GHP Management Corporation et al v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:2021cv06311 - Document 39 (C.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE 20 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. For the reasons stated above, Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Intervene as defendants is GRANTED 20 38 . (lom)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
GHP Management Corporation et al v. City of Los Angeles Doc. 39 1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GHP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 15 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 21-06311 DDP (JEMx) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE [Dkt. 20] 16 17 Presently before the court is a Motion to Intervene as 18 defendants filed by three nonprofit organizations: Alliance for 19 Community Empowerment (“ACCE”); Strategic Actions for a Just 20 Economy (“SAJE”); and Coalition for Economic Survival (“CES”) 21 (collectively, “Proposed Intervenors”). 22 submissions of the parties, the court grants the motion and adopts 23 the following Order.1 24 I. Having considered the Background 25 At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendant City of Los 26 Angeles (“the City”) enacted Ordinance No. 186585, which was later 27 updated by Ordinance No. 186606 (collectively, the “Eviction 28 1 Defendant City of Los Angeles does not oppose the motion. Dockets.Justia.com 1 Moratorium” or “Moratorium”). Plaintiffs allege that the Eviction 2 Moratorium “effectively precludes residential evictions.” 3 (Complaint ¶ 45.) 4 terminating tenancies due to COVID-related nonpayment of rent, any 5 no-fault reason, certain lease violations related to additional 6 occupants and pets, or removal of rental units from the rental 7 market. 8 who have missed rent payments a one-year period to pay delayed 9 rent, starting from the end of the ongoing local emergency period. The Moratorium prohibits landlords from (Complaint ¶ 46.) The Moratorium further allows tenants 10 (Id.) 11 violations of the Moratorium. Tenants may sue landlords and seek civil penalties for (Id. ¶ 49.) 12 Plaintiffs, comprised of (1) thirteen limited liability 13 corporations or limited partnerships that own apartment buildings 14 and (2) the management company that manages the buildings, own or 15 manage nearly five thousand apartment units in Los Angeles. 16 Plaintiffs allege that the Moratorium constitutes an uncompensated 17 taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s 18 Takings Clause, as well as the California Constitution’s Takings 19 Clause. 20 compensation,” costs, and attorney’s fees, but does not seek to 21 invalidate or enjoin enforcement of the Moratorium. Plaintiffs’ Complaint seeks an award of “just 22 Proposed Intervenors now seek to intervene as defendants. 23 ACCE is an organization engaged in “ground-up organizing to build a 24 strong people’s movement to create transformative community 25 change.” 26 justice campaigns focus “on helping families stay in their homes, 27 preserving affordable housing, and pushing for equitable housing 28 practices across California, including in Los Angeles.” (Declaration of Joseph Delgado ¶ 2.) 2 ACCE’s housing (Id.) 1 ACCE organizes in low and very low-income neighborhoods, and its 2 Los Angeles membership is “predominately Black and Brown, including 3 a significant number of undocumented Angelenos.” 4 of ACCE’s members are severely rent burdened. 5 for ACCE’s eviction defense clinics has more than doubled during 6 the pandemic. (Id. ¶ 3.) Most (Id. ¶ 4.) Demand (Id. ¶ 7.) 7 SAJE “serves predominantly low-income and very low-income 8 people of color in [] South Central Los Angeles,” and advocates for 9 “tenant rights, healthy housing, and equitable development in South 10 Los Angeles.” 11 ACCE, SAJE has seen a “substantial uptick” in demand for its tenant 12 assistance services since the onset of the pandemic. 13 CES is a “grassroots community-based organization dedicated to 14 organizing low and moderate-income people to win economic and 15 social justice throughout the greater Los Angeles Area.” 16 (Declaration of Larry Gross ¶ 2.) 17 too, has seen a “marked uptick” in the number of people seeking 18 assistance tenants’ rights assistance, specifically with respect to 19 inability to pay rent, harassment from landlords, and landlords’ 20 refusal to maintain habitable dwellings. 21 (Declaration of Cynthia Strathmann ¶¶ 2,4.) Like (Id. ¶ 8.) Since the pandemic began, CES, (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.) Proposed Intervenors seek to defend the Moratorium, without 22 which, Intervenors posit, their members and other tenants would be 23 forcibly displaced from their homes. 24 II. 25 (Motion at 2:6-9.) Legal Standard Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, a court must allow 26 intervention by any movant who “claims an interest relating to the 27 property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is 28 so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter 3 1 impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, 2 unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.” Fed. 3 R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). 4 intervene as of right, if (1) the motion is timely; (2) the 5 applicant has a “significant protectable” interest relating to the 6 action; (3) disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, 7 impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest; 8 and (4) the applicant’s interest is inadequately represented by the 9 parties to the action. An applicant meets these criteria, and may California ex rel. Lockyer v. United 10 States, 450 F.3d 436, 440 (9th Cir. 2006). 11 requirements, courts are guided by “practical and equitable 12 considerations,” and generally construe the Rule to apply “broadly 13 in favor of proposed intervenors.” Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Forest 14 Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States 15 v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391, 397 (9th Cir. 2002)) 16 (internal quotation omitted). When evaluating these 17 Alternatively, when an intervenor cannot satisfy the four-part 18 test for intervention as of right, courts may allow anyone who “has 19 a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common 20 question of law or fact” to intervene. 21 24(b)(1)(B). Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 In evaluating motions to intervene, courts must “take all 23 well-pleaded, nonconclusory allegations in the motion to intervene, 24 the proposed complaint or answer in intervention, and declarations 25 supporting the motion as true.” 26 v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 820 (9th Cir. 2001) 27 III. Discussion Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity 28 4 1 At the outset, it must be noted that Plaintiffs are not the 2 first to challenge the Eviction Moratorium. Soon after the 3 implementation of the Moratorium, the Apartment Association of Los 4 Angeles, an organization that advocates on behalf of rental 5 property owners such as Plaintiffs, brought a constitutional 6 challenge to the Moratorium, including claims under the Takings 7 Clause. See Apartment Ass’n of Los Angeles Cty., Inc. v. City of 8 Los Angeles, No. CV2005193DDPJEMX, 2020 WL 4501792, at *1 (C.D. 9 Cal. Aug. 5, 2020) (“AAGLA”). Two of the Proposed Intervenors 10 here, ACCE and SAJE, sought, and were permitted, to intervene as 11 defendants in AGGLA. 12 in defending tenants’ “legally protected property interest in 13 remaining in their homes.” 14 allowing intervention as of right, this Court determined that the 15 City would not necessarily adequately represent or defend that 16 interest. 17 In AAGLA, ACCE and SAJE asserted an interest AGGLA, 2020 WL 4501792 at *2. In Id. at *3. Here, proposed Intervenors make arguments similar to those 18 raised in AAGLA. 19 ongoing applicability of the Ordinances’ protections, which 20 directly impact many of their tenant members.” 21 With respect to the practical effect of a disposition in this 22 matter, Proposed Intervenors contend that a declaratory judgment in 23 Plaintiffs’ favor could be used by other landlords to obtain 24 injunctive relief, or compel the City to, in the face of 25 overwhelming liability for compensatory payments, end the emergency 26 declaration and terminate the Moratorium earlier than COVID and its 27 attendant economic effects would otherwise dictate. 28 14:21-28.) Proposed Intervenors assert an “interest in the (Mot. at 13:8-10.) (Mot. at The result, Proposed Intervenors argue, would be an 5 1 “outbreak of eviction proceedings,” a rise in homelessness, and 2 increased risk of the spread of COVID-19. 3 Proposed Intervenors argue further that, as in AAGLA, the City (1) 4 does not share Proposed Intervenors’ interests, especially insofar 5 as the City seeks solutions that would benefit Plaintiffs 6 themselves, and (2) does not have the knowledge or information 7 necessary to adequately represent Proposed Intervenors’ low-income 8 members and clients’ interests. 9 (Mot. at 15:6-18.) Plaintiffs here raise arguments that were also raised, and 10 rejected, in AAGLA. 11 Intervenors have failed to show that the City is incapable of 12 representing Proposed Intervenors’ interests because “[t]here is an 13 assumption of adequacy when [a] government is acting on behalf of a 14 constituency that it represents.” 15 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003). 16 burden on proposed intervenors in showing inadequate representation 17 is minimal, and would be satisfied if they could demonstrate that 18 representation of their interests ‘may be’ inadequate.” 19 Courts, including the Ninth Circuit, “have permitted intervention 20 on the government’s side in recognition that the intervenors’ 21 interests are narrower than that of the government and therefore 22 may not be adequately represented.” 23 cases). 24 Plaintiffs argue, for example, that Proposed Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d At the same time, however, “[t]he Id. Id. at 1087 (collecting Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland is 25 not to the contrary. 26 concluded only that the proposed intervenors there had not met 27 their burden to demonstrate that the governmental entity would or 28 could not represent the intervenors’ narrow set of interests. As explained in AAGLA, the Oakland Bulk court 6 1 Oakland Bulk, 960 F.3d 603, 620 (9th Cir. 2020); AGGLA, 2020 WL 2 4501792 at *3 n.1. 3 submitted evidence that their interests and the City’s diverge. 4 an initial matter, Proposed Intervenors’ very existence is premised 5 on the notion that governmental policies have failed to secure 6 economic or social justice, including housing stability, for 7 Proposed Intervenors’ members. 8 Decl. ¶ 2; Gross Decl. ¶ 2.) 9 specific ordinances at issue here, although Plaintiffs are correct Here, in contrast, Proposed Intervenors have As (Delgado Decl. ¶ 2; Strathmann Furthermore, with respect to the 10 that Proposed Intervenors’ interests coincide with those of the 11 City to the extent that both have some desire to maintain some 12 level of eviction protections, this Court cannot agree that 13 Proposed Intervenors share the same “ultimate objective” as the 14 City in light of evidence that ACCE, SAJE, and over 300 other 15 organizations advocated for broader COVID-19 emergency protections 16 that the City refused to adopt. 17 5.) 18 (Delgado Decl. ¶ 5; Gross Decl. ¶ Attempting to distinguish this case from AAGLA, Plaintiffs 19 largely rely upon the fact that their Complaint, unlike the AAGLA 20 plaintiff’s complaint, does not seek injunctive relief invalidating 21 or enjoining enforcement of the Eviction Moratorium. 22 Plaintiffs suggest, disposition of this matter would not 23 necessarily have any broader effect beyond the small number of 24 private property owners who are party to this suit, and thus this 25 case does not implicate any significant interest Proposed 26 Intervenors may possess. 27 Plaintiffs’ opposition suggests that Plaintiffs are bringing an as- 28 applied challenge to the Moratorium, none of Plaintiffs’ Therefore, This argument is disingenuous. 7 Although 1 allegations appears particular to Plaintiffs. Indeed, Plaintiffs 2 themselves assert that “[t]he takings litigation is coming, not 3 just from Plaintiffs in this action, but from landlords throughout 4 the City.” 5 who own or manage approximately five thousand of the hundreds of 6 thousands of rental units in Los Angeles, alone seek “an amount in 7 excess of $100,000,000.” 8 as Plaintiffs do, that a declaratory judgment that the Moratorium 9 constitutes an unconstitutional taking would do nothing more than (Opposition at 5 n.1). The fourteen Plaintiffs here, (Complaint ¶ 8.) To contend, therefore, 10 give rise to a “hyper-speculative” fear that the City might make 11 adjustments to the Moratorium is naive, at best. 12 this matter presents a limited question pertaining only to a small 13 number of litigants is not well-taken. 14 24(a)(2) (permitting intervention as of right where “disposing of 15 the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s 16 ability to protect it’s interest”) (emphasis added). 17 Intervenors have adequately shown that this matter could affect the 18 viability of the Moratorium’s eviction protections. 19 IV. 20 Any argument that See Fed. R. Civ. P. Proposed Conclusion For the reasons stated above, Proposed Intervenors’ Motion to 21 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 8 1 Intervene as defendants is GRANTED.2 2 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 8 Dated: November 22, 2021 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Even if Proposed Intervenors could not intervene as of right, this Court would grant permission to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). See Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Ed., 552 F.2d 1326, 1329 (9th Cir. 1977); Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner, 644 F.3d 836, 844 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he independent jurisdictional grounds requirement does not apply to proposed intervenors in federal-question cases when the proposed intervenor is not raising new claims.”) 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
