Lee v. City of L.A.

88 F.Supp.3d 1140

Peter LEE, et al., and Stanley Haveriland, et al., Plaintiffs

v.CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant.

Case Nos. CV 12–06618 CBM RZx.

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Signed Feb. 24, 2015.

Patrick Eoghan Murray, Hyongsoon Kim, John A. Karaczynski, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP, Ekwan E. Rhow, Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg & Rhow, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Robin B. Johansen, Thomas A. Willis, Remcho Johansen and Purcell LLP, San Leandro, CA, Harit Upendra Trivedi, Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

CONSUELO B. MARSHALL, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Peter Lee, Miri Park, Ho Sam Park, Yonah Hong, and Geney Kim (the “Lee Plaintiffs”) are registered voters and residents of “Koreatown,” in the city of Los Angeles, California. The Lee Plaintiffs reside within the boundaries of Los Angeles City Council District (“CD”) 10. Plaintiffs Stanley Haveriland, Theordore Thomas, Horace Pennman, Julia Simmons, Heather Presha, and Sally Stein (the “Haveriland Plaintiffs”) are registered voters in the city of Los Angeles residing in Los Angeles City Council Districts (“CDs”) 9, 8, and 10. Following the 2012 Los Angeles redistricting process, the Lee Plaintiffs and Haveriland Plaintiffs (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed separate lawsuits against the City of Los Angeles (the “City” or “Defendant”). The Lee Plaintiffs' complaint focused on the City's failure to put “Koreatown” in one City Council District, while the Haveriland Plaintiffs' complaint focused on the City's move of two predominantly African–American neighborhoods from CD 8 into CD 10 and the creation of a majority Latino district in CD 9. Both sets of Plaintiffs brought claims alleging that the City violated: (1) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) Section 204 of the City Charter, and (3) the Article II, Section 11(a) of the California Constitution. The Lee and Haveriland Plaintiffs' lawsuits were consolidated for all purposes on the parties' stipulation. (Docket No. 33.)

Following two years of litigation, the City now moves for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs' claims. (Docket Nos. 84, 87.) The Plaintiffs move for summary adjudication as to their third cause of action (the California Constitutional law claim). (Docket No. 106.) The Court finds that there is no triable issue of material fact that the City violated the Fourteenth Amendment in the 2012 redistricting process. Having so found, the Court grants judgment in favor of the City as to Plaintiffs' first cause of action, Plaintiffs' only federal claim, and dismisses Plaintiffs' supplemental state law causes of action (claims two and three) without prejudice. The City of Los Angeles' Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' first cause of action. (Docket Nos. 84, 87.) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action is DENIED. (Docket No. 106.)

I. JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

II. FACTUAL OVERVIEW

Los Angeles redraws its political boundaries after each decennial census to account for population and demographic shifts over the previous ten years. Pursuant to a City Charter provision that was approved by the voters of Los Angeles in 1999, Los Angeles redistricting begins with the selection of a twenty-one-member volunteer Redistricting Commission. Los Angeles Charter & Admin. Code (“Charter”) § 204. This Redistricting Commission is responsible for “seek[ing] public input throughout the redistricting process” and advising the City Council (the “Council”) on the drawing of Council District lines. Id. The Commission is required to present a non-binding proposal for redistricting to the Council in March of redistricting years. Charter § 204(c). The City Council must adopt a redistricting ordinance by July 1 of redistricting years. Id.

Following the 2010 census, the second Los Angeles Redistricting Commission was appointed (the first was appointed after the 2000 census). The mayor appointed three members, the City Controller and the City Attorney each appointed one member, the City Council President appointed three members, and each City Councilperson appointed a member to the Redistricting Commission (the “Commission”).

1. The Redistricting Commission

The Commission first met in September 2011 and began reviewing copies of the existing 2002 Council District map (the “Benchmark Map”). Due to growth and shifts in the City's population, the CDs in the Benchmark Map had developed a population deviation of over 19%, indicating that changes were necessary to comply with the electoral principle of equal legislative representation.¹ Also, several Neighborhood Councils were certified after 2002, and the 2012 Commission considered the boundaries of ninety-five Neighborhood Councils.² (See Defense RJN, Ex. A at 30–31.) The Benchmark Map divided fifty-three of these ninety-five Neighborhood Councils across more than one council district, and divided thirteen Neighborhood Councils (including the Wilshire–Center Koreatown Neighborhood Counsel or “WCKNC”) among three CDs. (See Defense RJN, Ex. A at 30–31, 36–37.) The Benchmark Map also split several communities defined by the City's official community renaming policy process, including Koreatown.³ (See id. at 36.)

The Commission adopted a “Summary of Legal Criteria that Governs the Redistricting Process” and this document was posted and available at Commission meetings and provided an outline of the legal criteria the Commission was responsible for complying with. (See Defense RJN, Ex. K (Docket No. 102).) This Summary of Legal Criteria was often referred to by Commission members and staff, and provided guidance applicable to complying with the equal protection clause and the City Charter. (Decl. of Andrew J. Westall in Supp. of Def. City of Los Angeles' Mot. for Summ. J. (“Westall Decl.”) ¶ 18.)

a. Public Input and Fact Gathering Hearings

From December 5, 2011 through January 10, 2012, the Commission held a series of public hearings throughout Los Angeles, with at least one hearing held in each of the fifteen City Council districts. (Decl. of Bobbi Jean Anderson in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Anderson Decl.”) ¶ 7 (Docket No. 132–17); Decl. of Helen Kim in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Helen Kim Decl.”) ¶ 9 (Docket No. 136).) The Commission created a website and posted public notices about how to get involved with the redistricting process and information about the ongoing process. These notices were posted in several languages throughout the city. The Commission's website made meeting agendas, podcasts of all public hearings, and maps proposed by the public and interest groups publicly available. At each of the public hearings, the public was provided an opportunity to comment and express their concerns and desires for Los Angeles redistricting. In addition, the City broadcasted Commission meetings live on local television, streamed them online, and later posted the recorded video of meetings on the Commission's website. More than 1,800 individuals attended the public hearings and the Commission received more than 500 public or written comments. (Westall Decl. ¶ 24.)

b. Drafting the Initial Redistricting Map

On January 11, 2012, the Commission began drafting an initial district map. As was done in the 2002 round of redistricting, the Commission divided into three “ad hoc” groups for the initial line-drawing process. The ad hoc groups were responsible for drawing the boundary lines for: (1) the San Fernando Valley (Council Districts 2, 3, 6, 7, and 12); (2) the West and Southwest (“West Group”) (Council Districts 4, 5, 8, 10, and 11) and (3) the South and East (“East Group”) (Council Districts 1, 9, 13, 14, and 15). Each ad hoc group consisted of seven Commissioners. The Technical Director (the individual in charge of using the line-drawing software) was the only non-Commission member present in the ad hoc group meetings. To comply with the California Brown Act, the Commissioners were instructed not to discuss ad hoc group discussions with Commissioners in other ad hoc groups.⁴

Prior to the ad hoc groups meeting on their own, on January 18, 2012, the full Commission convened in its regular session and considered twenty-one proposed Map Presentations by individuals and groups. (Westall Decl. ¶¶ 26–27; Defense RJN, Ex. A at 37–44.) Maps proposed by the Korean American Coalition, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the Historic South Central NAACP, and other groups and individuals were all considered by the Commission. (See Westall Decl. ¶ 26, Defense RJN, Ex. A at 37; Defense RJN Ex. H at 1055.) These plans were posted on the Commission's website and kept in the Commission's office in City Hall. (Id. )

The West Group (the ad hoc group that was responsible for providing the initial proposal for the districts challenged in this lawsuit) held its first line-drawing meeting on January 19, 2012. (Helen Kim Decl. ¶ 30.) Members of the West group included Christopher Ellison, Helen Kim, Bobbie Jean Anderson, Julie Downey, Rob Kadota, Grover McKean, and David Roberti.⁵ The West/South Ad Hoc Committee was responsible for drawing the boundary lines of five City Council districts: CDs 4, 5, 8, 10, and 11.

The West Group was tasked with incorporating additional population into CD 10, because it had become underpopulated (the district was about 4.9% below the ideal district population size). (Expert Report of Kareem U. Crayton (“Crayton Rept.”) at 6 (Docket No. 132–6).) In this initial West Group meeting, Commissioner Ellison, who was appointed by the Councilmember for CD 10 (Council President Wesson), suggested changing the Benchmark Map by incorporating Leimert Park and the “Dons” portion of Baldwin Hills into CD 10. (Helen Kim Decl. ¶ 39.) Commissioner...