by the City of Beverly Hills Police Department (“BHPD”) from August 30, 2019 through August 30, 2021 without being convicted of any crime,” including two subclasses of Black people arrested by particular task forces during certain time periods, none of whom were convicted after arrest.  The complaint asserted that arrests in Beverly Hills during the challenged period disproportionately, and intentionally, targeted Black people.  Plaintiffs alleged rates of arrest that far outstripped the proportion of Black people in the city and state, including one two-month period during which 90% of people arrested in Beverly Hills were Black, even though the city is only 1.95% Black.  They challenged BHPD policies and practices that promoted pretextual stops and targeted Black people for arrest for minor infractions. Suing the City of Beverly Hills and 11 individual police officers, including several former chiefs of the Department, plaintiffs brought claims under 42 U.S.C. s 1983 for violations of their Fourteenth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights, including for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  They sought damages, costs and fees, and a consent decree preventing BHPD from racial profiling.  

Defendants again moved to dismiss on July 19, 2023, arguing, among other things, that the putative class definition was overbroad, that certain claims were time-barred, and that the alleged facts failed to support the underlying claims. The motion to dismiss the third amended complaint remains pending as of September 2023.  

 

Summary Authors

Tessa Bialek (9/20/2023)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60697833/parties/jasmine-williams-v-city-of-beverly-hills/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Crump, Benjamin L. (California)

Gage, Bradley C. (California)

Goldberg, Terry Michael (California)

Jackson, Natalie A. (California)

Attorney for Defendant
Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Belli, Melvin Caesar (California)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1-1

2:21-cv-08698

New Docket

Complaint for Monetary Damages; Demand for Jury Trial

Williams v. Beverly Hills

California state trial court

Nov. 3, 2021

Nov. 3, 2021

Complaint
179

2:21-cv-08698

Third Amended Complaint

June 30, 2023

June 30, 2023

Complaint

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60697833/jasmine-williams-v-city-of-beverly-hills/

Last updated July 16, 2024, 12:22 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles County Superior, Central, case number 21STCV31949 Receipt No: ACACDC-32269019 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B - Proof of Service) (Attorney Roberta A Kraus added to party City of Beverly Hills, a public entity(pty:dft))(Kraus, Roberta) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

Nov. 3, 2021

Nov. 3, 2021

RECAP
2

CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity, (Kraus, Roberta) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

Nov. 3, 2021

Nov. 3, 2021

PACER
3

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. (Kraus, Roberta) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

Nov. 3, 2021

Nov. 3, 2021

PACER
4

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Roberta A Kraus counsel for Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. Adding Daniel K. Spradlin as counsel of record for Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. (Kraus, Roberta) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

Nov. 3, 2021

Nov. 3, 2021

PACER
5

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Roberta A Kraus counsel for Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. Adding Jeanne L. Tollison as counsel of record for Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. (Kraus, Roberta) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

Nov. 3, 2021

Nov. 3, 2021

PACER

CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants City of Beverly Hills, Jonathan De La Cruz(official capacities as employees of the City of Beverly Hills), Jonathan De La Cruz(individual), Does, Scott Dowling(official capacities as employees of the City of Beverly Hills), Scott Dowling(individual), Dale Drummond(individual), Dale Drummond(official capacities as employees of the City of Beverly Hills), Jon Ilusorio(individual), Jon Ilusorio(official capacities as employees of the City of Beverly Hills). Jury Demanded., filed by Plaintiffs Khalil White, Williams Jasmine. [FILED IN STATE COURT ON 8/30/2021 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT A TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL 1 . (et)

Nov. 3, 2021

Nov. 3, 2021

PACER

NON-CONFORMED COPY OF PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT Executed by Plaintiff Khalil White, Williams Jasmine, upon Defendant City of Beverly Hills served on 10/4/2021, answer due 10/25/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Michael Dunn, City Clerk in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. [SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT A TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL 1 . (et)

Nov. 3, 2021

Nov. 3, 2021

PACER
1

NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles County Superior, Central, case number 21STCV31949 Receipt No: ACACDC-32269019 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B - Proof of Service) (Attorney Roberta A Kraus added to party City of Beverly Hills, a public entity(pty:dft))(Kraus, Roberta) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

