Filed Date: Feb. 13, 2018
Closed Date: March 12, 2019
Clearinghouse coding complete
On February 14, 2018 a property owner in the City of Indio filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside. The plaintiff was represented by the Institute for Justice. The complaint challenged the city of Indio’s code enforcement system. The plaintiff claimed that the law firm of Silver & Wright LLP, which the city delegated its powers of criminal prosecution for code enforcement cases to, had a financial conflict of interest in these prosecutions. The law firm was recovering lawyers’ fees from those who had committed code violations. The plaintiff brought the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that the defendant had violated her Due Process rights under the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution.
The plaintiff was a property owner whose tenant was raising chickens, which is against the law in Indio. She pled guilty and paid a $225 fine, but nearly a year later received a bill for $3,030.33 in lawyer's fees associated with the proceedings. The class comprised of all individuals who pled guilty or no contest in a criminal case where Silver & Wright LLP, or one or more of its agents, acted as prosecuting city attorney(s) for either the City of Indio or the City of Coachella.
On April 9, 2018, the plaintiff, along with two additional plaintiffs, filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint. On May 4, 2018, counsel for the City sent the plaintiffs' class counsel a settlement offer. Additional settlement discussions ensued, and eventually the parties agreed to settlement terms.
The settlement terms included the city paying back all fees that were collected from named plaintiffs and class members who were criminally prosecuted by Silver & Wright, and relinquished claims to outstanding fees, removing any leins placed on them as a result of being criminally prosecuted by Silver & Wright LLP. The city agreed to no longer seek to recover its attorneys' fees in criminal prosecutions.
The court retained jurisdiction over the parties, the class members, and the settlement with respect to the future performance of the terms of the settlement agreement, and assured that all payments and other actions required by the settlement were properly carried out.
Additionally, legislation was later enacted eliminating the ability of cities to charge defendants for the cost of prosecuting violations of local ordinances.
Summary Authors
Anna Brito (2/6/2019)
Barthelmess, Rob (California)
House, Joshua (Virginia)
Orr, Jason (California)
Redfern, Jeffrey H. (Virginia)
Strong, Sabrina H (California)
Last updated Sept. 9, 2022, 3 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 13, 2018
Closing Date: March 12, 2019
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
a property owner in the City of Indio
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
City of Indio (Riverside), City
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Issues
General: