A federal court judge expressed concern on Wednesday about what the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights contends is the city of Los Angeles’ apparent delay in meeting its obligations under a settlement agreement in a lawsuit concerning the homelessness crisis in the region.
In an order filed in June by U.S. District Judge David Carter, he wrote that the city has shown “a consistent lack of cooperation and responsiveness — an unwillingness to provide documentation unless compelled by court order or media scrutiny.”
During a hearing Wednesday in Los Angeles federal court, the judge heard plaintiffs’ complaints about administrative issues, including attorney’s fees, that appear to have stymied progress in the long-running case.
Carter set an evidentiary hearing for Nov. 19.
As in previous hearings, the judge stopped short of finding that the city breached the settlement agreement on the whole and declined the “last resort” of appointing a receiver to enforce the city’s compliance with the settlement, as requested by plaintiffs. The court previously instituted a federal monitor to oversee compliance “and ask the hard questions on behalf of Angelenos,” the judge wrote.
The June order came after an evidentiary hearing in which the L.A. Alliance, a coalition of business owners and city and county residents, alleged that the city’s refusal to provide updated plans, meet its milestones, correct its encampment reduction numbers, and verify its reporting has unnecessarily and unfairly wasted the resources of the parties and the court.
The judge largely agreed, finding that rather than spending taxpayer dollars on uncovering the missing data or striving to provide verification, the city fought with the results and methods of a court-ordered independent audit of its homeless services.
The case started in March 2020 when L.A. Alliance filed a complaint in Los Angeles federal court against the city and Los Angeles County, accusing officials of not doing enough to address homelessness.
A judge signed off on a settlement in September 2023 in which the county agreed to supply an additional 3,000 beds for mental and substance abuse treatment by the end of next year and subsidies for 450 new board-and-care beds. The L.A. Alliance settled with the city in 2022, but later filed papers alleging the city was not meeting its obligations.
The independent assessment made public in March was unable to verify the number of homeless shelter beds the city claims to have created.
According to L.A. Alliance, Alvarez & Marsal’s yearlong audit revealed Los Angeles’ homeless response to be burdened with antiquated systems, obsolete data infrastructure, contracts lacking accountability and leadership either unwilling or unable to correct course.
“At the heart of this evidentiary record lies a persistent problem: the inability to verify the city’s reported data,” according to the judge’s order, which granted in part and denied in part the L.A. Alliance’s motion for settlement agreement compliance.
The agreement requires the city to produce 12,915 shelter beds by June 2027. There are still over 3,800 beds to be created, court papers show.
“Plaintiffs in this case ask the court to declare the system irreparably broken,” Carter wrote in his 62-page order. “They argue that only the imposition of a receivership can meet this moment.
“But the court is not a policymaker. It cannot be. Its role is narrower, but no less vital: to uphold the promises made to the public, to enforce the agreements signed, and to ensure transparency and accountability in their execution.”
Carter ordered quarterly hearings, beginning Wednesday, and continuing as needed, to ensure the city’s commitments are honored.
“The court wants the city to succeed,” he wrote. “Because when the system fails, people die. And when it works — even slowly — lives are saved.”
Ultimately, Carter wrote, the court’s decision not to declare a breach “reflects judicial restraint, not confidence. The pattern is clear: documentation is withheld until exposure is imminent, public accountability is resisted until judicially mandated, and the truth of reported progress remains clouded by evasive record-keeping.”
Carter determined that such failures “have undermined public trust and judicial trust alike.”