1

View on Clearinghouse

Nov. 3, 2021

Nov. 3, 2021

RECAP
2

CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity, (Kraus, Roberta) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

Nov. 3, 2021

Nov. 3, 2021

PACER
3

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. (Kraus, Roberta) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

Nov. 3, 2021

Nov. 3, 2021

PACER
4

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Roberta A Kraus counsel for Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. Adding Daniel K. Spradlin as counsel of record for Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. (Kraus, Roberta) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

Nov. 3, 2021

Nov. 3, 2021

PACER
5

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Roberta A Kraus counsel for Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. Adding Jeanne L. Tollison as counsel of record for Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. (Kraus, Roberta) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

Nov. 3, 2021

Nov. 3, 2021

PACER

CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants City of Beverly Hills, Jonathan De La Cruz(official capacities as employees of the City of Beverly Hills), Jonathan De La Cruz(individual), Does, Scott Dowling(official capacities as employees of the City of Beverly Hills), Scott Dowling(individual), Dale Drummond(individual), Dale Drummond(official capacities as employees of the City of Beverly Hills), Jon Ilusorio(individual), Jon Ilusorio(official capacities as employees of the City of Beverly Hills). Jury Demanded., filed by Plaintiffs Khalil White, Williams Jasmine. [FILED IN STATE COURT ON 8/30/2021 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT A TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL 1 . (et)

Nov. 3, 2021

Nov. 3, 2021

PACER

NON-CONFORMED COPY OF PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT Executed by Plaintiff Khalil White, Williams Jasmine, upon Defendant City of Beverly Hills served on 10/4/2021, answer due 10/25/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Michael Dunn, City Clerk in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. [SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT A TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL 1 . (et)

Nov. 3, 2021

Nov. 3, 2021

PACER
6

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Fernando L Aenlle-Rocha and Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver. (et) (Entered: 11/04/2021)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

PACER
7

NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) (Entered: 11/04/2021)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

PACER
8

Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (et) (Entered: 11/04/2021)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

PACER
9

NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Benjamin Crump on behalf of Plaintiffs. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (et) (Entered: 11/04/2021)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

PACER
10

NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Mark T Harris on behalf of Plaintiffs. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (et) (Entered: 11/04/2021)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

PACER

Complaint - (Discovery)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

PACER

Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

PACER
6

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Fernando L Aenlle-Rocha and Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver. (et) (Entered: 11/04/2021)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

PACER
7

NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) (Entered: 11/04/2021)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

PACER
8

Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (et) (Entered: 11/04/2021)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

PACER
9

NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Benjamin Crump on behalf of Plaintiffs. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (et) (Entered: 11/04/2021)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

PACER
10

NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Mark T Harris on behalf of Plaintiffs. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (et) (Entered: 11/04/2021)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

PACER

Complaint - (Discovery)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

PACER

Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)

Nov. 4, 2021

Nov. 4, 2021

PACER
11

STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to City of Beverly Hills answer now due 12/10/2021, re Complaint - (Discovery),, filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills.(Kraus, Roberta) (Entered: 11/05/2021)

Nov. 5, 2021

Nov. 5, 2021

PACER
11

STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to City of Beverly Hills answer now due 12/10/2021, re Complaint - (Discovery),, filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills.(Kraus, Roberta) (Entered: 11/05/2021)

Nov. 5, 2021

Nov. 5, 2021

PACER
12

INITIAL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (tf) (Entered: 11/06/2021)

Nov. 6, 2021

Nov. 6, 2021

PACER
12

INITIAL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (tf) (Entered: 11/06/2021)

Nov. 6, 2021

Nov. 6, 2021

PACER
13

STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to January 24, 2022 re Complaint - (Discovery),, filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kraus, Roberta) (Entered: 12/06/2021)

Dec. 6, 2021

Dec. 6, 2021

PACER
13

STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to January 24, 2022 re Complaint - (Discovery),, filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kraus, Roberta) (Entered: 12/06/2021)

