Brewster v. City of L.A.

672 F.Supp.3d 872

Lamya BREWSTER, et al. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

Case No. EDCV 14-2257 JGB (SPx)

United States District Court, C.D. California

Filed May 9, 2023

Barrett S. Litt, McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP, Pasadena, CA, Donald Webster Cook, Donald W. Cook Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, John Clay Washington, Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman and Zeldes LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Paul L. Hoffman, Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman and Zeldes LLP, Hermosa Beach, CA, for Lamya Brewster, Julian Vigil.

Barrett S. Litt, McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP, Pasadena, CA, Donald Webster Cook, Donald W. Cook Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, John Clay Washington, Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman and Zeldes LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Paul L. Hoffman, Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman and Zeldes LLP, Hermosa Beach, CA, for Elias Arizmendi.

Agnes Patricia Ursea, Best Best and Krieger LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Gabriel Seth Dermer, Adena Michelle Hopenstand, Los Angeles City Attorney Office, Los Angeles, CA, Joseph S. Persoff, Los Angeles, CA, for Chief Charlie Beck, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department.

Proceedings: Order (1) GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 281); (2) GRANTING Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 282); and STRIKING Defendants' Compendium of Evidence (Dkt. No. 281-3) (IN CHAMBERS)

JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are two matters: (1) a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles ("the City"), Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD") and Charlie Beck ("Chief Beck") (collectively, "Defendants") ("MSJ," Dkt. No. 281); and (2) a motion for partial summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs Lamya Brewster, Elias Arizmendi and Julian Vigil, individually and as class representatives ("MPSJ," Dkt. No. 282) (collectively, "the Motions"). The Court determines the matters are appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motions, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the MSJ and GRANTS the MPSJ.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On November 2, 2014, Ms. Brewster¹ filed a class action complaint against Defendants seeking injunctive relief and damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ("Complaint," Dkt. No. 1.) The Complaint alleged Defendants violated Ms. Brewster's Fourth Amendment rights by impounding her vehicle pursuant to a policy under which LAPD officers could cause a vehicle to be seized and then impounded for thirty days under certain conditions ("Impound Policy"). (See id. ¶¶ 8, 41, 44.)

On November 24, 2014, Ms. Brewster filed a motion for class certification (Dkt No. 26) and a motion for preliminary injunction ("PI Motion," Dkt. No. 28). On December 26, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on (1) Ms. Brewster's lack of standing and (2) Ms. Brewster's failure to state a claim. ("MTD Complaint," Dkt. No. 33.) On January 12, 2015, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion for class certification. (Dkt. No. 34.) The same day, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction. ("Opposition to PI Motion," Dkt. No. 35.)

On February 27, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' MTD Complaint and denied Ms. Brewster's motions for class certification and preliminary injunction because it held Ms. Brewster failed to state a claim. ("MTD Complaint Order," Dkt. No. 54.) The Court found Ms. Brewster failed to state a claim for a violation of the Fourth Amendment because the thirty-day impoundment of her car was a valid administrative policy. (Id.) The Court's judgment was entered on March 19, 2015. (Dkt. No. 55.)

On March 27, 2015, Ms. Brewster filed a notice of appeal. (Dkt. No. 56.) On June 21, 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Court's dismissal and found that the thirty-day impound of Brewster's vehicle constituted a seizure that required compliance with the Fourth Amendment. Brewster v. Beck, 859 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 2017). It "express[ed] no view as to whether the 30-day impound [was] a valid administrative penalty under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments" and directed that, "[o]n remand, Brewster shall be given leave to amend the complaint to include additional claims she may choose to bring." Id. at 1196 n.2.

On October 24, 2017, Ms. Brewster and Defendants filed a stipulation for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 73.) They further stipulated to add state law claims and two new federal claims alleging violations of Ms. Brewster's Fifth Amendment rights. (Id.) On October 26, 2017, Ms. Brewster filed a First Amended Complaint. ("FAC," Dkt. No. 75.) On March 27, 2018, Defendants filed an answer to the FAC. ("Answer," Dkt. No. 81.)

On June 7, 2018, Ms. Brewster and Defendants filed a stipulation for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. ("SAC Stipulation," Dkt. No. 99.) The parties stipulated to add (1) a second named plaintiff, (2) allegations and damages classes in support of Rule 23 class-based claims for relief, and (3) allegations asserting procedural and substantive violations of Fifth Amendment rights, as well as parallel claims under the California constitution. (Id.) On June 12, 2018, Ms. Brewster and a second named plaintiff, Elias Arizmendi, filed a Second Amended Complaint. ("SAC," Dkt. No. 103.) On July 10, 2018, Defendants filed an amended answer to the SAC. ("Amended Answer," Dkt. No. 110.)

On May 15, 2019, the parties stipulated to add Julian Vigil as a third named plaintiff and class representative. ("TAC Stipulation," Dkt. No. 137.) On May 22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint. ("TAC," Dkt. No. 139.) On June 5, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' TAC. ("MTD TAC," Dkt. No. 141.) Plaintiffs opposed the MTD TAC on June 24, 2019. (Dkt. No. 146.) On July 1, 2019, Defendants replied. (Dkt. No. 150.) The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' MTD TAC. ("MTD TAC Order," Dkt. No. 171.)

On August 14, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint. ("4AC," Dkt. No. 175.) On August 28, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the 4AC. ("MTD 4AC," Dkt. No. 178.) On September 16, 2019, Plaintiffs opposed the MTD 4AC. (Dkt. No. 180.) On September 23, 2019, Defendants replied. (Dkt. No. 181.) On July 14, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' MTD 4AC. ("MTD 4AC Order," Dkt. No. 197.)

On July 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. ("MCC," Dkt. No. 190.) On August 10, 2020, Defendants opposed the MCC. (Dkt. No. 199.) On September 4, 2020, Plaintiffs replied in support of the MCC. (Dkt. No. 205.)

On August 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint. ("5AC," Dkt. No. 198.) The 5AC alleged six causes of action: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 injunctive relief, also brought under Article I § 13 of the California Constitution; (2) Fourth Amendment violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages; (3) Fourteenth Amendment (substantive and procedural due process) violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (4) Fifth Amendment (takings clause) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (5) breach of mandatory duty pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 851.6; and (6) violation of Cal. Const. Art. I § 13. (See id.)

On August 17, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the 5AC. ("MTD 5AC," Dkt. No. 204.) On August 31, 2020, Plaintiffs opposed the MTD 5AC. (Dkt. No. 206.) On September 4, 2020, Defendants replied in support of the MTD 5AC. (Dkt. No. 207.)

On September 21, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the MCC and MTD 5AC. (Dkt. No. 209.) On August 5, 2021, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the MTD 5AC and granting in part and denying in part the MCC. ("MTD SAC and MCC Order," Dkt. No. 220.)² The Court certified the LO and Lien Classes and denied certification of the OPG Class. (Id.)

On August 17, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the MTD SAC and MCC Order. ("Motion for Reconsideration," Dkt. No. 221.) On September 3, 2021, Defendants opposed the Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 222.) On September 13, 2021, Plaintiffs replied in support of the Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 223.) On September 24, 2021, the Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration but invited Plaintiffs to amend their motion for class certification as to the OPG class in line with the Court's Order. (Dkt. No. 224.)

On October 21, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. ("Renewed MCC," Dkt. No. 277.) On November 22, 2021, Defendants opposed the Renewed MCC. (Dkt. No. 230.) Plaintiffs replied in support of the Renewed MCC on December 8, 2021. (Dkt. No. 232.) On November 22, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for decertification of classes. ("MD," Dkt. No. 231.) Plaintiffs opposed on December 13, 2021 (Dkt. No. 233). Defendants replied in support of the MD on December 20, 2021. (Dkt. No. 234). By stipulation of the parties and on motion of the Court, the hearing on the Renewed MCC and MD was continued 15 times. (See Dkt. Nos. 237-263.) On July 27, 2022, the Court denied the MCC and denied the MD. ("Order Denying MCC and MD," Dkt. No. 264.)

On August 10, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to certify the Court's Order Denying MCC and MD to the Ninth Circuit for interlocutory review. ("Motion for Interlocutory Appeal," Dkt. No. 266.) Plaintiffs opposed on August 22, 2022. (Dkt. No. 268.) Defendants replied in support of the Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on August 29, 2022. (Dkt. No. 269.) On October 11, 2022, the Court denied the Motion for Interlocutory Appeal. (Dkt. No. 273.)

On December 29, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation to extend the page limitation of the opening memoranda of (partial) motions for summary judgement to 30 pages and to vacate pretrial and trial dates pending resolution of the pending dispositive motions. (Dkt. No. 278.) The same day, the Court approved the stipulation. (Dkt. No. 280.)

B. Motions

On January 13,...