los angeles police protective league and roe v...
TRANSCRIPT
Los Angeles Police Protective League and Roe v Parks and City of Los Angeles Police Department and City of Los Angeles, CV 00-10811 AHM: Settlement Agreement, Special Release of Claims, Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Hearing and Proof of Claim Form.
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
13FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
SUSAN SILVER, ESQ. (CSB # 109910)ELIZABETH SILVER TOURGEMAN, ESQ. (CSB # 193114)SILVER, HADDEN & SILVER1428 Second StreetP.O. Box 2161Santa Monica, CA 90407-2161(310) 393-1486(310) 395-5801 (Fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs LOS ANGELES POLICE PROTECTIVE LEAGUE and JOHNROE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO, City Attorney (CSB # 126565)GARY GUESS, Assistant City AttorneyANGEL MANZANO, JR., Deputy City Attorney (CSB # 73889)JANIS LEVART BARQUIST, Deputy City Attorney (CSB # 133664)1700 City Hall East200 North Main StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012(213) 485-4511(213) 485-8898 (Fax)
Attorneys for Defendants City of Los Angeles, a municipal corporation, and BernardParks, Chief of Police
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES POLICEPROTECTIVE LEAGUE and JOHNROE, on behalf of himself and allothers similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BERNARD PARKS, individually andin his official capacity, CITY OF LOSANGELES police department, apublic safety agency; CITY OF LOSANGELES, a municipal corporation;and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
))))))))))))))))))))
CASE NO. CV 00-10811 AHM (AJWx)Assigned to Judge A. Howard Matz, andMagistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ANDSPECIAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS
///
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
23FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
///
RECITALS
In 2000, a number of police officers in the Los Angeles Police Department
(�LAPD�), and their union, the Los Angeles Police Protective League (�League�) brought
suit against the employer, the City of Los Angeles (�City�), a municipal corporation and
Bernard C. Parks, individually and in his official capacity (�Parks�). Plaintiffs brought suit
as a class action, challenging the legality of the LAPD�s �Brady letter� policy, under which
some LAPD officers have been informed by letter �that, because of .. previous or pending
disciplinary action, [they] will immediately be reassigned to �non-field related� or
administrative duties.� This policy had been developed in response to the Brady doctrine,
which requires the prosecutor to disclose material exculpatory or impeachment evidence
to the accused in a criminal prosecution. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
In the Second Amended Complaint (�SAC�) Plaintiffs alleged several causes of
action based on federal and California state constitutional provisions and state law. The
first four claims allege violations of 42 USC § 1983. The fifth claim alleges a violation of
Cal.Gov.Code Section 3304(b) (The Public Safety Officers� Procedural Bill of Rights Act).
The sixth alleges a violation of the California Constitution. The seventh seeks declaratory
relief and the eighth, injunctive relief. The SAC asserts that defendants� policy deprives
officers of property interests without due process because: 1) the City Charter and other
provisions create entitlement in officer positions and pay; 2) officer reassignments pursuant
to �Brady� letters result in pay and benefit reductions, such as the loss of a patrol bonus
and skill or merit pay; and 3) defendants do not permit officers to appeal the reassignments
administratively. Plaintiffs additionally allege that Defendants violated California
Government Code Section 3304(b) by failing and refusing to provide Plaintiffs with
administrative appeals from alleged punitive action imposed by the �Brady� letters.
Plaintiffs also allege that defendants� dissemination of a �Brady letter� to a district attorney
and defense counsel, without complying with statutory disclosure limitations, worked an
invasion of the officers� privacy rights in their personnel files and caused embarrassment
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
33FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
and emotional distress. Finally, plaintiffs assert that defendants sent �Brady letters� only
to �rank and file� but not to �management� officers and that this violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the federal Constitution. Defendants dispute each and every one of
these claims.
Had this action not settled, the parties anticipated substantial continued litigation.
The settlement was reached after extensive negotiations.
Had this action not settled as set forth hereinafter, the parties were anticipating
extensive discovery, a motion for summary judgement, and a trial in March, 2003 on any
remaining claims. These matters would have consumed months of continued litigation at
immense cost to both sides.
The parties hereby enter in the following Settlement Agreement:
1. PARTIES
This Settlement Agreement (�Settlement Agreement�) is made by and between the
named plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all class plaintiffs in Los Angeles Police
Protective League and John Roe, v. Bernard Parks, Los Angeles Police Department, City
of Los Angeles, C.D.Cal. CV 00-10811 AHM (AJWx) and the City of Los Angeles, on
behalf of all defendants. The named plaintiffs are The League, Fernando Cardona, Sonny
Garcia, David Jacoby, and Ronald Cade. The certified class under FRCP 23(B)1(a) had
been defined by Judge Matz as: those officers who have already received a �Brady� letter
and those who actually receive such a letter during the course of this litigation and whose
substantive claims would not be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 The �League� and �LAPPL� means The Los Angeles Police Protective
League.
2.2 �Plaintiffs� mean all of the named and class plaintiffs. The named
plaintiffs are: The League, Fernando Cardona, Sonny Garcia, David Jacoby, and Ronald
Cade. The Class has been defined by Judge Matz as: those officers who have already
received a �Brady� letter and those who actually receive such a letter during the course of
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
43FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
this litigation and whose substantive claims would not be barred by the applicable statute
of limitations. The parties estimate approximately 80 class members. �John Roe� is a
fictitious plaintiff and Plaintiffs have identified no new �Roe� plaintiffs.
2.3 The �City� means the City of Los Angeles.
2.4 The �Department� or �LAPD� means the Los Angeles Police
Department.
2.5 The �Defendants� mean all of the named defendants: The City, the
LAPD, and former Chief of Police Bernard Parks individually and in his official capacity.
Plaintiffs have identified no new �Doe� defendants.
2.6 �Class counsel� means Silver Hadden & Silver, 1428 Second Street,
P.O. Box 2161, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2161. 310-393-1486.
2.7 �Released Claims� means any and all claims for injunctive, declaratory,
ancillary, and monetary relief, including statutory and punitive penalties, under federal,
state or local law, statute, ordinance, Charter, Memorandum of Understanding, contract
common law, or any other source, based on the same factual assertions and causes of action
asserted in this Action, or upon any act or omission related to those claims, and including,
without limitations, claims for violations of the United States Constitution, the California
Constitution, Cal.Gov.Code Section 3300 et seq.(The Public Safety Officers� Procedural
Bill of Rights Act), claims for invasion of privacy, declaratory relief and injunctive relief,
and any other state or federal statute that was raised in this Action, relating to or arising out
of the �Brady� policy as set forth in the recitals above, including all claims of whatsoever
kind arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the defense or resolution of the action
or the released claims by the Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, �Released Claims�
does not include any lawsuits pending at the time the Plaintiff or Class member signs the
attached Special Release that relate to causes of action not raised in this case. �Released
claims� do not include any future claims which arise out of the procedures implemented as
a result of this Settlement Agreement as described below.
2.8 �Released Parties� means Defendants and any related parties, including
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
53FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
the City of Los Angeles, and all its past or current employees, departments, boards,
commissions, managers, retirees, and all persons acting in concert with it.
2.9 �Settlement Hearing� means the hearing to determine whether the
Settlement should be finally approved, as provide for below.
2.10 The �Action� means The Los Angeles Police Protective League and
Roe v. Parks, et al. CASE NO. CV 00-10811 AHM.
2.11 �Brady Letters� refers to the duty reassignment letters given to class
members between about 1997 - 2003 when their duty was being restricted because of
credibility related concerns. The earliest known date of a Brady letter is July 23, 1999. A
copy of such a letter is attached here to as Exhibit 1.
2.12 The Risk Management Executive Committee (�RMEC�) is an LAPD
committee chaired by the Commanding Officer of Human Resources Bureau. The current
committee is comprised of the Chief of Staff; the Special Assistant; the commanding
officers of Operations Headquarters Bureau, Risk Management Bureau, Operations Central
Bureau, South Bureau, West Bureau, Valley Bureau, Fiscal Support Bureau, Risk
Management Group, Uniformed Services Group, Risk Management Division, the Employee
Relations Administrator, the Chief Psychologist at Behavioral Sciences Services Section,
with the advice of the City Attorney. The Inspector General is an observer. RMEC is
responsible for, among other things, reviewing employees� performance to assess risk
management concerns and making recommendations to the Chief of Police for corrective,
nondisciplinary (as defined in Charter Section 1070) steps to address any performance,
behavioral, or other managerial concerns. This Agreement does not limit the right of LAPD
to change the name or configuration of this Committee, however LAPD agrees that if the
Committee is changed in the future, the Committee will continue to be comprised of
command level officers.
2.13 �MOU� means the Memorandum of Agreement, and any subsequent
Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Los Angeles and the League for the Police
Officers, Lieutenant and Below Representation Unit. The current MOU is in effect from
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
63FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
July 1, 2000 - June 30, 2003.
2.14 �Effective Date� means the date the Court approves this Settlement
Agreement or if intervenors or other parties file appeals, the latest of: (i) the date of final
affirmance on an appeal of any judgement or order of dismissal, the expiration of the time
for a petition for a writ of certiorari to review any judgment or order of dismissal and, if
certiorari is granted, the date of final affirmance of any judgment or order of dismissal
following review pursuant to that grant; or (ii) the date of final dismissal or withdrawal of
any appeal from any judgment or order of dismissal or the final dismissal, denial or
withdrawal of any proceeding on certiorari to review any judgment or order of dismissal;
or (iii) the expiration date of the time for the filing or noticing of any appeal from any
judgment or order of dismissal.
2.15 �Judgment� means the final judgment and order of dismissal to be
rendered by the Court in this Action , as provided for in paragraph 23, and substantially in
the form attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
2.16 �Command Level Officers� means Captains, Commanders, Deputy
Chiefs, Assistant Chiefs, and the Chief of Police, and their civilian counterparts.
2.17 �Agreement� or �Settlement Agreement� means this settlement
agreement of The Los Angeles Police Protective League and Roe v. Parks, et al. CASE
NO. CV 00-10811 AHM.