Dec. 6, 2021

Dec. 6, 2021

PACER
14

Text Only Entry (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER STRIKING STIPULATION (DKT. 13 ) by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: The Court STRIKES the parties' Stipulation to Extend Time for Plaintiff to File A First Amended Complaint for failure to attest on the signature page of the document that all other signatories listed, who electronically signed with a s and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, concur in the content of and have authorized the filing. See Local Rule 5-4.3.4. Any renewed stipulation must comply with all applicable statutes and Local Rules. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (tf) (Entered: 12/07/2021)

Dec. 7, 2021

Dec. 7, 2021

PACER
15

STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to January 24, 2022 re Complaint - (Discovery),, filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kraus, Roberta) (Entered: 12/07/2021)

Dec. 7, 2021

Dec. 7, 2021

PACER
16

APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Benjamin L. Crump to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Williams Jasmine, Khalil White (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. BCACDC-32441531) filed by plaintiff Williams Jasmine, Khalil White. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Document Certificate of Good Standing - FL, # 2 Unredacted Document Certificate of Good Standing - TN, # 3 Unredacted Document Certificate of Good Standing - DC, # 4 Unredacted Document Certificate of Good Standing - ND FL, # 5 Proposed Order) (Gage, Bradley) (Entered: 12/07/2021)

Dec. 7, 2021

Dec. 7, 2021

PACER

Generic Text Only Entry

Dec. 7, 2021

Dec. 7, 2021

PACER
14

Text Only Entry (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER STRIKING STIPULATION (DKT. 13 ) by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: The Court STRIKES the parties' Stipulation to Extend Time for Plaintiff to File A First Amended Complaint for failure to attest on the signature page of the document that all other signatories listed, who electronically signed with a s and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, concur in the content of and have authorized the filing. See Local Rule 5-4.3.4. Any renewed stipulation must comply with all applicable statutes and Local Rules. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (tf) (Entered: 12/07/2021)

Dec. 7, 2021

Dec. 7, 2021

PACER
15

STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to January 24, 2022 re Complaint - (Discovery),, filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kraus, Roberta) (Entered: 12/07/2021)

Dec. 7, 2021

Dec. 7, 2021

PACER
16

APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Benjamin L. Crump to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Williams Jasmine, Khalil White (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. BCACDC-32441531) filed by plaintiff Williams Jasmine, Khalil White. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Document Certificate of Good Standing - FL, # 2 Unredacted Document Certificate of Good Standing - TN, # 3 Unredacted Document Certificate of Good Standing - DC, # 4 Unredacted Document Certificate of Good Standing - ND FL, # 5 Proposed Order) (Gage, Bradley) (Entered: 12/07/2021)

Dec. 7, 2021

Dec. 7, 2021

PACER

Generic Text Only Entry

Dec. 7, 2021

Dec. 7, 2021

PACER
17

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Benjamin L. Crump to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Williams Jasmine, Khalil White and designating Bradley C. Gage as local counsel 16 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (lc) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

Dec. 9, 2021

Dec. 9, 2021

PACER
17

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Benjamin L. Crump to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Williams Jasmine, Khalil White and designating Bradley C. Gage as local counsel 16 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (lc) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

Dec. 9, 2021

Dec. 9, 2021

PACER
18

APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Andrew A. Lothson to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant City of Beverly Hills (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-32481356) filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Application of Non-Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case Pro Hac Vice) (Spradlin, Daniel) (Entered: 12/14/2021)

Dec. 14, 2021

Dec. 14, 2021

PACER
19

APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Arthur J. Reliford to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant City of Beverly Hills (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-32481373) filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Application of Non-Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case Pro Hac Vice) (Spradlin, Daniel) (Entered: 12/14/2021)

Dec. 14, 2021

Dec. 14, 2021

PACER
20

APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Susan E. Sullivan to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant City of Beverly Hills (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-32481382) filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Application of Non-Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case Pro Hac Vice) (Spradlin, Daniel) (Entered: 12/14/2021)

Dec. 14, 2021

Dec. 14, 2021

PACER
18

APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Andrew A. Lothson to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant City of Beverly Hills (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-32481356) filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Application of Non-Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case Pro Hac Vice) (Spradlin, Daniel) (Entered: 12/14/2021)

Dec. 14, 2021

Dec. 14, 2021

PACER
19

APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Arthur J. Reliford to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant City of Beverly Hills (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-32481373) filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Application of Non-Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case Pro Hac Vice) (Spradlin, Daniel) (Entered: 12/14/2021)

