Home page
What does the lawsuit say, specifically?

The complaint in this case has claims that the 26 gang injunctions referenced above contain unconstitutional curfew provisions. Plaintiffs have stated claims under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; Article 1, 1, 2, 7, and 13 of the California Constitution; Cal. Civil Code 52.1, Penal Code 236, and a Violation of Mandatory Duties. [ see the complaint (lawsuit) ].

The City says that it did not violate anyone s rights by serving him or her with one of the 26 injunctions and that it no longer enforces the curfew provisions in these 26 injunctions.

The Court has granted a preliminary injunction requiring the City of Los Angeles to notify people served with one or more of the above injunctions that the curfews will no longer be enforced. [ see the Preliminary Injunction Order ]. Judge Gee also decided that the City violated the constitutional rights of class members when it enforced the injunctions with the unconstitutional curfew provisions. She also decided that class members are not entitled to receive an automatic award of $4,000 each for a violation of California law. [ see the MSJ Order ].

The case was set to go to trial. At trial, the class members were going to have to prove that they were harmed by the City s enforcement of the unconstitutional curfew provision specifically, and not by the other provisions of the gang injunctions (such as the do not associate provision). A jury would have had to put a dollar figure on the amount of harm caused by the unconstitutional curfew provision. The lawyers for the plaintiffs determined that there was a big risk in going to trial: a jury could have decided that the injuries to the class members from the curfew provision were worth any amount of money a few hundred dollars or thousands of dollars, for instance, or as little as one dollar. It is hard to quantify that injury in terms of money, so going to trial was a risk.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs determined that the up-to-$30 million offer was a good deal for the class. They did not think it was likely that class members would receive that much money in damages from a jury. The Court has not yet approved the settlement. ..........[see the proposed settlement] .....[see the press release]

As a class member, you will have the right to object to the settlement if you do not think it is a good deal. If the Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement, you will receive a packet of information by mail. You can also check back at this website starting on July 29, 2016, to find out the status of the case. [ see the complaint (lawsuit) ].

Who are the lawyers on the case?

The Court has decided that the law firms of Hadsell Stormer Richardson & Renick, LLP and Orange Law Offices are qualified to represent you and all Class Members in this case. These lawyers are called Class Counsel. They are experienced in handling similar cases. If you have questions about this case, you may call (310) 997-0380 to speak with one of the lawyers handling the case. More information about Class Counsel, their practice, and their lawyers experience is available at:

3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
Los Angeles, CA 90010
TEL: (213) 736-9900
WEB: www.orangelawoffices.com
Hadsell Stormer Richardson & Renick, LLP
128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
Pasadena, CA 91103
TEL: (626) 585-9600
WEB: www.hadsellstormer.com
610 S. Ardmore Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90005
TEL: (213) 385-2977
WEB: www.publiccounsel.org

You do not need to hire your own lawyer because Class Counsel is working on your behalf. But if you want your own lawyer, you will have to pay that lawyer. You will not have to pay any fees or expenses to Class Counsel. If Class Counsel obtain money or benefits for the Class, they will ask the Court for fees and expenses. If the Court grants Class Counsel s request, or if the matter is settled, the fees and expenses will be paid by the City of Los Angeles.

Click to sign up now.

Copyright Notice: © Orange Law Offices.