3. THE LITIGATION
3.1 This litigation was commenced in 2000 by the filing of the original
complaint. Plaintiffs have subsequently filed first and second amended complaints. The
Plaintiffs alleged causes of action based on federal and California state constitutional
provisions and state law. The first four claims allege violations of 42 USC § 1983. The
fifth claim alleges a violation of Cal.Gov.Code Section 3300 et seq (The Public Safety
Officers� Procedural Bill of Rights Act). The sixth alleges a violation of the California
Constitution. The seventh seeks declaratory relief and the eighth, injunctive relief. The
class has been certified by Judge Matz.
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
73FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
3.2 There has been no final determination by the Court as to the merits of
the claims asserted by Plaintiffs or Defendants.
4. BENEFITS OF SETTLEMENT
4.1 Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs� counsel have conducted discovery and
investigation during and prior to the prosecution of this Action. Plaintiffs have concluded
that it is desirable that the Action be settled on the terms embodied in this Settlement
Agreement. Plaintiffs reached that conclusion after 1) analyzing the factual and legal issues
in the Action; 2) determining that further conduct of the Action through trial and any
appeals that might be taken would be protracted and expensive; 3) recognizing and
acknowledging the uncertainty and risks inherent in any litigation; and 4) considering the
benefits to plaintiffs and the class members of resolving the Action and obtaining the
benefits of settlement as specified in this Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs and class
counsel believe that, in consideration of the above circumstances, and after arms�s length
negotiations with Defendants, the proposed settlement embodied in this Settlement
Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate and confers substantial benefits on, and is in
the best interests of the class and each of the class members.
4.2 The Defendants have denied and continue to deny all liability with
respect to any and all of the facts or claims alleged in this Action and expressly have denied
and continue to deny all charges of wrongdoing or liability against them arising out of any
of the conduct acts or omissions alleged or that could have been alleged in this Action.
4.3 The Defendants also have denied and continue to deny, inter alia, the
allegations that Defendants improperly released private personnel information to any person
or entity; that it denied any cognizable legal or constitutional rights to any class member;
or that the Class or any class member suffered any injury for which it is legally entitled to
relief.
///
4.4 Defendants and Defendants� counsel have conducted discovery and
investigation during the course of this Action. Defendants have concluded that it is
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
83FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
desirable that the Action be settled on the terms embodied in the Settlement Agreement.
Defendants and Defense Counsel reached that conclusion after: (1) analyzing the factual
and legal issues in the Action; (2) determining that further conduct of the Action through
trial and any appeals that might be taken would be protracted and expensive; and (3)
considering the benefits to Defendants of resolving the Action, including limiting further
expense, inconvenience and distraction, disposing of burdensome and protracted litigation,
and permitting Defendants to manage the Department unhampered by the distractions of
continued litigation. Defendants also determined to settle the Action after taking into
account the uncertainty and risks inherent in any litigation. While Defendants vigorously
deny the averments in the Action, Defendants acknowledge that the terms and conditions
of the Settlement were agreed to after negotiations between the parties. This Agreement
is not intended to limit the Chief of Police�s authority under the Charter of the City of Los
Angeles to transfer, assign, or discipline LAPD employees except as specified herein.
TERMS OF AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT
THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATION OF THE COVENANTS AGREEMENTS
AND REPRESENTATIONS SET FORTH HEREIN, NOW THE PARTIES
HEREBY AGREE THAT:
5. The City agrees that the LAPD will cease using the �Brady Letters� when it
informs an officer that the officer�s duty is being restricted for purposes relating to
credibility concerns. Instead, the LAPD will issue a duty restriction letter which simply
documents the fact that an officer�s duty is being restricted pursuant to LAPD policy as
described in paragraph 7 to inform his or her command officer of the duty restriction. The
long-term duty restriction letter will not reference any specifics of an officer�s personnel
history including, but not limited to disciplinary history. A copy of the long-term duty
restriction letter will be maintained in the officer�s personnel file. Any current Brady letters
or duty restriction letters will be replaced by the new duty restriction letter. Old �Brady
Letters� and any letters or orders rescinding these letters, will be maintained in files at Risk
Analysis Unit in the Human Resources Bureau, but will not be placed in the officers�
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
93FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
personnel files or files used for personnel purposes. This Agreement does not limit
LAPD�s right to change the name of Risk Analysis Unit, or Human Resources Bureau, or
to consolidate the duties of that Unit or Bureau with those of another unit or bureau.
6. The Department agrees not to initiate any permanent reassignment or
permanent duty restrictions when an officer has been officially charged with misconduct,
until after such time as the officer has completed the process of a hearing before a Board
of Rights, or has waived his or her right to such a hearing or process or any process which
may replace the Board of Rights. The Department may continue its policy or practice of
initiating temporary duty restrictions or reassignments pending the completion of the Board
of Rights process or waiver thereof. Upon an officer being found not guilty of the charges
which formed the basis for the duty restriction, the Department agrees to immediately
remove the duty restrictions placed on the officer and retract the duty restriction letter and
reassignment.
