Amador v. Baca, No. 10-1649 SVW (RC) (C.D. Calif) pending class action for group strip searches of women arrestees without probable cause or individualized suspicion; estimated number of class members is 80,000- 100,000; 23 b)(2) class certified; renewed 23(b)(3) class certification motion pending.
McKibben v. McMahon (2018) – lawsuit challenging the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department’s systemic discrimination of gay, bisexual and transgender jail detainees. Class members were assigned to segregated housing and permitted significantly less time out of their cells and fewer work opportunities, educational courses, and rehabilitation programs than general population inmates. The settlement provided for extensive policy reforms including a broader range of housing options; increased time out of cell; equalized access to rehabilitation programs, drug treatment classes, and work opportunities; a committee to assess and monitor housing needs, access to programming, work opportunities; a commitment to eliminate discrimination; sexual harassment training for deputies; and, $2,050,000 in damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.
Nozzi v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, CV 07-00380 GW (C.D. Calif.) class action against the Housing Authority for violations of 6 due process and federal regulations by failing to provide proper notice of Section 8 rent increase affecting approximately 22,000 tenants; case dismissed on sj for defendants; reversed by Ninth Circuit; dismissed again; second appeal pending.
Miranda v. Bonner, No. CV 08-03178 SJO (PJWx) (C.D. Calif.) and related cases (pending class actions to certify statewide plaintiffs’ and defendants’ classes to enjoin, and provide restitution or damages for, seizing and impounding vehicles pursuant to California Vehicle Code §14602.6 without meeting Fourth Amendment or due process standards; there are various actions against different government entities; the number of potential class members unknown);
Roy v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Case No. CV 12-9012 RGK (FFMx) recently filed class action for injunctive relief and damages; class size unknown, but is estimated at potentially 40,000; discussions under way regarding possibility of pre-litigation settlement.
Chua et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. Case No.: CV-00237-JAK-GJS(x) (C.D. Calif.) (pending class action for injunctive relief and damages for arrests and related actions regarding Ferguson related protests at 6th & Hope and Beverly & Alvarado; estimated class size is 170; class certification granted; settlement discussions pending).
Williams v. Block, Case No.: CV-97-03826-CW (Central District of California) and related cases (a series of county jail over detention and strip search cases, settled for $27 Million and a complete revamp of jail procedures.
Bynum v. District of Columbia, Case No.: 02-956 (RCL) (D.D.C.) class action against the District of Columbia for overdetentions and blanket strip searches of persons ordered released from custody; final approval of $12,000,000 settlement occurred January 2006; estimated number of overdetention class members is 6000-7000.
Craft v. County of San Bernardino, 468 F.Supp.2d 1172 (C.D.Cal. 2006) certified class action against the Sheriff of San Bernardino County for blanket strip searches of detainees, arrestees, and persons ordered released from custody; partial summary judgment decided for plaintiffs; $25.5 Million settlement approved April 1, 2008.
MIWON v. City of Los Angeles, Case No.: CV 07-3072 AHM (C.D. Calif.) class action against City of Los Angeles and others for use of police force and related conduct at MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007; final approval of class settlement for $12,800,000 settlement granted June 24, 2009, the largest class action protest settlement in the Nation.
Barnes v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No: 06-315 (RCL) (D.D.C.) class action against District of Columbia for continuing to both over-detain and strip search post-release inmates despite settlement in Bynum, supra; class certification granted; summary judgment granted Plaintiffs on most claims, but existence of policy and custom of over-detaining inmates during a discrete part of the class period set for trial on 3/1/13; estimated number of overdetention class members in the 4000-6000 range depending on result of upcoming trial; estimated number of strip search class members is 3500- 4500.
Lopez v. Youngblood, No. CV07-00474 LJO (DLBx) (E.D. Calif.) class action against Kern County, California, for unlawful pre-arraignment and post-release strip searches and strip searches not conducted in private; class certification and summary judgment on liability granted; settlement in principle in October 2010 for putative class fund of approximately $7 Million, subject to preliminary and final court approval
Powell v. Barrett, Civil Case No. 1:04-cv-1100 (N.D. Ga.)(RWS) class action against the Sheriff of Fulton County, Fulton County, and the City of Atlanta, Georgia, for overdetentions and blanket strip searches of arrestees and persons ordered released from custody; qualified immunity denied to Fulton County Sheriff in Powell v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 8/23/07)); rehearing en banc granted and decided, 541 F.3D 1298 (11th Cir. Sep 04, 2008; case was remanded to district court for further proceedings on overdetention and post-release strip search issues, resulting in summary judgment to defendants; affirmed by 11th Circuit; petition for certiorari denied
Francis, et al. v. California Department of Corrections, et al., Case No: BC302856 class action against the CDC(R) for the failure to reimburse inmates assigned to the restitution centers in Los Angeles for their obligations as ordered by the court. Case was successful in bringing about the restructuring of the CDCR’s inmate accounting systems, and in the payment of restitution settlement in the amount of $325,000.
Jones v. Murphy, Case No. CCB 05 CV 1287 (D. Maryland) class action challenging overdetentions and illegal strip searches in Central Booking in Baltimore, MD; class certification granted in part and denied in part; postFlorence summary judgment for defendants largely granted; appeal pending.
Johnson v. District of Columbia, Case No. 02-2364 (RMC) (D.D.C.) class action against the District of Columbia and United States Marshals for blanket strip searches of arrestees without reasonable suspicion and not involved in drug or violent activity; summary judgment granted defendants; order upheld on appeal and now pending petition for rehearing en banc.
Gail Marie Harrington-Wisely, et al. v. State of California, et al., Superior Court Case No.: BC 227373 a case involving searches of visitors to California prisons utilizing backscatter x-ray methods without reasonable suspicion; stipulated injunction entered; appeal on damages and attorneys’ fees pending.
Ofoma v. Biggers, Case No.: 715400 (Complex Litigation Panel) (Orange County Superior Court)(family discrimination class action settled in 1996 5 for damages for the individual plaintiffs and the class of residents, a consent decree and an award of attorney’s fees).
People of the State of California v. Highland Federal Savings and Loan, Case No. CA 718 828 (Los Angeles Superior Court) class action filed on behalf of the People of the State of California and a class of tenants residing in several slum buildings located in Los Angeles for financing practices encouraging and perpetuating slum conditions, settled for $3.165 million after decision in People v. Highland, 14 Cal.App.4th 1692, 19 Cal. Rptr. 555 (1993) established potential liability for lenders)
Hernandez v. Lee, No. BC 084 011 (Los Angeles Superior Court)(a class action on behalf of tenants of numerous buildings for slum conditions settled in 1998 for $1,090,000)
Mould v. Investments Concept, Inc., Case No.: CA 001 201 (Los Angeles Superior Court)(race discrimination class action on behalf of a class of applicants and potential housing applicants, settled in 1992 for a total of $850,000 for the class and a comprehensive consent decree regarding the defendants’ discriminatory policies and practices)
California Federation of Daycare Association v. Mission Insurance Co., Case No.: CA 000 945 (Los Angeles Superior Court)(class action on behalf of several thousand family daycare providers whose daycare insurance policies were canceled mid-term or were not renewed by Mission Insurance Company, settled in 1980’s for reinstatement of policies and attorney’s fees; brought at request of Public Counsel)
“These cases do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.”
[The client portrayed is an actor and this is a dramatization]