Charles Sirius Day v. Los Angeles Department of Sanitation and Environment

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 CHARLES SIRIUS DAY, Case No. 2:25-cv-04690-JWH-AS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPANDED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF [ECF No. 26], PLAINTIFF’S SANITATION AND EMERGENCY MOTION FOR 15 ENVIRONMENT; RELIEF FROM ORDER AND FOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA; CONTEMPT OF COURT [ECF 16 CITY OF LOS ANGELES; No. 27], AND PLAINTIFF’S AHDOOT FAMILY TRUST; MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF 17 AHDOOT ROOHOLLAH, Trustee of COURT [ECF No. 28] the Adhoot Family Trust; 18 AFSANEH TRSO, Trustee of the Adhoot Family Trust; and 19 LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, [20] Defendants. [27] 1 Before the Court are the following matters: 2 e the Emergency Motion of Plaintiff Charles Sirius Day for Expanded 3 Injunctive Relief; 4 e Day’s Emergency Motion for Relief from Order and for Contempt of 5 Court;’ and 6 e Day’s Motion for Contempt of Court.’ 7|| The Court concludes that these matters are appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After considering Day’s papers filed 9|| in support, the Court DENIES all of his Motions. 10 I. BACKGROUND 11 Charles Sirtus Day is a Los Angeles resident who operated a licensed 12|| street vendor business in Skid Row between 2023 and 2025.* Day alleges that on 13 || November 7, 2024, Defendant Los Angeles Police Department impounded his 14|| vehicle without notice or opportunity for a hearing.* Day also alleges that on April 29 and May 1, 2025, Defendants Los Angeles Department of Sanitation || and Environment, the Los Angeles Police Department, and the Ahdoot Family 17|| Trust seized and destroyed Day’s business equipment in a targeted action 18 || against his vendor operations.®° Day contends that he was not provided with 19|| prior notice nor the required 48-hour written notice regarding his vehicle [20] ! Pl.’s Emergency Mot. for Expanded Injunctive Relief (the “Expanded Injunctive Relief Motion”) [ECF No. 26]. 231° Pl.’s Emergency Mot. for Relief from Order and for Contempt of Court (the “Relief from Order Motion”) [ECF No. 27]. 241 Pl.’s Mot. for Contempt of Court (the “Contempt Motion”) [ECF No. 28]. 26|| * Am. Compl. (the “Amended Complaint”) [ECF No. 12] ] 9. 27|| > Id. at 10. 28° Id. at FF 12 & 13. 1|| impoundment’ and that he was provided with only a 25-minute prior written 2|| notice of the April and May 2025 seizures.° 3 Day commenced this action and filed an initial Temporary Restraining 4|| Order (“TRO”) Application in May 2025.’ Pursuant to this Court’s Order on his request to proceed 7m Forma Pauperis, Day was directed to file an amended complaint.’° Day complied; he filed the Amended Complaint and the TRO 7\| Application in June 2025." In his Amended Complaint, Day asserts fives claims &|| for relief: 9 e violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure; 10 e violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process; 11 e discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the 12 “ADA”); 13 e conversion; and 14 e evidence destruction and spoliation.”” 15|| Through his TRO Application, Day sought to enjoin the City of Los Angeles, 16 || the Los Angeles Department of Sanitation and Environment, and the Los 17|| Angeles Police Department (collectively, “Defendants” from the following: 18 e conducting Clean Streets LA enforcement actions against his person, 19 property, or business operations; [21] 2) Tags ai. 1 Id. at J 23. 241 9 Compl. (the ‘““Complaint”) [ECF No. 1]; Pl.’s Appl. for TRO and OSC 25 (the “Application”) [ECF No. 3]. 1° Order on Pl.’s Request to Proceed én Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 8]. See generally Amended Complaint; Application. See generally Amended Complaint. 1 e seizing, impounding, confiscating, or destroying his personal property, 2 business equipment, artwork, or vehicles; 3 e issuing citations, arrests, or other enforcement actions related to his 4 licensed street vendor operations; 5 e coordinating with private defendants to conduct enforcement actions 6 targeting him.” 7|| Day also sought to enjoin Defendants Adhoot Family Trust, Roohollah Ahdoot, and Afsaneh Trso from the following: 9 e initiating, requesting, or coordinating enforcement actions against him 10 with any municipal agency; 11 e interfering with his lawful use of public property adjacent to their 12 premises; and 13 e engaging in retaliatory conduct against him for filing this lawsuit.” 14|| Day also requested the Court to order Defendants to preserve all evidence 15|| related to this case, including surveillance footage, communication records, 16 || documentation of enforcement, physical evidence, and training materials and 17|| protocols for the Clean Streets LA program.” 18 On July 25, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part Day’s TRO 19|| Application.”° The Clerk’s office served a copy of the TRO on Defendants City 20|| of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Department of Sanitation and Environment, and 21|| Los Angeles Police Department by U.S. Mail.’” A hearing on Day’s Motion for [22] 1 os Application 3:13-23. 241 Id. at 4:1-7. |) 1s Id. at 4:8-16. 26 || 16 TRO in Response to Pl.’s Ex Parte Appl. and Order Regarding Pl.’s Mot. 27\| for Leave to File Supp. Compl. [ECF No. 17] 9:21-22. Id. at 10:15-22. 1 Preliminary Injunction was set for August 8, 2025, and Defendants were 2 directed to file a response to Day’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction by 3 12:00 noon on Monday, August 4, 2025.18 Defendants filed no response. 4 On August 1, 2025, Day filed a Motion to Enforce, Modify, and Extend 5 Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Contempt of Court.19 Day’s 6 motion alleged, inter alia, that on July 28, 2025, Defendants willfully violated the 7 TRO by damaging a “$90 table and chair.”20 8 On August 7, 2025, this Court issued an order granting in part and 9 denying in part Day’s Motion to Enforce.21 Pursuant to that Order, Defendants 10 City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Department of Sanitation and 11 Environment, and the Los Angeles Police Department were preliminarily 12 enjoined from unlawfully seizing and destroying Day’s property without 13 providing him both notice of the address where the removed property will be 14 located and a telephone number and website through which he may retrieve his 15 property, as required by Los Angeles Municipal Code §§ 56.11(4)(a)(7) & 16 (b)(4).22 This Court also issued a separate order directing service of process by 17 the United States Marshal for the Central District of California on Defendants 18 City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Department of Sanitation and Environment, 19 and Los Angeles Police Department.23 [21] 18 Id. at 10:23-24. [22] 19 Pl.’s Mot. to Enforce, Modify, and Extend TRO and Mot. for Contempt [23] of Court (the “Motion to Enforce”) [ECF No. 18]. [24] 20 Id. at 4–5. [25] 21 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Pl.’s Motion for Preliminary 26 Injunction and Denying Pl’s Motion to Enforce (the “Order”) [ECF No. 20]. 27 22 Id. at 11:15–21. 1 On August 13, 2025, in response to the Order, Day filed the three 2\|| Motions that are presently before the Court.” 3 In Day’s Expanded Injunctive Relief Motion, he alleges that the 4|| persecution that he has faces has escalated, including through death threats, breaking and entering, theft, and attempted arson.” Day asserts the following 6|| post-Order factual developments: 7 e August 5, 2025: death threat incident in which a “security operative in a 8 silver and black vest” stated “I came here to kill you” ;”° 9 e August 8, 2025: breaking and entering incident in which unknown 10 intruders entered Day’s dwelling while he slept and stole his cellular 11 phone to prevent reporting;”’ and 12 e August 10, 2025: attempted arson incident in which Day found 13 “evidence of burning personal property” by unknown individuals who he 14 could not photograph because his phone was stolen.”* 15|| Day asserts that the Los Angeles Department of Sanitation further violated the 16 || preliminary injunction by systematically destroying evidence and maintaining □□ signage with false cleaning schedules.” Day alleges that the “spot cleaning,” || “emergency cleaning,” and “comprehensive cleaning” language on the Los 19|| Angeles Department of Sanitation website was added as an attempt to 20|| “circumvent legal protection” and to “escalate enforcement against Plaintiff” [21] 22 \—_— *4 See Expanded Injunctive Relief Motion; Relief from Order Motion; | Contempt Motion [ECF Nos. 26-28]. 25 Expanded Injunctive Relief Motion 2:13-16. % Id. at 2:19-23 & 7:10-13. 77 Id. at 3:1-4 & 7:14-17. 27\| *% ~— Id. at 3:5-8 & 7:18-8:2. 28|| See id. at 3:9-14 & 8:3-6. 1 and that it may be used to “justify cleaning of Plaintiff’s street location.”30 Day 2 states that he “observed a truck belonging to the Department of Sanitation and 3 Environment positioned near the center of the roadway . . . in an unusual an 4 obstructive manner” that suddenly accelerated toward him in “a deliberate and 5 targeted manner.”31 6 In his Relief from Order Motion, Day asks the Court for relief from the 7 Order based upon legal error and factual error.32 In his Motion, Day presents 8 new facts about the condition of the table and chair and the positioning of the 9 table and chair in relation to the sidewalk.33 Day alleges that the Court 10 committed legal error by “incorrectly shift[ing] the burden to Plaintiff.”34 Day 11 contends that the Court committed factual error by “fail[ing] to acknowledge 12 detailed evidence showing proper positioning, ADA compliance, standard 13 vendor equipment, and the absence of any public safety hazard.”35 14 In his Contempt Motion, Day seeks civil contempt against Defendants for 15 violations of the Lavan and Garcia court-ordered permanent injunctions. 36 Day 16 alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern of noncompliance across at least 17 three seizure and destruction events, to wit: [20] 21 30 Id. at 3:15–4:16 & 8:7–23. [31] Id. at 10:1–9. [22] 32 Relief from Order Motion 1:17–2:3. [33] Id. at 2:22–3:11. [34] Id. at 5:7–11. [35] Id. at 5:13–15. [26] 36 Contempt Order 5. Day is referring to Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, Case [27] No. 2:11-cv-2874 (C.D. Cal 2011); and Garcia v. City of Los Angeles, Case 1 e May 29, 2025: approximately $9,300 destroyed with no 48-hour written 2 notice, and no notice of storage and retrieval;*” 3 e June 3, 2025: approximately $7,500 destroyed with no 48-hour written 4 notice, and no 48-hour written notice of storage and retrieval;** and 5 e July 8, 2025: approximately $19,000 destroyed, including artwork and 6 personal property, and no 48-hour written notice of storage and 7 retrieval.* || Day asserts that City personnel classified property as “bulky” based upon the 9|| size and materials and that they subsequently destroyed the items on site in violation of Garcia.*” Furthermore, Day alleges that Defendants’ repeated 11|| failure to provide the 48-hour notice and storage before destroying property are 12|| violations of Lavan.*! 13 Il. LEGAL STANDARD 14|| A. Preliminary Injunction 15 ‘‘A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. . .; it is 16 || never awarded as of right.” Munaf ». Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008) || (citations omitted). An injunction is binding only on parties to the action, their 18 || officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys and those “‘in active concert 19|| or participation” with them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2). 20 If a plaintiff seeking to enjoin an alleged constitutional injury “shows he is 21|| likely to prevail on the merits,” then “that showing will almost always 22|| demonstrate he is suffering irreparable harm as well.” Bazrd ». Bonta, 81 F.4th 23 || 37 Td. at 4. % Idd. □ Ia. 27\|| ® Id. at 6. 28) * Id. 1 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2023). “Accordingly, when an alleged deprivation of a 2 constitutional right is involved, . . . most courts hold that no further showing of 3 irreparable injury is necessary.” Id. (quotation and brackets omitted). Similarly, 4 “[a] plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits of a constitutional claim also 5 tips the merged third and fourth factors decisively in his favor” because “it is 6 always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional 7 rights.” Id. (quotations omitted). Thus, a plaintiff who has established that he 8 is likely to succeed on the merits “ha[s] also established that both the public 9 interest and the balance of the equities favor a preliminary injunction.” Id. 10 In the Ninth Circuit, “serious questions going to the merits and a balance 11 of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a 12 preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a 13 likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” 14 All. for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal 15 quotations omitted). 16 B. Reconsideration 17 A district court may reconsider a ruling under Rule 54(b) of the Federal 18 Rules of Civil Procedure (interlocutory orders), Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or 19 amend a judgment), or Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment). See School Dist. 20 No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 21 1993); Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 869 F.3d 461 , 465 (9th Cir. 1989). 22 Under Rule 59(e), reconsideration may be appropriate when the movant 23 demonstrates the existence of: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; 24 (2) new evidence not previously available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of 25 law or to prevent manifest injustice. See School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 . 26 Meanwhile, Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration only upon a showing of: 27 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 1 court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) a void judgment; 2 (5) satisfaction of judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. See 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 . Rule 60(b)(6) requires 4 a showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary; mere 5 dissatisfaction with the court’s order or belief that the court is wrong in its prior 6 decision are not adequate grounds for relief. See Twentieth Century-Fox Film 7 Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). 8 In addition, this Court’s Local Rules define the situations in which a party 9 may seek the reconsideration of an order: 10 A motion for reconsideration of an Order on any motion or 11 application may be made only on the grounds of (a) a material 12 difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court that, in the 13 exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been known to the 14 party moving for reconsideration at the time the Order was entered, 15 or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law 16 occurring after the Order was entered, or (c) a manifest showing of a 17 failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before the 18 Order was entered. 19 L.R. 7-18. A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or 20 present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised 21 earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 , 22 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 23 C. Contempt of Court 24 The party alleging civil contempt must demonstrate that the alleged 25 contemnor: (1) violated the court order; (2) beyond substantial compliance; 26 (3) not based upon a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the order; (4) by 27 clear and convincing evidence. See Lab./Cmty. Strategy Ctr. v. Los Angeles Cnty. 1 III. ANALYSIS 2 A. Day’s Expanded Injunctive Relief Motion (Motion for Preliminary 3 Injunction) 4 Through his Expanded Injunctive Relief Motion, Day seeks, inter alia, to 5 “[e]xpand[] the preliminary injunction to prohibit harassment, intimidation, 6 threats, surveillance, following, entry, or arson attempts by any Defendant.”42 7 The Court treats this motion as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 8 analyzes it under that standard. 9 To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish the following 10 factors: “(1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to 11 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance 12 of equities tips in his favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.” 13 BOKF, NA v. Estes 923 F.3d 558, 561-62 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Winter v. 14 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 15 1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 16 Day asserts against Defendants numerous instances of death threats, 17 arson, and burglary, but with no evidentiary support. Day admits that the 18 alleged perpetrators are either a “security operative” or “unknown.”43 Because 19 Day offers no evidence linking his incidents with Defendants, he is unlikely to 20 succeed on the merits, and this factor favors Defendants. 21 2. Irreparable Harm 22 An irreparable harm is a harm that cannot be redressed by “adequate 23 compensatory or other corrective relief [that] will be available at a later date.” 24 Los Angeles Mem. Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197 , 1202 25 (9th Cir. 1980) (quotation omitted). Day states that he faces death threats, [26] 27 42 Expanded Injunctive Relief Motion 5:15–24. 1 arson, and burglary.44 The Court agrees that those incidents constitute an 2 irreparable harm, and this factor favors Day. 3 3. Balance of the Equities and the Public Interest 4 When deciding whether to award injunctive relief, “the court must 5 balance the equities between the parties and give due regard to the public 6 interest.” Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Norton, 503 F.3d 836, 843 (9th Cir. 2007). 7 A district court is afforded “broad latitude in fashioning equitable relief,” 8 particularly insofar as the “equities demand a partial injunction.” Id. 9 Here, Day fails to make any connection between the alleged crimes and 10 his issue of property seizure. Day also fails to offer any evidence linking 11 Defendants to the crimes. This factor favors Defendants. 12 In view of those findings, the Court concludes that it must DENY Day’s 13 Expanded Injunctive Relief Motion. 14 B. Day’s Relief from Order Motion (Ex Parte Application for 15 Reconsideration) 16 Day alleges that the Court made legal and factual errors in its Order and 17 asks the Court to grant him relief from that Order.45 The Court treats this 18 motion as an Ex Parte Application for Reconsideration and analyzes it under that 19 standard. 20 1. Factual Error 21 Day presents new facts about the condition of the table and chair as well 22 as the positioning of the table and chair in relation to the sidewalk. 23 This Court’s Local Rules make clear that a party seeking reconsideration 24 of an order can only do so on grounds that “could not have been known to the [26] 27 44 Id. 1 party moving for reconsideration at the time the Order was entered.” See 2 L.R. 7-18 (emphasis added). 3 Here, the Court finds that all of the new facts presented in Day’s Relief 4 from Order Motion were known to Day at the time of his previous motion and 5 that they could have been properly presented to the Court at that time. The 6 Court finds no factual errors supporting the request for reconsideration. 7 2. Legal Error 8 Day alleges that the Court committed legal error by “incorrectly shift[ing] 9 the burden to Plaintiff.”46 10 The Ninth Circuit has made clear that the party alleging civil contempt 11 must demonstrate the violation by clear and convincing evidence. See 12 Lab./Cmty. Strategy Ctr., 564 F.3d at 1123. The Court finds no error of law 13 supporting the request for reconsideration. 14 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Day’s Relief from Order Motion. 15 C. Day’s Contempt of Court Motion 16 Day is seeking contempt sanctions against Defendants for alleged 17 violations of the Lavan and Garcia permanent injunctions.47 18 As an initial mater, this Court did not issue either the Lavan or Garcia 19 injunctions, and, therefore, it cannot enforce them by means of a contempt 20 proceeding. See Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265 , 1269 n.2 (9th Cir. 21 1996) (“It is true that only the issuing court can enforce its own injunction by 22 means of contempt proceedings.”). Even assuming, arguendo, that this Court 23 could enforce them, neither injunction is currently in effect. 24 The Ninth Circuit has stated that “the controlling rule governing the 25 lifespan of a preliminary injunction” is that it “dissolves ipso facto when a final [26] 27 46 Id. at 5:7–11. 1 judgment is entered.” U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091 , 1093 2 (9th Cir. 2010). 3 In Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth 4 Circuit upheld a district court’s preliminary injunction issued against the City of 5 Los Angeles. See id. at 1032 . The Ninth Circuit held that the preliminary 6 injunction was proper because a “homeless persons’ unabandoned possessions 7 are property within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, [so] the City 8 must comport with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due 9 process clause if it wishes to take and destroy them.” Id. After the appeal, in 10 the district court the parties in Lavan submitted a notice of settlement in July 11 2016, and the district court dismissed the action with prejudice shortly 12 thereafter.48 Because a dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment, the Lavan 13 preliminary injunction is no longer in effect. 14 Similarly, in Garcia v. City of Los Angeles, 11 F.4th 1113 (9th Cir. 2021), the 15 Ninth Circuit upheld a district court’s preliminary injunction prohibiting the 16 City of Los Angeles from discarding homeless individuals’ “bulky items.” Id. at 17 1116. After the appeal, in September 2022 the district court issued an order 18 dissolving the preliminary injunction.49 Therefore, the Garcia preliminary 19 injunction is likewise no longer in effect. 20 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Day’s Contempt Motion. 21 IV. DISPOSITION 22 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 23 1. Day’s Emergency Motion for Expanded Injunctive Relief [ECF 24 No. 26] is DENIED. [25] 48 Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 2:11-cv-2874 (C.D. Cal 2011) [ECF [26] Nos. 172–73]. 27 49 Garcia v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 2:19-cv-06182 (C.D. Cal 2011) 1 2. Day’s Emergency Motion for Relief from Order and for Contempt 2|| of Court [ECF No. 27] is DENIED. 3 3. Day’s Motion for Contempt of Court [ECF No. 28] is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. VG 6|| Dated: August 25, 2025 _ uM WH 7 SRITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE