Facts

Phillip and Chie Lunn live in Los Angeles, across the street from the south side of Penmar Golf Course (Rose-Penmar Walkway). The Lunns, along with Davin Green, filed suit against the City of Los Angeles in regards to the homeless tents and recreational vehicles that stayed in the area by Rose-Penmar Walkway.

PLAINTIFFS’ CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs, Phillip and Chie Lunn, contended that when they first purchased the property in 2009, there were no obstructions to their view of the golf course which they alleged they paid a premium value for. Plaintiffs averred however, that since 2019, the Rose-Penmar Walkway has become a homeless camp ignored by the City. Thereafter, from November 2020, at least 20 recreational vehicles (RVs) have been parked about 240 yards from the Lunns’ property. A minimum of three dangerous fires have been caused by the RVs and the City failed to act. Plaintiff Davin Green, noted that she placed a note on a large cargo container, protesting the City’s selective enforcement regarding storage of personal property in public spaces. She argued that though the City removed her container, the homeless tents were left intact. The Lunns asserted claims for negligence, private and public nuisance, inverse condemnation, violations of due process and equal protection, and uncompensated taking. Green asserted claims for violations of due process and equal protection and, violation of the First Amendment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions. First, it argued that the injuries the Lunns claimed resulted from their voluntary and independent actions which cannot be used to establish standing. The City asserted it did not direct or control the homeless to park their RVs or set up tents in that area. As to Green's arguments, defendant maintained that she did not sufficiently allege a City policy, practice, or custom to assert a First Amendment violation because a single incident of unconstitutional activity does not sufficiently impose Monell liability. As to Green's other claims, she failed to directly address the adequacy of the City's reasons for removing the container, failing to allege specific facts to support an inference that the City's removal of the container was inconsistent with its municipal duties.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss without leave to amend.