Dec. 14, 2021

Dec. 14, 2021

PACER
20

APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Susan E. Sullivan to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant City of Beverly Hills (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-32481382) filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Application of Non-Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case Pro Hac Vice) (Spradlin, Daniel) (Entered: 12/14/2021)

Dec. 14, 2021

Dec. 14, 2021

PACER
21

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Andrew A. Lothson to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant City of Beverly Hills and designating Daniel K. Spradlin as local counsel 18 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (lc) (Entered: 12/15/2021)

Dec. 15, 2021

Dec. 15, 2021

PACER
22

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Arthur J. Reliford to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant City of Beverly Hills and designating Daniel K. Spradlin as local counsel 19 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (lc) (Entered: 12/15/2021)

Dec. 15, 2021

Dec. 15, 2021

PACER
23

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Susan E. Sullivan to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant City of Beverly Hills and designating Daniel K. Spradlin as local counsel 20 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (lc) (Entered: 12/15/2021)

Dec. 15, 2021

Dec. 15, 2021

PACER
21

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Andrew A. Lothson to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant City of Beverly Hills and designating Daniel K. Spradlin as local counsel 18 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (lc) (Entered: 12/15/2021)

Dec. 15, 2021

Dec. 15, 2021

PACER
22

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Arthur J. Reliford to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant City of Beverly Hills and designating Daniel K. Spradlin as local counsel 19 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (lc) (Entered: 12/15/2021)

Dec. 15, 2021

Dec. 15, 2021

PACER
23

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Susan E. Sullivan to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant City of Beverly Hills and designating Daniel K. Spradlin as local counsel 20 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (lc) (Entered: 12/15/2021)

Dec. 15, 2021

Dec. 15, 2021

PACER
24

ORDER GRANTING REVISED STIPULATION REGARDING FILING OF PLAINTIFFS' FIRSTAMENDED COMPLAINT 15 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: 1. Plaintiffs Jasmine Williams and Khalil White, in their individual and representative capacities on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated, shall have until January 21, 2022 to file their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in this matter. 2. If Plaintiffs do not file their first amended complaint by that date, Defendant City of Beverly Hills shall have until January 28, 2022 to file its motion todismiss Plaintiffs' FAC. 3. If Plaintiffs file a FAC in this matter, Defendant City of Beverly Hills shall have until February 25, 2022 to file a responsive pleading to the FAC. (lc) (Entered: 12/22/2021)

Dec. 22, 2021

Dec. 22, 2021

PACER
24

ORDER GRANTING REVISED STIPULATION REGARDING FILING OF PLAINTIFFS' FIRSTAMENDED COMPLAINT 15 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: 1. Plaintiffs Jasmine Williams and Khalil White, in their individual and representative capacities on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated, shall have until January 21, 2022 to file their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in this matter. 2. If Plaintiffs do not file their first amended complaint by that date, Defendant City of Beverly Hills shall have until January 28, 2022 to file its motion todismiss Plaintiffs' FAC. 3. If Plaintiffs file a FAC in this matter, Defendant City of Beverly Hills shall have until February 25, 2022 to file a responsive pleading to the FAC. (lc) (Entered: 12/22/2021)

Dec. 22, 2021

Dec. 22, 2021

PACER
25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Plaintiffs All Plaintiffs amending Complaint - (Discovery),,, filed by plaintiff Khalil White, Williams Jasmine (Sadr, Milad) (Entered: 01/19/2022)

Jan. 19, 2022

Jan. 19, 2022

PACER
26

NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Amended Complaint/Petition 25 . The following error(s) was/were found: Caption of document is incomplete/incorrect. Caption of listed Officer defendants with ONLY initials... Docket record has these officers full named.. Clerk is unable to determine if the removing defendant Specified names to these officers identified with only initials. Also plaintiff in filing amended complaint erroneously selected the amended complaint as filed "All Plaintiffs" (see docket Text). Therefore Clerk unable to update the docket re parties to to conflict in caption and docket text In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 01/20/2022)

