Filed Date: Feb. 9, 2021
Closed Date: March 17, 2021
Clearinghouse coding complete
COVID-19 Summary: In this case, various attorneys filed a lawsuit to stop the Los Angeles Superior Courts from requiring in-person appearances for non-essential civil matters, like traffic and unlawful detainer matters. The plaintiffs filed a request for a temporary restraining order, but a month later filed a dismissal and the case is now closed.
In late 2020, a group of attorneys wrote to the presiding judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, citing concerns with in-person appearance requirements. In response, the Chief Deputy of the Superior Court defended the choice to continue in-person, non-essential operations in the court. On January 29, 2021 the presiding judge extended an emergency continuance for criminal and juvenile dependency matters, citing a high number of COVID-19 cases in the county. Yet, in this same time period, individuals with traffic and unlawful detainer matters, were required to appear in person and the consequences for not appearing, were severe -- ranging from fines to driver's license suspensions and evictions for unlawful detainer orders.
In response, on February 9, 2021, attorneys at Public Counsel, Inner City Law Center, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Bet Tzedek, and Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, filed this lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The plaintiffs sued the presiding judge and the clerk of court of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, seeking to enjoin them from permitting and mandating in-person appearances in unlawful detainer and traffic matters. The plaintiffs cited various state law claims, including Public Nuisance, Dangerous Condition of Public Property, Equal Protection and Due Process in the California Constitution, and sought an injunction and declaratory relief that the defendants had violated the statutes and the California Constitution. They stated that the court facilities were built in a way that did not make it possible to social distance.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order and and order to show cause regarding the preliminary injunction on February 18. The defendants filed their objection on February 22.
On March 15, the plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal.The same day, the defendant filed a demurrer. The court dismissed the action with prejudice on March 17, 2021 and the case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Caitlin Kierum (10/30/2021)
Adler, Joanna (California)
Cameron-Banks, Indira (California)
Carnahan, Douglas G (California)
Eidmann, Kathryn A. (California)
Friley, Jesselyn (California)
Last updated Jan. 25, 2024, 8:06 p.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 9, 2021
Closing Date: March 17, 2021
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Attorney organizations on behalf of themselves and their clients
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Los Angeles), County
Clerk of Court of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Los Angeles), County
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
COVID-19: