One day before a hearing to explore whether the city of Los Angeles mislead a federal court on its plan to clear thousands of homelessness encampments, the city\u2019s outside counsel asked an appeals court to remove the judge from the case.<\/p>\n
In a brief filed Monday morning, attorneys for the city told the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter had made a litany of errors in overseeing the settlement \u2014 in which the city committed to providing housing or shelter for 12,915 people and clearing 9,800 tents, vehicles and makeshift shelters \u2014 and asked that it reverse many of his rulings<\/p>\n
But they said that alone would be insufficient.<\/p>\n
\u201cOnly the stronger medicine of reassignment will put a stop to the parade of irregular proceedings and rulings…\u201d it said.<\/p>\n
Later Monday, the city filed a second brief with the appeals court asking it to stay the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, saying it would not have sufficient time to prepare.<\/p>\n
Carter called the hearing Tuesday to focus on a Superior Court ruling that the City Council violated the state\u2019s Open Records Act when it considered the encampment issue in closed session and \u201cpotential misrepresentations made to the court regarding the encampment reduction resolution.\u201d<\/p>\n
Carter said he was concerned by media reports suggesting the council never actually voted on the plan but represented to the court that the plan \u2014 \u201ca critical and material issue before the court\u201d \u2014 had been approved. <\/p>\n
He asked for a host of senior L.A. political and legal officials to attend: Mayor Karen Bass, Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority interim chief executive Gita O\u2019Neill, First U.S. Assistant Attorney Bill Essayli and Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman.<\/p>\n
Theane Evangelis, lead attorney for the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher law firm representing the city, said in a statement that the \u201ccourt has used this proceeding as an improper roving commission to dictate the city\u2019s budget and its homelessness policy.\u201d<\/p>\n
The court, she said, \u201chas regularly requested the attendance of elected officials, imposed intrusive surveillance on the city by an expensive special master and consulting firm, and routinely relied on extra-record material and his own fact investigation. The district court has also made frequent threats to hold the city in contempt and impose radical remedies.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIn my humble opinion, the city needs to calm down,\u201d said Matthew Umhofer, attorney for the LA Alliance for Human Rights, a organization of primarily business and property owners that filed the 2020 lawsuit alleging the city failed to address homelessness. \u201cThey seem to think they are entitled to stop a federal court from trying to figure out whether the city lied to the court.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Tuesday hearing is an interlude in a longer hearing<\/a> that began last November over the LA Alliance\u2019s contention that the city repeatedly failed to comply with the 2022 settlement. That followed a hearing last summer in which Carter denied the LA Alliance\u2019s request to place the city\u2019s homelessness program in receivership but found the city \u201cflouted\u201d its responsibility<\/a> to provide the court with \u201caccurate and comprehensive data.\u201d He ordered the appointment of a monitor to review and verify the city\u2019s data.<\/p>\n The city\u2019s legal team appealed the appointment of the monitor. Attorneys for the LA Alliance asked for the new hearing contending that the city was in contempt of the agreement for violating its obligation to accurately report on its progress and not cooperating with the court\u2019s special master and the data monitor.<\/p>\n