Stay lifted on Los Angeles homelessness case proceeding

A federal judge lifted his stay of a Los Angeles homelessness case after residents and business owners filed a preliminary injunction motion demanding the city and county clear out skid row encampments, offer shelter elsewhere and enforce the vagrancy and anti-camping laws.

Plaintiff LA Alliance for Human Rights, which includes residents, property owners and business operators who live, work or own property in skid row, sued the city and county of Los Angeles in March 2020.

Their motion for preliminary injunction, filed Monday, argued the government worsened the homelessness crisis over the years by failing to enforce anti-vagrancy laws and kept individuals in what they call a physical "containment area" in downtown Los Angeles.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of California issued a stay of the proceedings on March 19, 2020 to give all parties a chance to reach a settlement.

On Tuesday he lifted the stay in light of the alliance's injunction motion and the county's motion last month to be dismissed from the case. LA Alliance for Human Rights v. City of Los Angeles et al., 2:20-CV-2991 (C.D. Cal., filed March 10, 2020).

The alliance's motion asks Carter to order the government to clear out the homeless encampments, offer alternative shelter for those in skid row and fulfill other demands, such as waiving permits and fees for building housing. The alliance also asks for 50% of the housing to be offered outside the skid row parameters.

After the sidewalks and public streets are cleared out, consistent with the holding in Martin v. Boise, 2018 DJDAR 8871 (9th Cir. 2018), the motion also seeks enforcement of the anti-camping law in designated areas.

"City Council member Mike Bonin has stated that [the] city and county need to be compelled by a court to solve the problem because they are incapable of solving it themselves," the alliance's attorney, Matthew D. Umhofer of Spertes, Landes & Umhofer LLP, wrote in the motion. "Plaintiffs agree, but in absence of a consent decree seek immediate action through this motion for preliminary injunction."

Last month, Miller Barondess LLP argued in its motion for the county to be dismissed as a defendant that the county spent significant money and resources to help mitigate the crisis, and complex policy questions in addressing homelessness must be resolved by elected officials rather than a federal judge.