Jan. 19, 2022

Jan. 19, 2022

PACER
25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Plaintiffs All Plaintiffs amending Complaint - (Discovery),,, filed by plaintiff Khalil White, Williams Jasmine (Sadr, Milad) (Entered: 01/19/2022)

Jan. 19, 2022

Jan. 19, 2022

PACER
26

NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Amended Complaint/Petition 25 . The following error(s) was/were found: Caption of document is incomplete/incorrect. Caption of listed Officer defendants with ONLY initials... Docket record has these officers full named.. Clerk is unable to determine if the removing defendant Specified names to these officers identified with only initials. Also plaintiff in filing amended complaint erroneously selected the amended complaint as filed "All Plaintiffs" (see docket Text). Therefore Clerk unable to update the docket re parties to to conflict in caption and docket text In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 01/20/2022)

Jan. 19, 2022

Jan. 19, 2022

PACER
27

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case (Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint) filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills. Motion set for hearing on 4/8/2022 at 01:30 PM before Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order RE Motion to Dismiss) (Sullivan, Susan) (Entered: 02/25/2022)

Feb. 25, 2022

Feb. 25, 2022

PACER
27

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case (Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint) filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills. Motion set for hearing on 4/8/2022 at 01:30 PM before Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order RE Motion to Dismiss) (Sullivan, Susan) (Entered: 02/25/2022)

Feb. 25, 2022

Feb. 25, 2022

PACER
28

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. Scheduling Conference set for 4/8/2022 at 01:30 PM before Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (tf) (Entered: 02/28/2022)

Feb. 28, 2022

Feb. 28, 2022

PACER
28

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. Scheduling Conference set for 4/8/2022 at 01:30 PM before Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (tf) (Entered: 02/28/2022)

Feb. 28, 2022

Feb. 28, 2022

PACER
29

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case (Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint) 27 filed by Plaintiffs Williams Jasmine, Khalil White. (Sadr, Milad) (Entered: 03/16/2022)

March 16, 2022

March 16, 2022

PACER
29

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case (Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint) 27 filed by Plaintiffs Williams Jasmine, Khalil White. (Sadr, Milad) (Entered: 03/16/2022)

March 16, 2022

March 16, 2022

PACER
30

Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Amended Complaint/Petition 25 filed by PLAINTIFF Williams Jasmine, Khalil White. (Gage, Bradley) (Entered: 03/23/2022)

March 23, 2022

March 23, 2022

PACER
31

Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Amended Complaint/Petition 25 filed by PLAINTIFF Williams Jasmine, Khalil White. (Gage, Bradley) (Entered: 03/23/2022)

March 23, 2022

March 23, 2022

PACER
32

Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Amended Complaint/Petition 25 filed by PLAINTIFF Williams Jasmine, Khalil White. (Gage, Bradley) (Entered: 03/23/2022)

March 23, 2022

March 23, 2022

PACER
33

Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Amended Complaint/Petition 25 filed by PLAINTIFF Williams Jasmine, Khalil White. (Gage, Bradley) (Entered: 03/23/2022)

March 23, 2022

March 23, 2022

PACER
34

NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Summons Request 32, Summons Request 33, Summons Request 30, Summons Request 31 . The following error(s) was found: Summons is not directed to the defendant(s). The defendants name must appear in the To:section of the summons. The named person on the "TO" area DO NOT MATCH THE CAPTION OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT NOR THE SUMMONS. On 1/19/22 filer was advised filer failed to properly name the defendants in the Caption and in the body text of the pleading. Clerk can only issue summons identical to the first amended complaint docket no. 25. Filer should include on the form "on the first Amended Complaint".. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re-file your request. (lc) (Entered: 03/23/2022)

March 23, 2022

March 23, 2022

PACER
30

Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Amended Complaint/Petition 25 filed by PLAINTIFF Williams Jasmine, Khalil White. (Gage, Bradley) (Entered: 03/23/2022)

March 23, 2022

March 23, 2022

PACER
31

Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Amended Complaint/Petition 25 filed by PLAINTIFF Williams Jasmine, Khalil White. (Gage, Bradley) (Entered: 03/23/2022)

March 23, 2022

March 23, 2022

PACER
32

Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Amended Complaint/Petition 25 filed by PLAINTIFF Williams Jasmine, Khalil White. (Gage, Bradley) (Entered: 03/23/2022)

March 23, 2022

March 23, 2022

PACER
33

Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Amended Complaint/Petition 25 filed by PLAINTIFF Williams Jasmine, Khalil White. (Gage, Bradley) (Entered: 03/23/2022)

March 23, 2022

March 23, 2022

PACER
34

NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Summons Request 32, Summons Request 33, Summons Request 30, Summons Request 31 . The following error(s) was found: Summons is not directed to the defendant(s). The defendants name must appear in the To:section of the summons. The named person on the "TO" area DO NOT MATCH THE CAPTION OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT NOR THE SUMMONS. On 1/19/22 filer was advised filer failed to properly name the defendants in the Caption and in the body text of the pleading. Clerk can only issue summons identical to the first amended complaint docket no. 25. Filer should include on the form "on the first Amended Complaint".. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re-file your request. (lc) (Entered: 03/23/2022)

March 23, 2022

March 23, 2022

PACER
35

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: On January 19, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), asserting claims against Defendants including individuals identified as "Sergeant D.D.," "Officer J.I.," and "Officer J.D." (Dkt. 25 ). On March 23, 2022, Plaintiffs requested the Clerk issue Summons with respect to individuals identified as "Sergeant Dale Drummond," "Officer Jon Ilusorio," and "Officer Jonathan De La Cruz." (Dkts. 30, 31, 32 ). The Clerk rejected Plaintiffs' requests on the grounds that the names listed in the "TO" area of the requests did not match the names listed in the caption of the FAC. (Dkt. 34 ). Accordingly, the court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file, by April 8, 2022, either (1) an amended complaint that names these Defendants by their proper names or (2) a statement establishing that it is proper for Plaintiffs to maintain suit and to serve these individuals by pseudonyms, supported by relevant legal authority. The court CONTINUES the hearing on Defendant City of Beverly Hills' (the "City") Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. 27 ), to April 29, 2022. If Plaintiffs file an amended complaint, the City's Motion to Dismiss will be denied as moot, without prejudice to the filing of a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (tf) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/25/2022)

March 25, 2022

March 25, 2022

PACER
36

JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 15 days, filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates Worksheet)(Tollison, Jeanne) (Entered: 03/25/2022)

March 25, 2022

March 25, 2022

PACER
37

JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 10-15, filed by Plaintiffs Williams Jasmine, Khalil White.. (Attachments: # 1 EXHIBIT)(Gage, Bradley) (Entered: 03/25/2022)

March 25, 2022

March 25, 2022

PACER

Text Only Scheduling Notice

March 25, 2022

March 25, 2022

PACER
35

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: On January 19, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), asserting claims against Defendants including individuals identified as "Sergeant D.D.," "Officer J.I.," and "Officer J.D." (Dkt. 25 ). On March 23, 2022, Plaintiffs requested the Clerk issue Summons with respect to individuals identified as "Sergeant Dale Drummond," "Officer Jon Ilusorio," and "Officer Jonathan De La Cruz." (Dkts. 30, 31, 32 ). The Clerk rejected Plaintiffs' requests on the grounds that the names listed in the "TO" area of the requests did not match the names listed in the caption of the FAC. (Dkt. 34 ). Accordingly, the court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file, by April 8, 2022, either (1) an amended complaint that names these Defendants by their proper names or (2) a statement establishing that it is proper for Plaintiffs to maintain suit and to serve these individuals by pseudonyms, supported by relevant legal authority. The court CONTINUES the hearing on Defendant City of Beverly Hills' (the "City") Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. 27 ), to April 29, 2022. If Plaintiffs file an amended complaint, the City's Motion to Dismiss will be denied as moot, without prejudice to the filing of a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (tf) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/25/2022)

March 25, 2022

March 25, 2022

PACER
36

JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 15 days, filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates Worksheet)(Tollison, Jeanne) (Entered: 03/25/2022)

March 25, 2022

March 25, 2022

PACER
37

JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 10-15, filed by Plaintiffs Williams Jasmine, Khalil White.. (Attachments: # 1 EXHIBIT)(Gage, Bradley) (Entered: 03/25/2022)

March 25, 2022

March 25, 2022

PACER

Text Only Scheduling Notice

March 25, 2022

March 25, 2022

PACER
38

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: The court has reviewed the Joint Rule 26(f) Report submitted by the parties, and determines that an in-person Scheduling Conference is unnecessary. Accordingly, the court VACATES the April 8, 2022, Scheduling Conference. Order re Jury/Court Trial to issue. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (tf) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/28/2022)

March 28, 2022

March 28, 2022

PACER
39

ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 3 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. Case ordered to a private mediator based upon a stipulation of the parties or by the court order. ADR Proceeding to be held no later than 10/20/2023. (tf) (Entered: 03/28/2022)

March 28, 2022

March 28, 2022

PACER
40

ORDER RE: SCHEDULE OF PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES, TRIAL REQUIREMENTS, AND CONDUCT OF ATTORNEYS AND PARTIES by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. The Scheduling Order governing this action is set forth in the Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates chart below. See attached order for SCHEDULE OF PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES for deadlines and hearings. (lom) (Entered: 03/28/2022)

March 28, 2022

March 28, 2022

PACER

Text Only Scheduling Notice

March 28, 2022

March 28, 2022

PACER
38

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: The court has reviewed the Joint Rule 26(f) Report submitted by the parties, and determines that an in-person Scheduling Conference is unnecessary. Accordingly, the court VACATES the April 8, 2022, Scheduling Conference. Order re Jury/Court Trial to issue. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (tf) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/28/2022)

March 28, 2022

March 28, 2022

PACER
39

ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 3 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. Case ordered to a private mediator based upon a stipulation of the parties or by the court order. ADR Proceeding to be held no later than 10/20/2023. (tf) (Entered: 03/28/2022)

March 28, 2022

March 28, 2022

PACER
40

ORDER RE: SCHEDULE OF PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES, TRIAL REQUIREMENTS, AND CONDUCT OF ATTORNEYS AND PARTIES by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. The Scheduling Order governing this action is set forth in the Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates chart below. See attached order for SCHEDULE OF PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES for deadlines and hearings. (lom) (Entered: 03/28/2022)

March 28, 2022

March 28, 2022

PACER

Text Only Scheduling Notice

March 28, 2022

March 28, 2022

PACER
41

STIPULATION for Extension of Time to Amend Amended Complaint/Petition 25, Text Only Scheduling Notice,,,,, 35 filed by plaintiff Williams Jasmine, Khalil White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sadr, Milad) (Entered: 04/06/2022)

April 6, 2022

April 6, 2022

PACER
41

STIPULATION for Extension of Time to Amend Amended Complaint/Petition 25, Text Only Scheduling Notice,,,,, 35 filed by plaintiff Williams Jasmine, Khalil White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sadr, Milad) (Entered: 04/06/2022)

April 6, 2022

April 6, 2022

PACER
42

ORDER by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, Granting Stipulation Regarding Filing of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 41 ). Plaintiffs are granted leave to file their SAC on or before April 22, 2022. The court VACATES the April 29, 2022 hearing on Defendants Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 27. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (twdb) (Entered: 04/07/2022)

April 7, 2022

April 7, 2022

PACER

~Util - Terminate Hearings AND Order

April 7, 2022

April 7, 2022

PACER
42

ORDER by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, Granting Stipulation Regarding Filing of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 41 ). Plaintiffs are granted leave to file their SAC on or before April 22, 2022. The court VACATES the April 29, 2022 hearing on Defendants Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 27. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (twdb) (Entered: 04/07/2022)

April 7, 2022

April 7, 2022

PACER

~Util - Terminate Hearings AND Order

April 7, 2022

April 7, 2022

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Policing

Special Collection(s):

Traffic Stop Litigation

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 30, 2021

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Six individual plaintiffs seeking to represent a class of “all Black people who were detained or arrested by the City of Beverly Hills Police Department (“BHPD”) from August 30, 2019 through August 30, 2021 without being convicted of any crime,” including two subclasses of Black people arrested by particular task forces during certain time periods, none of whom were convicted after arrest.

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Pending

Defendants

City of Beverly Hills (Beverly Hills, Los Angeles), City

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Due Process: Substantive Due Process

Unreasonable search and seizure

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet