HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - CS-1City Council Meeting Correspondence
5/21/2019
ORANGE COUNTY CATHOLIC WORKER, ET AL. V. ORANGE COUNTY, ET AL.., U.S. DISTRICT
COURT (CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA), CASE NO. SA CV 18-0155-DOC (KESX) AND CROSS
CS-1 COMPLAINT
*RA - Recommended Action
Tuesday, May 21, 2019 Page 1 of 1
Orozco, Norma
From: Tim Johnson <
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 12:47 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel; Iglesias, Cecilia; Villegas, Juan; Solorio, Jose; Sarmiento, Vicente;
Penaloza, David; Ridge, Kristine; eComment; Funk, John
Subject: CC Mtg- Closed Session Item #1
Attachments: SA City Council Close Session Minutes initiating cross complaint April 2018.pdf; 158-
Santa Ana Cross Complaint suing other OC Cities dtd 4.26.18.pdf; 232- SA ANA Orange
Tustin Stip to extend response date to SA Suit dtd 5.17.18.pdf
This correspondence is with regards to closed session item #1 on tonight's city council meeting as it relates to
the lawsuit(s) before Judge Carter's court (case 8:18-cv-00155 in the Central District of the US District Court).
As a reminder, the Santa Ana City Council on April 25, 2018 during Closed Session voted unanimously (6-0, 1
absent) to file a cross complaint against all cities in Orange County and the County of Orange over the impact
of homelessness in our city of Santa Ana. This filing of this document happened with the court on April 26,
2018 and is document #158 in the above referenced case. It appears that summons were prepared although I am
uncertain as to exactly which cities were served. However, I can determine that the County of Orange, City of
Anaheim, City of Orange, City of Tustin were served on May 1, 2018 according to document #232 filed with
the court on May 17, 2018 with a stipulation to extend the response date for those defendants. My assumption
is that the other defendants, the remaining cities in Orange County, were never served with the cities suit.
It has been over a year since the City Council approved the filing of a suit against the other cities in the
county. However, those cities that were served have settled before Judge Carter. The majority of the remaining
cities in Orange County, especially south county cities, have not made significant progress in providing
emergency shelter and services to their homeless populations thereby continuing to bring their homeless to our
city of Santa Ana.
Please find attached the minutes from the April 25, 2018 closed session meeting, the filing in court of the initial
cross -complaint against all cities, and the stipulation indicating that service was provided to just a limited
number of plaintiffs. If I am missing something as it relates to these cases, please educate me ... obviously, our
own city attorney and assistant city attorney will much more well versed on the filings than I am.
I have a specific experience as it relates to a homeless individual in Irvine. I met a homeless Irvine resident one
Sunday at Church. He wanted help going to a shelter but preferred to stay in Irvine. Having a little experience
in this area, i knew to call the county's 211 hotline. They wanted him to go to Santa Ana to receive shelter at
the Armory or try The Courtyard. I received the same experience when i spoke to Irvine PD and the OC
Healthcare. The county and the city of Irvine is still referring their homeless folks to our city for services and
housing. This is not acceptable in my opinion and assume you would agree. Those who are experiencing
homelessness should be able to find services in their own local community and the City of Santa Ana should not
be expected to carry the burden for other communities' lack of action in this area. The County should especially
not be facilitating this either.
I implore you to follow through with the April 25, 2018 closed session vote to expand the Catholic Worker
lawsuit to the voted upon defendants... the other cities of Orange County. If it is not appropriate to do so, then a
report should be made to inform the public of an alternative direction. However, without such new direction
from Council, it appears that the case should be served upon the remaining defendants. It is very possible that
there is a well intentioned and thought out strategic reason for not serving the other defendant cities... possibly
allowing them a year to get their act together. However, progress by south county cities appears to not be
moving and it is impacting our city. Now is the time to put additional pressure on them. I also understand that
the second case may be served upon certain other cities this week, but that should not preclude Santa Ana from
going through with our previously voted and approved upon course of action.
Now, absolutely none of this should preclude Santa Ana from providing for its homeless... and maybe even
some of those from surrounding Central SPA cities as long as we are working together towards a greater
good. We should be taking care of our homeless and providing services to help them get back on their
feet. What we are doing now is not working. We need to provide for them in a very strategic manner... and do it
quickly.
We currently are working with the courts on this case. I have attended virtually all of the public Judge Carter
hearings. In my opinion, Judge Carter has been very sympathetic to Santa Ana. I feel he understands our
struggles and feel that he thinks other cities need to provide homeless services in their own cities or areas. We
previously had agreed to not only open The Link but also close The Courtyard and open a new facility with the
County (Yale). The Link was intended to be temporary.
The County currently has indicated that they are slowing down (stopping) on Yale based upon some rumblings
of our current council. I feel that if Yale, or a similar number of beds of 600, is not in progress that it may put
our settlement before Judge Carter's court in jeopardy. 1 do not know that there is a finalized settlement as i
cannot find it on PACER but the language certainly seemed to go in that direction.
IMO, there is not much worse than having a judge who previously was sympathetic to our situation and
approving of a settlement and then us going back on an agreement to where the judge feels that he was
"played". He will likely no longer be very friendly to us and likely will require more beds than originally
planned- in fact, he indicated in court that if the current cities did not settle, then the number of beds required
would go up. The proposed Yale facility will provide 125 beds solely for Santa Ana and then remainder for
those in the Central SPA. This is compared to the county having complete control of the Courtyard. Again, I
would caution us from taking action that would jeopardize our standing before Judge Carter right now without a
greater end game in mind.
Additionally, I have been told by Supervisor Do's office that the Yale facility will not be a walk in/out facility
like The Courtyard but will be a referral only facility similar to The Link or Bridges at Kraemer. They have
indicated this in public also and i am sure they would reiterate it to you too. This is a huge improvement for
Santa Ana. I am sure that each of you have been to The Link. I think you would agree that there are no
homeless on the streets outside of the facility. The same can be said of Bridges in Anaheim. You generally
would not even know that there was a homeless shelter there. This type of facility is a drastic improvement as
compared to The Courtyard both for the residents and for the neighbors/city. It is important for the public (and
you) to know that The Courtyard is not moving but instead it is closing and being replaced by something that
will have less impact on our city AND will allow us to abide by proposed settlement in the courts which will
allow our police department to enforce our laws, hopefully with compassion and an goal for improving their
situation. Most importantly, Yale will also provide better services to its residents and hopefully be more
successful at transitioning them out of the emergency shelter.
I urge you to work with the County to continue with expanding our city's emergency housing stock (i.e.
Yale). We have so many folks living on the streets, railroads, creeks, and parking lots- they would be better
served in a facility meant for them to receive respite. Obviously, also encourage them to work on opening
county facilities in other cities outside of Santa Ana (maybe serving the lawsuit will help). Even if other cities
are not stepping up, we need to take care of our homeless. Before the courts, we are actually getting "credit" for
these beds btw which is important to understand. I also urge you to continue to expand, and do it rapidly and
strategically, the number of permanent supportive housing units available so that we are not using emergency
shelter as a long term solution but instead using it as truly emergency shelter- where we triage, diagnose, and
move them to more appropriate accommodations. Emergency shelter should be the ER of shelters not a long
term place for those experiencing homelessness to live.
I also urge you to work with the County and our own city staff in educating the residents what the Yale facility
will be like- similar to The Link and not like The Courtyard. Also continue to point out to the County that their
own resources (21 VOC Healthcare) are right now moving folks with housing needs to Santa Ana which is not
right for Santa Ana, our residents, the homeless individual, or the courts.
Please lead on this matter. The quality of life of our residents, all of our residents including those experiencing
homelessness, is at stake.
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 25, 2018
CLOSED SESSION MEETING
CALLED TO ORDER COUNCIL CHAMBER
22 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA
4:25 P.M.
ATTENDANCE COUNCILMEMBERS Present:
MIGUEL A. PULIDO, Mayor
MICHELE MARTINEZ, Mayor Pro Tem (6:03 P.M.)*
P. DAVID BENAVIDES
VICENTE SARMIENTO (5:55 P.M.)
JOSE SOLORIO
JUAN VILLEGAS
COUNCILMEMBERS Absent:
SAL TINAJERO
STAFF Present:
RAUL GODINEZ, 11, City Manager
SONIA R. CARVALHO, City Attorney
MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council
Quorum was established thru presence of Mayor Pulido, Councilmembers Benavides, Solorio
and Villegas.
*TELECONFERENCE: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(b), Mayor Pro Tem
Martinez participated In a portion of the meeting via teleconference from Andaz Watt Street
Hotel, 75 Wall St., New York, NY 10005. The Agenda for said meeting was posted at said
location as required by the Brown Act.
PUBLIC COMMENTS -
• Peter A. Katz, encouraged City Council to pursue lawsuit to allow Judge Carter to expand
jurisdiction over all 34 cities; expressed the importance of all cities finding space in their
respective cities and provide full Wraparound services.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1 APRIL 25, 2018
Abigail Aleman, cited article from the O. C. Register, regarding homeless services and the
Sober Living homes that are operating illegally.
Tim Johnson, thanked City Council for vote at last month's meeting, implored Council to
expand lawsuit to include all cities; and requested that Council define proportionality as
expressed by Judge Carter.
• Vincent Pham, attended meeting with son and encouraged council to unite all cities and
fine a resolution to the homeless Issue. Expressed that the City is in a state of crisis and
an opportunity to make a change exists.
RECESSED AT 6:01 P.M. TO ROOM 147,
CLOSED SESSION ITEMS - The Brown Act permits legislative bodies to discuss certain
matters without members of the public present. The City Council finds, based on advice from
the City Attorney, that discussion in open session of the following matters will prejudice the
position of the City in existing and anticipated litigation:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL --EXISTING LITIGATION pursuant to
paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code:
a. The Orange County Catholic Worker, at al. v City of Santa Ana, United
States District Court for the Central District of CA (S.D.), Case No.: 8:17 —
cv-01340
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — INITIATION OF LITIGATION
pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 of the
Government Code: One Case — Potential Action Against Multiple parties.
City Council authorized staff to file a cross complaint against all cities in Orange
County and the County of Orange over the impact of homelessness in the City
of Santa Ana, by a 6-0 vote (Tinajero absent).
CLOSED SESSION REPORT - The City Attorney reported out on Item 2 of said Closed
Session Meeting.
ADJOURNED - 6:33 P.M.
Maria D. Huizar,
Clerk of the Council
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2 APRIL 25, 2018
Case 8:
DE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 1 of 27 Page ID #:2479
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
t1
t2
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
793)
Attorneys
ITY OF SANTA rANA and Cross Claimant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI.A
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ORANGE COUNTY CATHOLIC"
WORKER, an unincorporated
association; Lisa Bell, Shawn Carroll,
Melissa Fields, Larry Ford, Cameron
Ralston, Kathy Schuler, Gloria
Shoemake, as individuals;
Plaintiffs,
V.
ORANGE COUNTY, the City of
Anaheim, the City of Costa Mesa, the
City of Grange, and the City of Santa
Ana,
Defendants.
Case No.: SA CV 18-0155-DOC
(JDE)
1. Eighth Amendment (Cruel &
Unusual Punishment)
2. Fourteenth Amendment (Equal
Protection)
3. Fourteenth Amendment (Due
Process)
Case
Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 2 of 27 Page ID #:2480
i City of Santa Ana,
2
Cross -Claimant,
3
V.
4
S
County of Orange, City of Aliso Viejo,
6 City of Anaheim, City of Brea, City of
7 Buena Park, City of Costa Mesa, City of
Cypress, City of Dana Point, City of
8
Fountain Valley, City of Fullerton, City of
9 Garden Grove, City of Huntington Beach,
10 City of Irvine, City of La Habra, City of
La Palma, City of Laguna Beach, City of
I t Laguna Hills, City of Laguna Niguel, City
12 of Laguna Woods, City of Lake Forest,
City of Los Alamitos, City of Mission
13 Viejo, City of Newport Beach, City of
14 Orange, City of Placentia, City of Rancho
15 Santa Margarita, City of San Clemente,
City of San Juan Capistrano, City of Seal
16 Beach, City of Stanton, City of Tustin,
17 City of Villa Park, City of Westminster
is and City of Yorba Linda,
19 Cross -Defendants.
20
21
22 For itself, and on behalf of its residents, Defendant and Cross -Claimant, City
23 of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under
24 the Constitution and laws of the State of California, alleges the following:
25
26 INTRODUCTION
27 1. Across Orange County, a social crisis has unfolded whereby the
2$ number of individuals experiencing homelessness has skyrocketed to
unprecedented levels. In January 2017, the Orange County Continuum of Care
Case 8:
155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 3 of 27 Page ID #:2481
1
2''
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1.4
15
16
17
1.8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Point -in -Time Count and Survey found there were 4,792 homeless individuals in
Orange County, more than half of whom were unsheltered.
2. Many of these individuals struggle to meet the basic necessities of
life, including food, shelter, and health care, They often combat mental illness,
substance abuse issues, physical disabilities, or any combination of these
afflictions, A significant number are single women and veterans.
3. Social, mental health, and other services provided to homeless
individuals by the County of Orange and entities contracting with the County,
along with their finding levels, are woefully inadequate to address the instant and
ongoing crisis of homelessness.
4. The Orange County Board of Supervisors has publicly admitted that it
has failed to spend tens of millions of dollars available for homeless housing and
services for the homeless population in the County.
5. The number of homeless individuals living in Orange County rose
almost 8% from 2013 to 2017. (See, Exhibit "A".) Nowhere in the County was
there and is there, a greater concentration of homeless individuals than in the City
of Santa Ana.
6, Ultimately, Santa Ana seeks by this Cross -complaint, a fair and
equitable distribution of responsibilities for homeless services among the County
and all Orange County cities, as well as reimbursement and sustained funding by
the County for Santa Ana's decades long efforts to relieve homelessness in Orange
County. The recent actions of the County and Cross -Defendant cities show that
such a result is not likely to be voluntarily achieved.
THE PARTIES
7. Defendant and Cross -Claimant City of Santa Ana is and at all relevant
times has been a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing
under the Constitution and laws of the State of California.
Case 48-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 4 of 27 Page ID #:2482
1 8. Cross -Defendant County of Orange is and at all relevant times has
2 been a political and geographical subdivision of the State of California having its
3 principal offices in the City of Santa Ana.
4 9. Cross -Defendant City of Aliso Viejo is and at all relevant times has
5 been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
6 10. Cross -Defendant City of Anaheim is and at all relevant times has been
7 a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the
8 Constitution and laws of the State of California.
9 11. Cross -Defendant City of Brea is and at all relevant times has been a
10 general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
11 12. Cross -Defendant City of Buena Park is and at all relevant times has
12 been a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the
13 Constitution and laws of the State of California.
1.4 13, Cross -Defendant City of Costa Mesa is and at all relevant times has
15 been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
16 14. Cross -Defendant City of Cypress is and at all relevant times has been a.
17 charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution
18 and laws of the State of California.
19 15. Cross -Defendant City of Dana Point is and at all relevant times has
20 been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
21 16. Cross -Defendant City of Fountain Valley is and at all relevant times
22 has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of
23 California.
24 17, Cross -Defendant City of Fullerton is and at all relevant times has been
25 a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
26 18. Cross -Defendant City of Garden Grove is and at all relevant times has
27 been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
28
Case 8:M-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 5 of 27 Page ID #:2483
t 19. Cross -Defendant City of Huntington Beach is and at all relevant times
2 has been a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the
3 Constitution and laws of the State of California.
4 20. Cross -Defendant City of Irvine is and at all relevant times has been a
5 charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution
6 and laws of the State of California.
7 21, Cross -Defendant City of La Habra is and at all relevant times has been
8 a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
9 22, Cross -Defendant City of La Palma is and at all relevant times has been
10 a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
11 23. Cross -Defendant City of Laguna Beach is and at all relevant times has
12 been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
13 24, Cross -Defendant City of Laguna Hills is and at all relevant times has
14 been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
15 25. Cross -Defendant City of Laguna Niguel is and at all relevant times has
16 been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
17 26. Cross -Defendant City of Laguna Woods is and at all relevant times has
18 been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
19 27. Cross -Defendant City of Lake Forest is and at all relevant times has
20 been a general law city operating under the general laws orthe State of California.
21 28. Cross -Defendant City of Los Alamitos is and at all relevant times has
22 been a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the
23 Constitution and laws of the State of California.
24 29, Cross -Defendant City of Mission Viejo is and at all relevant times has
25 been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
26 30. Cross -Defendant City of Newport Beach is and at all relevant times has
27 been a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the
28 Constitution and laws of the State of California.
Case 8:10-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 6 of 27 Page ID #:2484
1 31. Gross -Defendant City of Orange is and at all relevant times has been a
2 general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
3 32. Cross -Defendant City of Placentia is and at all relevant times has been
4 a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the
5 Constitution and laws of the State of California.
6 33. Cross -Defendant City of Rancho Santa Margarita is and at all relevant
7 times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of
8 California.
9 34. Cross -Defendant City of San Clemente is and at all relevant times has
10 been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
11 35. Cross -Defendant City of San Juan Capistrano is and at all relevant
12 times has been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of
13 California.
14 36, Cross -Defendant City of Seal Beach is and at all relevant times has
15 been a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the
16 Constitution and laws of the State of California.
17 37. Cross -Defendant City of Stanton is and at all relevant times has been a
18 charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution
19 and laws of the State of California.
20 38. Cross -Defendant City of Tustin is and at all relevant times has been a
21 general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
22 39. Cross -Defendant City of Villa Park is and at all relevant times has
23 been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
24 40, Cross -Defendant City of Westminster is and at all relevant times has
25 been a general law city operating tinder the general laws of the State of California,
26 4 L Cross -Defendant City of Yorba Linda is and at all relevant times has
27 been a general law city operating under the general laws of the State of California.
28
0
Case
Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 7 of 27 Page ID #:2485
i JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2 42. The Court has jurisdiction over this action because the claims alleged
3 herein arise out of the transactions and occurrences that are the subject matter of the
4 original action.
5 1 43. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S,C, section 1391(b) because
6 a substantial pail of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in
7 II this district.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
BACKGROUND
44. The City of Santa Ana has a population of approximately 341,000 and
covers 27 square miles. It is ethnically diverse and boasts an ethnic make-up as
follows: 78% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 9% White, and other ethnicities in smaller
percentages. The average median income in Santa Ana is approximately $54,500,
as compared to the median income in Orange County of $75,400, Santa Ana has
the highest Hispanic population in the County and is one of the lowest income
cities in the County. (See, Exhibit "B" & "C".)
45, For decades, Santa Ana has borne the largest and most inequitable
burden of addressing and relieving homelessness in Orange County, whether by
providing necessary, related services on its own or by hosting the provision of such
services by the County and third parties within its borders.
HOMELESS STATISTICS
46. In 2017, there were a total of 2,584 unsheltered homeless individuals
and an additional 2,208 sheltered individuals, for a total 4,792 homeless individuals
in Orange County. (See, Exhibit "A".) On March 30, 2018, Andrew Do, the
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, reported at a Special Meeting of the City
Council of the City of Santa Ana that in 2017, Santa Ana alone had 466 unsheltered
homeless individuals, which was the highest number in the County. In comparison,
Santa Ana had 100 more such individuals than Anaheim. Of the cities identified by
Case 818-cv-00155-DOC-ME Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 8 of 27 Page ID #:2486
I Supervisor Do, Buena Park had the tenth highest number of unsheltered homeless
2 individuals in the County with a reported count of 70, or 15'yo of Santa. Ana's total.
3 47. On March 31, 2018, a point -in -time count in Santa Ana revealed there
4 is at least 1,030 unsheltered individuals within city borders, 81% of whom are
5 chronically homeless (for one year or more). Combined with sheltered homeless,
6 the number of homeless individuals in Santa Ana rises to 1,617. Santa Ana's 2018
7 count total is more than double the 2017 Count as reported by Supervisor Do.
8 Santa Ana's Count established that 52% of the individuals counted came from
9 outside Santa Ana and identified 32 Santa Ana public schools located within 1,000
10 feet of a homeless encampment.
11 48. Santa Ana is home to a low -barrier emergency shelter, a winter shelter,
12 a home for homeless women and children, and a women's shelter. In total, Santa
13 Ana has over 700 shelter beds or approximately 70% of the shelter beds across
14 Orange County.
15 IMPACTS ON SANTA ANA
t6 49. The impact of homeless related issues on Santa Ana has been
17 staggering. In 2017, Santa Ana estimates it spent approximately $15 million
18 providing fire and police, security and other necessary services to address homeless
19 related issues in and around the Civic Center and Santa Ana,
20 50. Santa Ana estimates it will be compelled to spend over $'17 million in
21 2018 to address homeless issues at the expense of core services to Santa Ana
22 residents. This figure represents approximately 7% of Santa Ana's general fund
23 that pays for police and fire among other services.
24 51, Santa Ana's physical resources have been overwhelmed. Just until
25
26
27
28
very recently, over 200 homeless individuals lived in the Civic Center in tents and
other makeshift shelters. This encampment necessitated the leasing of temporary
bathroom facilities and created issues regarding the storage of personal property left
unattended in and around the Civic Center. The circumstances gave rise to the
Case 8:
C-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 9 of 27 Page ID #:2487
2
3
4'
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12 1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
near -constant law enforcement presence in the Civic Center. Santa Ana police
provided homeless outreach services and faced quality of life issues, a suicide
attempt, physical assaults, petty crimes, and investigating a homicide, among a
variety of other issues. City personnel also undertook extraordinary health and
safety measures, including the collection of abandoned, used, uncapped
hypodermic needles, disposal of human waste left in public areas, increased
maintenance services to confront excessive trash, and the implementation of weekly',
power washing to minimize Hepatitis A and other health concerns — all at Santa
Ana's expense.
52. Homeless individuals are intentionally or unintentionally abandoned
within Santa Ana by various means. Some are transported for services to Santa
Ana and left without a plan for return transportation to the city of origin. Other
homeless individuals are brought to Santa Ana for shelter and essentially remain in
Santa Ana if that housing solution ends. For others, it is believed they are simply
transported to Santa Ana by neighboring agencies and ultimately abandoned.
Regardless of the intent as to how or why homeless individuals are brought to Santa
Ana, the impact is severe and burdens its residents.
53. Despite the wealth and considerable size of Orange County, the only
low barrier emergency shelter is found in Santa Ana. In fact, the County placed the
sole emergency shelter known as "The Courtyard" in. Santa Ana and within
proximity of sensitive land uses such as nearby residences, several schools, and two
public libraries. The Courtyard provides shelter for upwards of 400 individuals on
a nightly basis irrespective of weather. The dramatic need for shelter is
exemplified by individuals camped on the sidewalk across the street from The
Courtyard when it closes its doors to individuals because of overcrowding. The
living conditions themselves in The Courtyard have come under severe criticism
due to overcrowding, exposure to the elements, and the lack o [privacy for women.
18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 10 of 27 Page ID
#:2488
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
54. Santa Ana has made multiple efforts to engage other Orange County
cities in developing solutions for addressing homelessness, but with little success.
In October 2016, Santa Ana reached out to the County's 33 other cities to hold a
meeting to discuss potential solutions. When the group finally met eight months
later on June 29, 2017, only 12 other Orange County cities sent representatives.
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL LITIGATION
55. On January 29, 2018, Plaintiffs in these proceedings filed the
underlying civil rights action to halt the County's eviction of hundreds of homeless
individuals living in or near the Santa Ana Riverbed.
10 56. On or about February 4, 2018, the Court stayed the County's efforts
11 and later lifted that stay only after requiring the County to provide 30-day motel
12 vouchers for individuals relocated from the Riverbed and concurrent assessments of
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
those individuals to determine fixture shelter options and services.
57, Over 700 persons were relocated from the Riverbed, including single'
women and veterans. Later, approximately 200 individuals from the Santa Ana',
Civic Center were relocated.
58. As the motel stays for individuals were ending, the County faced'
significant challenges in providing adequate services and shelter beds. The Court
has convened numerous hearings to resolve issues raised by Plaintiffs in this
process. However, there are continued and consistent new issues arising with
individuals who were removed from the Riverbed and placed in shelters or services
outside of Santa Ana or in Santa Ana, who are now living on the streets of Santa
FNM
59. The Court has repeatedly implored the County and all Orange County
cities to identify both short- and long-term solutions to the homeless crisis,'.
including at the very least the placement of low -barrier emergency -type shelters.
60. The underlying litigation in these proceedings raised hopes of global
participation by the County and its cities in addressing homelessness, a solution
Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 11 of 27 Page ID
#:2489
2
long sought by Santa Ana. However, those hopes were dealt a fatal blow once the
County, backed away from a plan to establish low barrier homeless shelters in three
3 cities.
4 THE COUNTY'S ABORTED PLAN
5 61. On March 17, 2018, federal district court Judge David O. Carter held a
6 status conference in the Santa Ana City Council Chambers. He invited the mayors
7 and city managers for all 34 cities in Orange County to attend. .fudge Carter
8 specifically stated that homeless issues should be addressed by Orange County, a
9 place that was home to five of the twenty wealthiest cities in the entire nation. He
10 noted that Santa Ana was overburdened compared to other cities in the County with
11 not only the sheer number of homeless individuals, but also with the number of
12 services located in Santa Ana. By the end of the Status Conference, Supervisor Do
13 announced his laudable commitment to addressing homeless issues within the
14 County,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
62. To this end, on March 19, 2018, the Orange County Board of
Supervisors voted to add up to 400 new emergency shelter beds on county -owned
properties in the cities of Irvine, Huntington Beach, and Laguna Niguel, This plan
would have located 200 homeless people in Irvine, then 100 in Huntington Beach
and 100 in Laguna Niguel, if needed. The County also voted to spend about $70.5
million in unspent Mental Health Services Act funds for housing and services for
homeless people with mental illnesses.
63. Within one day of the County's approval, all three cities vigorously
opposed this plan and threatened to sue the County. The huntington Beach and
Laguna Niguel city councils voted to sue the County. Irvine filed a lawsuit on March
26, 2018 against the County. These actions were taken despite the fact that
California law requires each city to zone for homeless shelters.
64. By March 27, 2018, the Board of Supervisors formally rescinded its
approval of the three -shelter plan.
Document 158 Filed 04/26/1.8 Page 12 of 27 Page ID
#:2490
1
2
3
4
5
6
65. On April 19, 2018, the South Orange County Mayors proposed
Silverado Elementary School, a rural county owned property, as a potential site for a
homeless shelter.
66. On April 24, 2018, the Board of Supervisors voted to reject the
Silverado Elementary School site proposal. As of the fling of this Cross -Complaint,
no Orange County city has provided a location for an emergency shelter.
7 A WAY FORWARD
8 67. Santa Ana seeks meaningful progress toward an equitable distribution
9 of homeless services, whether it be through resources or shelter throughout the
10 County, Cross -Defendants must work collaboratively to resolve the current
11 homeless crisis and to avert another. The communal goal must be a sustainable,
12 long-term plan that is both city -specific and regional in nature. There must be a
13 basic willingness to seriously consider, or at least not oppose, the provision of low
14 barrier shelters and permanent supportive housing by Cross -Defendants as well as
15 the provision of social services by city representatives or third parties, all in a
16 dignified and humane manner.
17 FIRST CAUSE. OF ACTION
18 Violation of Eighth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
19 (Against All Cross -Defendants)
20 68. Defendant and Cross -Complainant City of Santa Ana incorporates by
21 reference and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully set forth herein.
22 69. Cross -Defendant cities have either opposed, refused, or rejected the
23 siting of homeless shelters and services in their jurisdictions. Santa Ana has the
24 densest concentration of homeless individuals in the County. Despite state
25 requirements for each city to provide housing for homeless individuals, Cross-
26 Defendant cities have made insubstantial progress or failed to do so entirely.
27
92
Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 13 of 27 Page ID
#:2491
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10'
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
70. Cross -Defendant County has established homeless services almost
exclusively in Santa Ana, thereby further contributing to the dense concentration of
homeless individuals therein.
71. Cross -Defendant County has failed to spend in excess of $200 million
it has available for the provision of services to mitigate homelessness in Orange
County. It has also failed to account for the interest earned on these monies.
72. As a direct and proximate result of Cross -Defendants' acts and
omissions, Santa Ana has been compelled to spend millions of dollars from its
general fund budget to address a myriad of health and safety concerns attributable
to Santa Ana's homeless population, including until just recently the over 200
unsheltered individuals living in the Santa Ana Civic Center. Santa Ana residents
have faced: homeless encampments, the possibility of a Hepatitis A outbreak, the
threat of or actual physical and verbal assault, exposure to public defecation and
public urination, carelessly discarded, uncapped, used hypodermic needles, and
excessive trash in the Civic Center and around Santa Ana.
73. Santa Ana would otherwise have spent these funds on the provision of
core services to its residents but has been forced to divert such funds to provide
homeless -related services, resulting in a deprivation of critical services that could
potentially positively affect the quality of life of its residents.
74. The foregoing acts and omissions of Cross -Defendants have caused
this deprivation of core services and quality of life by necessitating the expenditure
of Santa Ana funds on services related to homelessness. Residents of Santa Ana
are entitled to these services and by this deprivation, they have been subjected to
cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
DE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 14 of 27 Page ID
#:2492
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection (42 U.S.C. §1983)
(Against All Cross -Defendants)
75. Defendant and Cross -Complainant City of Santa Ana incorporates by
reference and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 74 as if fully set forth herein.
76. The population of Santa Ana is approximately 341,000, 78% of which
is Hispanic. No other city in. Orange County has a higher Hispanic population.
77. Santa Ana's median household income is also near the lowest of all
cities in Orange County.
78. These ethnicity and income demographics are well-known to Cross -
I Defendants.
79. On account of these demographics, Cross -Defendants have either
established, encouraged, or been content with the provision of homeless shelters
hand services almost exclusively within the borders of Santa Ana instead of their
own jurisdictions.
80. This practice has continued unabated for years. Santa Ana hosts the
only true low barrier emergency shelter in Orange County and by far the highest
measure of social and other services targeted at homeless individuals.
81. Based on Cross -Defendants' acts and omissions, Santa Ana and its
residents have suffered a denial of the equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Fourteenth Amendment: Due Process (42 U.S.C. §1983)
(Against All Cross -Defendants)
82. Defendant and Cross -Complainant City of Santa Ana incorporates by
reference and realleges Paragraphs l through 81 as if fully set forth herein,
83. Santa Ana has a significant liberty interest in administering an efficient
and effective government for the benefit of its citizens.
18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 15 of 27 Page ID
#:2493
1 84. This interest has been severely compromised by Santa Ana's need to
2 devote substantial monetary and human resources to managing and relieving the
3 acute homelessness crisis within its borders. The diversion of such resources has
4 been to the detriment of Santa Ana residents.
5 85. This crisis has been precipitated and exacerbated by the foregoing
6 actions and omissions of Cross -Defendants, thereby depriving Santa Ana of its
7 liberty interest without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth
8 Amendment of the United States Constitution, and detrimentally affecting its
9 residents.
10 ///
11 ///
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 ///
21
22
23
24
25 ///
26 /U
27
28 ///
Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 16 of 27 Page ID
#:2494
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendant and Cross -Claimant City of Santa Ana prays for
the following:
1. As against Cross -Defendant County, monetary damages according to
proof as reimbursement for the costs spent on homeless resources and necessary
related set -vices;
2. As against Cross -Defendant County, monetary damages according to
proof for funding the continued provision of homeless resources and necessary
related services;
3. As against all Cross -Defendants, declaratory judgment that Cross -
Defendants and each of them have denied Santa Ana's rights under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments as alleged herein;
4. As against all Cross -Defendants, an order requiring Cross -Defendants
and each of them to establish city -specific and regional solutions to homeless issues
or comply with state law as required;
5. As against all Cross -Defendants, reasonable attorney's fees;
6. As against all Cross -Defendants, costs of suit; and
7. Such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: April, 2018 By:
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 17 of 27 Page ID
#:2495
ORA
)AI N7
Orange County's Point in Time (PIT) count occured on January 28th, 2017. The PIT count is a biennial tally of people without a
home on a particular night. We count because we want to understand homelessness in our community in order to end it. This
PIT count provides vital information that guides and shapes the way we approach and solve homelessness in Orange County.
This information Is provided to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and informs the
amount and type of resources Orange County receives to help end homelessness.
UNSHELTERED
2,584 ;
SERVICE PLANNING AREA MAP
Orange County is divided into three Service Planning Areas (SPAS) that
efficiently direct resources as individuals experiencing homelessness
SHELTERED enter the Coordinated Entry System.
�` i
EMERGENCY TRANSITIONAL
SHELTER SHELTER
1,248 960
CONTINUUM OF CARE
A Continuum of Care (CoC) is an integrated system of care that guides homeless
Individuals & families through a comprehensive array of services and housing designed
to prevent and end homelessness. The County of Orange is the lead for Orange County's
CoC, which funds 14 nonprofits across the OC CoC.
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
2013
2015
2017
Unsheltered Homeless People
1,678
2,202
2,584
Sheltered Homeless People
2,573
2,251
2,208
Emergency Shelter
1,145
925
1,248
Transitional Shelter
1,428
1,326
960
Total PIT Count M
4,251
4,452
4,792
Change Year to Year
+4.73%(201)
+7.6%(340)
In conjunction with 2-1-1 Orange County, the OC Commission to End
Homelessness convened an ad hoc committee to provide
guidance on the 2017 PIT count project. The ad hoc
cmmittee's direction included a public places count
committee's
sampling methodology. This methodology was
also used for the 2013 and 2015 PIT counts. During
the 2017 PIT count, 86 additional maps were counted
and surveyed for a total of 270 maps in comparison
7 to 184 maps in the 2015 PIT count. Reductions in
transitional shelter beds is reflective of national
00HUD funding priorities. Increase in emergency shelter
__beds is a result of The Courtyard, a County investment.
Rllocation of resources to permanent housing are not
reflected in the count results.
NORTH
936
CENTRAL �M1
1362 s-
SOUTH''
286
,I
HOMELESSNESS
•2017 Poin Flo -Time Count-
0
2,150
434
TOTAL: 2,584
•
357
UNSHELTERED
VETERANS
;e County Is the third largest county In California, and sixth largest in the nation with a population of more than
million people. Despite our affluent reputation, we have residents who have needs you might not expect. Like many
ies across the nation, we have people experiencing homelessness. The County of Orange Is working diligently to
le funding and resources for this vulnerable population. Here is a look at what we've done in the last year.
ruritrn
The Board of Supervisors has committed more than
$23.5 MILLION
to providing multiple shelter options that meet a variety of needs.
KRAEMER CENTER
/North Anaheim)
County's first year-round emergency
shelter and multi -service center with
J _ ..site
penin programs 17, beds in phase one
opening Spring 2017, 100 additional beds
in phasetwo anticipated in late 2018.
400
BEDS
DEC-ADA
�
oN,.y
CTHE
COURTYARD®
ARMORIES
(Santa Ana Civic Center)
(Santa Ana and Fullerton)
Day service center and low barrier, low
Overnight old -weather emergency shelter
threshold safe sleep shelter.
providing 400 beds from December to April.
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
AYF
The Board approved issuance of the 2016
Permanent Supportive Housing Notice of Funding
Availibility to provide up to $8 million for the
amuidtion, new construction and acquisition/
rehabilitation of permanent supportive housing
for Oange Cnuntys extremely low-income
households chat are homeless.
RESTAURANT MEALS PROGRAM
$2501C PER YEAR
The Board approved the Restaurant Meals Program
that will enable[alFresh recipients who are homeless,
disabled and/or elderly to purchase meals from
participating restaurant, with their CalFresh benefits.
It is Intended to Increase food access for have who
do not have a place to store or cook food, may not be
able to prepare food or lack access to a grocery store.
WHOLE PERSON CARE INITIATIVE -
The Whole Person Care Initiative will target services to those that are
experiencing homelessness and are high utilizers of emergency rooms.
$23.5 MILLION 1 $9.6 MILLION
PHASE ONE PHASE TWO
NOVEMBER 2016. DECEMBER 2020 TBD- DECEMBER 2020
Housing"
0 Navigators
Beds
Support
Service
Coordinators
CRISIS STABILIZATION UNITS
$23.9 MILLION
In funding from the County has Increasedthe number of beds
available for people In a psychiatric crisis,
albwing Indh4duals to
receive immediate psychiatric care as opposed to going to the
emergency room.
Planning
CONTINUUM OF CARE
The County is the lead for Orange County's Continuum
of care, which provides $22.3 MILLION
in funding to nonprofits to provide permanent housing
options (rapid rehousing or Permanent supportive housing)
to Individuals and famifles In our community. Provides
funding for increased and strategic coordination of
resources targeting the most vulnerable populations.
Coordinated
Entry System
0
Permanent
Housing
EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS
$1.1 MILLION
The Board approves local nonprofits to receive cote grant funding to provide emergency
shelter and rapid rehousing services to individuals and families in the community.
4��
of
NONPROFIT INDIVIDUAL
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 20 of 27 Page ID
#:2498
■
4/26/2018 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOCa9i'9Lmdy66tUYI &Mg.�unViNoo4l/MV !8-�NO&lII.abf 27 Page ID
#:2499
% sum total percentage point deviation of place from
Orange County
# rank of place out of 40 by %
]non -Hispanic 2excluding black and Asian Hispanics
. l lispanic
o White
o Hispanic
o Black
o Asian
o Mixed
o QjbeL
Hispanic' Population by Place#22
Percentage of the total population.
Scope: population of Orange County, selected places in
Orange County, and entities that contain Orange County
https;//statisticalatlas.comlcounty/Cellfornia/Orange-County/Race-and-Ethnicity 13/43
4/26/2018 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOCL'JDFdM�Ur15&"Vj' u"IR UoO41%&118-SP12"2bf 27 Page ID
0% 20% 40% 60% Cou#:2500
Santa Ana
La Habra
Anaheim
Stanton
Los Angeles
Tustin
San Juan Capistrano
Buena Park
Orange
California
Placentia
Garden Grove
Costa Mesa
Fullerton
Orange
Pacific
Midway City
West
Brea
Lake Forest
Westminster
Los Alamitos
Rancho Santa Mara;
Huntington Bch
Laguna Hills
Cypress
San Clemente
United States
La Palma
Yorba Linda
Aliso Viejo
Fountain Vly
Mission Viejo
Ladera Ranch
Las Flores
Dana Point
Laguna Niguel
Seal Beach
North Tustin
Rossmoor
Villa Park
Irvine
Coto de Caza
Newport Beach
Laguna Beach
Laguna Woods
257k 1
36.6k 2
177k 3
18.2k 4
5.72M
30.Ok 5
13.5k 6
31.1k 7
52.6k 8
14.1 M
18.9k 9
63.2k 10
38.7k 11
46.8k 12
1.03M
15.5M
2,677 13
20.8M
10.6k 14
18.Ok 15
20.4k 16
2,470 17
9,036 18
35.9k 19
5,638 20
8,719 21
11.1k 22
50.5M
2,493 23
10.2k 24
7,627 25
8,702 26
14.7k 27
3,669 28
1,007 29
4,937 30
8,971 31
3,422 32
3,061 33
1,175 34
565 35
21.1k 36
1,357 37
7,146 38
1,690 39
755 40
https:tlstalisticalatlas.mrrVcounly/CalifornialOrange-County/Race-and-Ethnicity 14143
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 158 Filed 04/26/18 Page 23 of 27 Page ID
#:2501
4/26/2018 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC o'(Jett'anlfLqsenl66ourFyill idfQ*ZDM8)- €jLw24aef 27 Page ID
#:2502
Household Income by Place in Orange County
There are 40 places in Orange County. This section compares all 40 of those to each other, Orange County, and other
entities that contain or substantially overlap with Orange County.
Median Household Income by Place 20
Scope: households in Orange County, selected places in
Orange County, and entities that contain Orange County
hftps://statisticalatlas.com/county/California/Orange-County/Household-income 13144
412612018 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOCHJIDEO[qYM"6Wid3aunFAiWco* eo2t9- eil2j.504)f 27 Page ID
$Ok $50k $100k $150k % #:2W03
Coto de Caza
Villa Park
Las Flores
+117%
+106%
+70.1%
1
2
3
Ladera Ranch
+64.5%
4
North Tustin
+62.6%
5
Yorba Linda
$112.
k +48.8%
6
Rossmoor
$108.8
< +44.3%
7
Newport Beach
$106.3
+41.0%
8
Rancho Santa Mar...
$104.1k
+38.0%
9
Laguna Niguel
$99.8k
+32.3%
10
Aliso Viejo
$99.4k
+31.8%
11
Mission Viejo
: 96.2k
+27.6%
12
Laguna Beach
94.3k
+25.1%
13
Lake Forest
93.6k
+24.1%
14
Laguna Hills
0.7k
+20.3%
15
Irvine
0.6k
+20.1%
16
San Clemente
$ O.lk
+19.4%
17
La Palma
$ 5.8k
+13.7%
18
Los Alamitos
$8
..7k
+9.62%
19
Huntington Bch
$8
Ak
+7.91%
20
Fountain Vly
80
9k
+7.22%
21
Dana Point
$H
.1 k
+6.25%
22
Brea
$7
,1k
+4.91%
23
Orange
$7
.8k
+4.53%
24
Cypress
$7
.4k
+3.90%
25
Placentia
$7
.2k
+3.73%
26
San Juan Capistrano
$75
6k
+0.24%
27
Orange
-' $754k
0%
Tustin
c, $732k
-2.95%
28
Fullerton
'_. $67.4
-10.7%
29
Buena Park
$66.4
-12.0%
30
Costa Mesa
:,-. $65.8
-12.7%
31
La Habra
$61.7
-18.2%
32
California
':- $61.1
-19.0%
Los Angeles
.' $60.3k
-20.1%
Pacific
$60.1 k
-20.3%
Garden Grove
$59.6k
-20.9%
33
Anaheim
$59.2k1
-21.6%
34
West
"- $57.2k
-24.2%
Santa Ana
$53.3k
-29.3%
35
United States
$53.Ok
-29.7%
Westminster
i''r- $52.6k
-30.2%
36
Seal Beach"
$51.2k
-32.1%
37
Stanton
$47.9k
-36.5%
38
Midway City
45.2k
-40.0%
39
Laguna Woods
$16,7
-51.4%
40
https://statisticalattas.con-county/California/Orange-County/Household-Income 14/44
4/26/2018 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC4DLih6lcDon Agmnlb&unPrjWcWrafiito- g&l2&of 27 Page ID
#:2504
percentage above or below median household income of
Orange County
# rank of place out of 40 by median household income
Six -Figure Incomes by Place#21
Percentage of households with incomes above $100k.
Scope: households in Orange County, selected places in
Orange County, and entities that contain Orange County
< $25k $25-50k $50-100k
$100-200k $200k+
https://statiaticalatlas.com/county/California/Orange-County/Household-income 15144
4/2612018 Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOCH.JF3gold Dt9m"t?w9.6aunPxiWcMMOItO- e121at7f 27 Page ID
50% 0% 60% COukt-.2W05
Villa Park
Coto de Caza
Ladera Ranch
North Tustin
Las Flores
Yorba Linda
Newport Beach
Rancho Santa Mar...
Rossmoor
Laguna Niguel
Aliso Viejo
Mission Viejo
Laguna Beach
Lake Forest
Irvine
Laguna Hills
San Clemente
La Palma
Dana Point
Huntington Bch
Los Alamitos
Fountain Vly
Brea
San Juan Capistrano
Cypress
Placentia
Orange
Orange
Tustin
Fullerton
Costa Mesa
California
Buena Park
Los Angeles
Seal Beach
Pacific
La Habra
Anaheim
West
Garden Grove
Westminster
United States
Santa Ana
Stanton
Midway City
Laguna Woods
1,415 t
3,428 2
4,757 3
5,512 4
1,260 5
12.5k 6
20.3k 7
8,712 8
2,048 9
12.2k 10
9,228 11
16.Ok 12
5,271 13
12.7k 14
36.9k 15
4,703 16
10.9k 17
2,076 18
5,890 19
30.1k 20
1,623 21
7,356 22
5,509 23
4,429 24
6,092 25
6,091 26
16.2k 27
368k
8,529 28
14.Ok 29
12.6k 30
3.63M
6,578 31
1.21 M
3,511 32
4.80M
4,782 33
25.4k 34
6A9M
11.5k 35
6,721 36
26.OM
14.4k 37
2,091 38
483 39
1,267 40
https:l/statisticalallas.mnVeountyfCalfornia/Orange-County/Household-Income 16144
Case
Document 232 Filed 05/17/18 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:2651
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross -Claimant
CITY OF SANTA ANA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ORANGE COUNTY CATHOLIC
WORKER, an unincorporated
association; Lisa Bell, Shawn Carroll,
Melissa Fields, Larry Ford, Cameron
Ralston, Kathy Schuler, Gloria
Shoemake, as individuals;
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORANGE COUNTY, the City of
Anaheim, the City of Costa Mesa, the
City of Orange, and the City of Santa
Ana,
Defendants.
Case No.: SACV 18-00155-DOC-JDE
Hon. David O. Carter
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIMI
TO RESPOND TO CROSS
COMPLAINT FILED BY CITY OF
SANTA ANA
Cross Complaint served: May 1,
2018
Current response due: May 22, 2018
New response date: July 23, 2018
Case 8:4-cv-00155-DOC-ME Document 232 Filed 05/17/18 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:2652
1 11 City of Santa Ana,
311 Cross -Claimant,
V.
n
5
County of Orange, City of Aliso Viejo,
6 City of Anaheim, City of Brea, City of
7 Buena Park, City of Costa Mesa, City of
Cypress, City of Dana Point, City of
8
Fountain Valley, City of Fullerton, City of
9 Garden Grove, City of Huntington Beach,
10 City of Irvine, City of La Habra, City of
La Palma, City of Laguna Beach, City of
11 Laguna Hills, City of Laguna Niguel, City
12 of Laguna Woods, City of Lake Forest,
City of Los Alamitos, City of Mission
13 Viejo, City of Newport Beach, City of
14 Orange, City of Placentia, City of Rancho
15 Santa Margarita, City of San Clemente,
City of San Juan Capistrano, City of Seal
16 Beach, City of Stanton, City of Tustin,
17 City of Villa Park, City of Westminster
18 1 and City of Yorba Linda,
19 Cross -Defendants. i
20 )
21
22 WHEREAS, Defendant and Cross -Claimant City of Santa Ana ("City") filed
23 a Cross Complaint within the above -captioned action on April 26, 2018;
24 WHEREAS, the City served its Summons and Cross Complaint on Cross-
25 Defendants County of Orange, City of Anaheim, City of Orange, and City of Tustin
26 ("Cross -Defendants") on May 1, 2018;
27 WHEREAS, Cross -Defendants are required to file their answer and/or
28 respond to City's Cross Complaint by May 22, 2018, or twenty-one days following
service of the Summons and Cross Complaint; and
2
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 232 Filed 05/17/18 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:2653
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8',
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to a sixty-day extension in light of the
importance of the issues to be raised.
NOW, THEREFORE, by and through their respective counsel, the parties
hereby stipulate and agree, subject to approval by the Court, that Cross -Defendants'
answer and/or response to the City's Cross Complaint shall be due on July 23, 2018.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Dated; May. (7 , 2018 By: L4 7x/,
ohn M. Funk
Assistant City Attorney
Dated: May 2018 By:
Kevin N. Royer
Attorneys for County of Orange
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Dated: May /7 , 2018 By: &_41---
Gregg M. Audet
Deputy City Attorney
CITY OF ORANGE
Dated: May / 7 , 2018 By:. 'f` wP''�-`�•-
Wa e W. Winthers
City Attorney
3
r
Case 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 232 Filed 05/17/18 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:2654
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to a sixty-day extension in light of the
importance of the issues to be raised.
NOW, THEREFORE, by and through their respective counsel, the parties
hereby stipulate and agree, subject to approval by the Court, that Cross -Defendants'
answer and/or response to the City's Cross Complaint shall be due on July 23, 2018.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
CITY OF SA.NTA ANA
Dated: May 2018 By:
John M.Funk
Assistant City Attorney
THEODORA ORINGHER PC
Dated: May 17, 2018 By: _ ---
Kevm N. oyer
Attorneys for County of Orange
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Dated: May _, 2018 By:
Gregg M. Audet
Deputy City Attorney
CITY OF ORANGE
Dated: May % , 2018 By:� !_
Wdyife W. Winthers
City Attorney
3
Case 8:1#-cv-00155-DOC-JDE Document 232 Filed 05/17/18 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:2655
I WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART
2
' 3 Dated: May 17, 2018 By:
4 David E.Iden tg
5 Attorneys for City of Tustin
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11