7. The Department and Plaintiffs� counsel and the LAPPL will develop a
mutually - agreed upon policy setting forth guidelines for determining whether or not an
officer should be subject to a duty restriction based on credibility issues (which will
reference the District Attorney�s Brady policy) or other long-term duty restrictions. This
policy will be read consistent with the terms of Penal Code Section 832.5. The Department
will implement and disseminate this Policy immediately upon its agreed-upon completion.
The newly drafted policy is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. Nothing in this Agreement will
prohibit the LAPD and the League from mutually agreeing to implement changes to the
policies and procedures agreed to herein.
8. Any time the RMEC subcommittee refers an officer to RMEC for review for
any potential duty restriction, the officer will be notified by certified mail that he or she is
entitled to a) a copy of all the written personnel information relied upon by the RMEC
subcommittee to refer the officer for RMEC review, as well as all additional materials
forwarded to the full RMEC, if any, and b) submit written correspondence to RMEC for
its review prior to RMEC�s evaluation of the employee for any potential duty restriction.
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
103FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
The employee may obtain the assistance of an on-duty Employee Representative as
currently defined in Section 10 of the MOU, a League representative and/or an attorney to
prepare his or her correspondence to RMEC. Written responses must be received by
RMEC within 20 calendar days following mailing of a copy of the written personnel
information by certified mail. The employee may request a waiver of this time limit for
exigent circumstances. The Department will act in good faith in considering the waiver
request.
9. When the full RMEC meets to review an officer�s record for a potential duty
restriction after reviewing the personnel profile and the employee�s written information, if
any, and the full RMEC intends to recommend a duty restriction for a period less than one
year for reasons other than credibility issues (a short-term duty restriction), the full RMEC
will notify the employee by certified mail of its intent and the specific basis therefor and
inform the employee of his or her right to provide a written response within 20 calendar
days following receipt of that notice by certified mail to the full RMEC (note: this period
may be extended due to vacation, military call-out or hospitalization or other exigent
circumstances where the officer is unavailable), with the assistance of an on-duty Employee
Representative as currently defined in Section 10.0 of the MOU, a League representative
and/or an attorney, for consideration by the full RMEC before making its final decision to
impose the short-term duty restriction. This will constitute the employee�s opportunity for
an administrative appeal pursuant to Government Code Section 3304(b) with respect to
duty restrictions for less than one year other than those that involve credibility issues.
10. When the full RMEC intends to either (a) impose a duty restriction for a
period of one year or more (a long-term duty restriction), (b) impose a duty restriction
based on credibility issues (a short-term or long-term duty restriction) or (c) to extend a
short-term duty restriction, the full RMEC will notify the employee by certified mail of its
intention and the specific basis therefor and notify the employee of his or her right to appear
before the full RMEC, accompanied, if desired, by an on-duty Employee Representative
as currently defined in Section 10.0 of the MOU, a League representative and/or an
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
113FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
attorney, to make a presentation. The parties agree that the presentation will be focused
on the employee�s response to the specific proposed duty restriction, and the reasons for
that duty restriction. RMEC will not revisit the validity of prior disciplinary determinations,
including, but not limited to, boards of rights determinations. The presentation may take
the form of witness statements (but no subpoena power), a statement by the employee or
documentary submissions. RMEC encourages the submission of witness declarations. The
RMEC chair has discretion to limit the presentation, including the number of witnesses and
the length of time given to each speaker. Once the appeal has been completed, the
employee will be excused from the full RMEC and will not be present during the full
RMEC deliberations. This will constitute the employee�s opportunity for an administrative
appeal pursuant to Government Code Section 3304(b) with respect to long-term duty
restrictions for a period of one year or more, duty restrictions based on credibility issues
or extensions of short-term duty restrictions.
11. The Department will notify the employee of the recommendation in writing
after the full RMEC has decided upon the proposed duty restriction and the Chief of Police
has approved the recommendation.
12. RMEC will re-evaluate all duty restrictions yearly. RMEC will remove the
credibility-related duty restrictions after a period of five years have elapsed from the date
of the underlying discipline or incident which triggered the duty restriction except in those
limited circumstances defined in the mutually agreed upon policy described above in
paragraph 7. The officer will be notified of the annual and five year re-review and will
have the opportunity to submit any new information to RMEC prior to such re-evaluation
under the procedures set forth above in paragraphs 8 - 11.
13. The procedures set forth in paragraphs 8 - 12 will not deprive an employee
who is subject to a re-assignment which results in a loss of pay (e.g.: uniform field
incentive pay) of his or her entitlement to request an administrative appeal of the loss of pay
pursuant to the Public Safety Officers� Procedural Bill of Rights Act, California
Government Code Section 3304(b), which may fall within the administrative appeal
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
123FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
procedures set forth in the MOU. The parties further agree that the appeal mechanisms set
forth above in paragraphs 8-12 do not preclude an employee who is subject to actions of
which he or she is entitled to appeal under the administrative appeal procedures set forth
in the MOU (i.e., transfers, etc.) from pursuing such appeal unless the employee elects to
challenge that action through the procedure described in paragraphs 8-12.
14. Nothing in this agreement shall constitute a waiver by any affected employee
or any other entitlement to an administrative appeal under Section 3304(b) of the California
Government Code (assuming one is mandated by that provision).
15. Within 45 days after judgment, the Department will notify class members by
certified mail who currently have credibility or other duty restrictions that they may request
reconsideration of their duty restrictions. Those employees will be entitled to the benefits
of the appeal procedures described in paragraphs 8 - 14 of this Agreement. Such requests
must be made within 60 days of the notification (note: this period may be extended due to
vacation, military call-out or hospitalization where the officer is unavailable), measured by
the post marked date of the notice. Those employees will be entitled to utilize the
procedures described above.
16 The City and the Department agree that documents made public pursuant to
Los Angeles City Charter Section 1070(y) shall be disclosed only pursuant to the
procedures mandated by Charter Section 1070(y), and as required by law. The Department
agrees to instruct employees that supervisors, other than any person designated as a
custodian of records under Charter Section 1070(y), do not have authority to release the
documents made public by Charter Section 1070(y) or the information contained therein,
and that they should not order subordinate employees to release the documents or
information. Long-term duty restrictions are not documents made public under Charter
section 1070(y).
17. The Department agrees to notify the Commonwealth of Virginia District
Attorney�s Office in writing of the decision reached by the Board of Rights in the case of
the charges against David Jacoby within 30 days after the Effective Date of this Agreement.
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
133FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
18. The City agrees to pay $350,000.00 to the class of Plaintiffs certified by Judge
Matz upon the effective date of the Agreement. The payment will be made in one lump
sum, payable in trust to Silver, Hadden & Silver for the Plaintiffs� class. The League and
the Plaintiffs have represented that the sum will be distributed to individual class members
on a pro rata basis in proportion to the time period beginning the first full month following
the date on which the class member was served with a duty restriction based on credibility
(i.e., a Brady Letter) through the full month preceding the date on which either (1) the duty
restriction was removed, (2) the class member was terminated from employment, (3) the
class member resigned, (4) the class member retired, or (5) Entry of Judgment, whichever
occurs first. Removal of the duty restriction will be deemed to have occurred on the date
that the class member was notified that he or she was allowed to work in a field assignment
or the date on which the class member was served with an order rescinding the duty
restriction (Brady Letter), whichever occurred first. The individual distribution will be
ascertained by dividing the $350,000.00 by the total number of months all qualifying
individuals were reassigned as defined above. The term �month� for purposes of this
calculation shall refer only to full calendar months, not excluding time that the member was
off on paid or unpaid leave.
For those class members whose duty restrictions have been removed as defined
above, a month will be counted from the first full calendar month following the date on
which the class member was served with the duty restriction until the full calendar month
preceding the date when the duty restriction was removed. For example, if the class
member was served with a duty restriction on February 3, 2000, and it was removed on
December 20, 2000, the number of credited months will be 9 (March - November).
Calculations for those class members who are no longer employed by the Los Angeles
Police Department via termination, resignation or retirement will be made in a like manner.
For those class members with current duty restrictions, their calculation will start
with the first full calendar month following the date on which the class member was served
with the duty restriction and will end with the last full calendar month preceding the Entry
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
143FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
of Judgment in this case. For example, if the class member was served with a duty
restriction on April 6, 2000, and Entry of Judgment was on November 10, 2003, the
number of credited months would be 42 (May, 2000 - October, 2003).
There are approximately 80 people in the designated class. There were
approximately 1515 total months of duty restriction among all the known class members.
Using this number of months, and the formula explained above, each �monthly unit� of duty
restriction will be worth $231.02. (The $350,000 common fund divided by 1515, the total
number of duty restriction months) That monthly value will be multiplied by the number
of months each officer was subject to the Brady Letter and/or accompanying duty
restriction as defined above to determine the amount payable to him or her. Under this
formula each class member would receive $231.02 x the number of months they were
subject to the Brady Letter and/or duty restriction as defined above. So, if, for example,
the class member had 6 months of duty restrictions, they would get $1386.12. The average
number of months that a class member was subject to a duty restriction is 19. Therefore,
the average amount of recovery utilizing the formula set forth herein would be $4,389.38
($231.02 x 19 months).
Class members, including named Plaintiffs must each individually sign the attached
release of liability prior to receiving any money under the Agreement. Plaintiffs who refuse
to sign the release will not be entitled to participate in the settlement monies. The League
and Class Counsel agree to ensure that only class members, including named Plaintiffs, who
sign the release receive monies from the settlement fund. Class members and Plaintiffs
who refuse to sign the release will still be bound by the settlement of this action, but will
not be entitled to participate in the common fund. Neither the City nor Class Counsel nor
Plaintiffsmakes any representations to the recipients about the tax consequences of any
such amount or any other amount paid pursuant to the Agreement.
19. The City agrees to pay $150,000.00 as attorney�s fees which were actually
incurred by Silver, Hadden & Silver, and paid by the LAPPL in the litigation of this action.
Silver Hadden & Silver represents that these fees were reasonably and necessarily incurred
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
153FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
in the litigation of the Plaintiffs� claims. The check will be payable to the LAPPL. This
money is in full settlement of any claims for costs or fees by Plaintiffs or Class Counsel.
(See Declaration of Elizabeth Silver Tourgeman in Support of Motion for Approval of
Attorneys� Fees, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for
Attorneys� Fees, etc.)
20. The City agrees to reimburse any class member who, when duty restricted for
credibility related reasons, was reassigned to a position which did not qualify for the
uniform field incentive pay or motor officer bonus, and as a consequence lost such
payments. These payments will be made directly to the officers by the Department. These
payments are in addition to the common fund moneys distributed pursuant to paragraph 18,
above. The reimbursement will be equal to the amount of the lost bonus(es) plus interest
at the legal rate. The payments will be made to class members based on the number of full
pay periods following the date the class member was served with a duty restriction based
on credibility (i.e., a Brady Letter) as defined in paragraph 18 of this Agreement, until
either (1) the full pay period preceding removal of the duty restriction, as defined in
paragraph 18 of this Agreement, (2) the full pay period preceding termination from
employment, resignation, or retirement, or (3) the full pay period preceding the Entry of
Judgment in this case, whichever occurs sooner.
There are approximately 21 class members who will be entitled to recover lost
payments under this provision. The average number of full pay periods each affected class
member lost a bonus based on the duty restriction is 35.38. The average number of full
months each affected class member lost a bonus based on the duty restriction is 17.69. The
average amount of monetary compensation lost attributable to the bonus is $48.60 per pay
period or $97.19 per month. The average anticipated reimbursement per class member is
approximately equal to $1,719 (35.38 pay periods x. $48.60 per pay period or 17.69
months x $97.19 per month). The anticipated total amount of reimbursement is $36,108.80.
This is a one time payment.
Class members, including named Plaintiffs, must each individually sign the attached
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
163FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
release of liability prior to receiving any payments under this paragraph. Class members
and Plaintiffs who refuse to sign the release will not be entitled to participate in the
payments pursuant to this paragraph. Class members and Plaintiffs who refuse to sign the
Release will still be bound by the settlement of this action, but will not be entitled to
receive payments pursuant to this paragraph. Neither the City nor Class counsel nor
Plaintiffs make any representations to the recipients about the tax consequences of any such
amount.
In the future, officers whose duty is restricted pursuant to the new long-term duty
restrictions policy referenced in paragraph 3 above may be reassigned to positions which
do not qualify for such bonuses as the Uniform Field Incentive Award, or the Motor bonus.
In such cases, the bonuses will be lost until such time as the employee is reassigned to a
position qualifying for the bonus. However, should an officer successfully challenge the
Department�s decision to reassign him/her to a position which does not qualify for a
uniform field bonus, motor bonus, or similar bonus, pursuant to one of the appeal
procedures set forth above, the Department agrees to immediately reimburse the lost
bonus(es) to the officer.
21. In addition to any other monies which may be paid to plaintiff David Jacoby
under this Agreement, the City agrees to pay $10,000.00 to plaintiff David Jacoby in
settlement of his claim for invasion of privacy. This settlement is not an admission of
liability.
22. This agreement is a unified document. The District Court does not have
authority or ability to delete, modify, or substitute certain provisions without the consent
of both parties. This settlement must stand or fall in its entirety.
23. SETTLEMENT HEARING AND ENTRY OF APPROVAL ORDER
Promptly upon execution of this Settlement Agreement, the parties shall jointly
apply to the Court in the Action requesting a Settlement Hearing and entry of the Approval
Order, which includes provisions that, among other things, will:
23.1 Certify the Settlement Class as being the class of plaintiffs previously
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
173FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
certified by Judge Matz.
23.2 Approve the settlement as being fair, reasonable and adequate to the
Plaintiffs;
23.3 Find that Defendants agree to notify class members of the Settlement
via an LAPD or City internal mail system. The City also agrees to notify class members
who are no longer employees of the Los Angeles Police Department or the City of Los
Angeles by regular United States mail sent to their last known address. Furthermore, the
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Settlement of Class
Action and Settlement Hearing and the full text of the Settlement Agreement will be posted
online on Plaintiff League�s website (www.lapd.net) and the Los Angeles Police
Department website (www.lapdonline.org). Notice will be sent to the Monitor appointed
pursuant to the consent decree (USA v. City of Los Angeles CV 00-11769 GAF), the Los
Angeles Police Department Inspector General, the presiding judge of the criminal court, the
Los Angeles County District Attorney and the Los Angeles Public Defender.
23.4 Provide that, on the Effective Date, all plaintiffs shall be barred from
asserting any Released Claims as defined in paragraph 2.7 against any of the Defendants,
and each and all plaintiffs shall conclusively be deemed to have released and forever
discharged any and all such Released Claims as against all of the Defendants.
///
///
23.5 Provide that Judgment shall be entered requiring, among other things, the
dismissal of the Action with prejudice and the release by Plaintiffs of all Released Claims
as defined in paragraph 2.7 against all Defendants.
24 STAY OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Pending final determination of whether the Settlement contained in this Agreement
should be approved, the Plaintiffs, either directly, representatively or in any other capacity,
shall not commence or prosecute any claims in any court or tribunal asserting any of the
Released Claims as defined in paragraph 2.7 by Plaintiffs against any of the Defendants.
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
183FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
The Parties further stipulate that this action shall be stayed pending the Court�s approval
of this Settlement Agreement.
25 RELEASES
25.1 Named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all Class Members, hereby
stipulate and agree that, upon the occurrence of the Effective Date, plaintiffs shall fully,
finally, and forever release, relinquish and discharge each and all of the Defendants from
the Released Claims by the Class as defined in paragraph 2.7.
25.2 Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of all Plaintiffs and/or Class
Members, hereby stipulate and agree that, upon the occurrence of the Effective Date, and
to the fullest extent permitted by law, Plaintiffs and Class Members, either directly,
indirectly, representatively, or in any other capacity, shall be permanently barred and
enjoined from commencing, prosecuting or participating in any recovery in any action in
this or any other forum (other than participation in the Settlement as provided for in this
Agreement) in which any of the Released Claims as defined in paragraph 2.7.
25.3 With respect to any and all Released Claims by the Plaintiffs, the
Parties stipulate and agree that, upon the occurrence of the Effective Date, the Plaintiffs
shall be deemed to, and by operation of the Judgment shall, waive and relinquish, to the
fullest extent permitted by law, the provisions, rights, and benefits of California Civil Code
§1542, which provides:
///
A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor
does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of
executing the release, which if known by him must have
materially affected his settlement with the debtor.
Also with respect to any and all Released Claims by the Plaintiffs, the Class
Members and Plaintiffs waive any rights or benefits afforded by any similar statute or law,
or principle of common law.
26. THE SETTLEMENT MONIES
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
193FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
The Defendants, the Released Parties, and Defendants' Counsel shall have no
responsibility for, control over or liability whatsoever with respect to the monies paid
pursuant to ¶16 hereof. The defendants make no representations regarding the tax
consequences of the settlement monies.
27. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
Except as provided in ¶19 hereof, each of the Parties shall bear their own costs, fees
and expenses in connection with the settlement of this action.
28. TERMINATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
In the event that the Court shall decline to enter the Approval Order set forth in ¶23
hereof, in whole or in part, then this Settlement Agreement shall be canceled and
terminated.
29. OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE SETTLEMENT
29.1 The parties acknowledge that it is their intent to consummate this
Settlement Agreement and agree to cooperate to the extent necessary to effectuate and
implement all terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and exercise their best
efforts to establish the foregoing terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement.
29.2 The Exhibits to this Settlement Agreement are a material and integral
part hereof, and are fully incorporated herein by reference.
///
///
29.3 The undersigned counsel represent that they are fully authorized to
execute and enter into the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement on behalf of
their respective clients.
29.4 The Parties agree that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, neither this
Settlement Agreement, nor any of its terms or provisions, nor any action taken or document
executed to carry out this Settlement Agreement by any of the Parties: (i) is or may be
deemed to be or may be used as an admission of, or evidence of, or to raise a presumption
or inference of, the validity of any Released Claim as defined in paragraph 2.7 by the Class
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
203FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
or Released Claim by the Plaintiffs, or of any wrongdoing or liability of the Released
Parties; (ii) is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an admission of, or evidence of,
or to create any inference or presumption of, any liability, fault or wrongdoing of any of the
Released Parties in any proceeding in any court, administrative agency or other tribunal ,
other than as may be necessary to consummate or enforce the Settlement Agreement or
Judgment. Nothing in this ¶29.4 precludes the Parties from filing the Settlement Agreement
and/or the Judgment in any action that is now pending or may in the future be brought
against the Released Parties in order to support a defense or counterclaim based on
principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith settlement, judgment bar,
or reduction or any other theory.
29.5 This Settlement Agreement (along with the Exhibits thereto) constitutes
the entire agreement among the Parties and supersedes any prior agreements or
understandings between them. All terms of this Settlement Agreement are contractual and
not mere recitals and shall be construed as if drafted jointly by all Parties. The terms of this
Settlement Agreement are and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of all the
Parties their heirs and successors. The parties agree that they met and conferred over the
terms of this Agreement and that they were represented by counsel in the negotiation of this
Agreement.
29.6 This Settlement Agreement may be amended or modified only by a
written instrument signed by or on behalf of all Parties or their successors in interest.
29.7 This Settlement Agreement may be executed in counterparts or by fax,
with each counterpart or fax signature having the same force and effect as an original. All
executed counterparts and each of them shall be deemed to be the one and the same
instrument. Counsel for the parties to this Settlement Agreement shall exchange among
themselves original signed counterparts and a complete set of original executed
counterparts shall be filed with the Court in the Action.
29.8 The Court in the Action shall have exclusive and continuing jurisdiction
over the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Settlement Agreement.
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
213FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
All parties hereto, submit to the jurisdiction of the Court for purposes of implementing and
enforcing this Settlement Agreement.
29.9 This Settlement Agreement (along with the Exhibits thereto), and the
rights and obligations of the parties thereunder, shall be construed and enforced in
accordance with federal law, and to the extent state law is necessary to interpret their
terms, with the laws of the State of California.
DATED: ________________, 2003
ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO, City AttorneyGARY GEUSS, Assistant City AttorneyANGEL MANZANO, JR., Deputy City AttorneyJANIS LEVART BARQUIST, Deputy City Attorney
By
JANIS LEVART BARQUIST, Deputy City AttorneyAttorneys for Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.
///
///
///
///
///
///DATED: ________________, 2003
SILVER HADDEN & SILVER
By
ELIZABETH SILVER TOURGEMANAttorneys for Plaintiffs LAPPL et al.
DATED: ________________, 2003
LOS ANGELES POLICE PROTECTIVE LEAGUE
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
223FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
By
ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ, General Counsel
DATED: ________________, 2003
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
By
WILLIAM J. BRATTON, Chief of Police
3FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
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
13FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
SPECIAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS
FOR THE SOLE CONSIDERATION OF ______________________________,
the receipt and sufficiency whereof is hereby acknowledged, the under-signed hereby
release(s) and forever discharge(s) Bernard Parks, the CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a
Municipal Corporation, and all of its boards, Departments, Commissions, bureaus, officers,
agents, employees and all persons that acted on its behalf with the relation to the subject
claim or otherwise (all hereinafter singly and collectively referred to as "releasees"), of and
from any and all matters, claims and suits of every kind whatsoever, based on the same
factual assertions and causes of action asserted in the Action of Los Angeles Police
Protective League and John Roe, v. Bernard Parks, Los Angeles Police Department, City
of Los Angeles, C.D.Cal. CV 00-10811 AHM (AJWx) and in full settlement of the claim(s)
asserted in this action. However, this Special Release does not include any lawsuits
pending at the time the undersigned signs this Special Release to the extent those lawsuits
assert causes of action which are not raised in this case. �Released claims� and this Special
Release do not include any future claims which arise out of the procedures implemented
as a result of this Settlement Agreement.
The undersigned expressly agrees that the release of claims set forth above extends
to all rights under Section 1542 of the Civil Code of California, which reads as follows:
A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor
does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of
executing the release, which if known by him must have
materially affected his settlement with the debtor.
The undersigned understand(s) and represent(s) that reliance is placed wholly upon
my/our own judgment, belief and knowledge as to the nature, extent and duration of said
injuries and damage; that no statement with regard thereto made by or on behalf of any of
the releasees has in any way influenced the undersigned in making this settlement; that the
foregoing payment is received in settlement and compromise of a disputed claim and is not
an admission of any liability whatsoever; that this Release contains the ENTIRE
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
23FDF3E75-0695-08C5D2.wpd
AGREEMENT between the undersigned and the releasees; and that the terms hereof are
contractual and not mere recitals.
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY DECLARE(S) THAT THIS RELEASE HAS
BEEN CAREFULLY READ AND IS FULLY UNDERSTOOD.
EXECUTED ON ______________, at ___________________, California.
____________________________________Plaintiff,
WITNESSES TO SIGNATURE:
_____________________________ _____________________________
_____________________________ _____________________________(Address) (Address)
APPROVED:
______________________________________ELIZABETH SILVER TOURGEMAN, ESQUIRESILVER HADDEN & SILVERAttorney(s) for Plaintiffs
"-'-' '4"rr- r -,-. TH - C F -.4 V,,-j-1L.:.Ol" ..1:. HIf UFPOLI<...:r:..I '.
P.E: O:'L:ERT;:, p.:SSllJ~ POLICE OFfiCE?, Ii
.TO .:.. NO'S-FiElD POSITION
-..0A compiain( in"estig~ti,or\ hlS b~tn adjudicated which alleges among OUler thin~s tnal YOll made', '"an inappropriaiecomrnent to a communit~1 member whil~ CO[1dllctill~ a tr;lffic Stop,' I consid~r' '.th~s~ to be I.'~r." s~riol.ls cha.rgl:s. 2. I.'iolacian or the Lo1\",'.Enfcirco:-nlent (od~ of Ethics- thl: Ccrev-alLies or the Los .,.1.l1g~les Poli~e Departmeni. and Departm,ent p.olicy, ' '. .,'::. "
As Chief of ~olice and pursuaI\t to m:,' autr:ori[~1 in Seccion 206.2 of the City Chill:1':::r. I &lm
as~igTling you,to a T1on-fi.:ld rr=lat:.d as5i~nmen(.. Your assignml:n~ to a non-'field reloiced cilpacit~.'is nec~ss;lI"]' in :order to ensure you are not place,d in a position "I.'herein y'OU \\'ill be rcqllired to
et-f~ctuate arreSLS, prepare arrest repotis or submit tcstimony in a court or law. 'r'ollr ;1ctions in'the abov,= incid~n( raise serious do~bts about :/our crec;tibilicy as a police officcr. [( may rl:quire a
; pros~cucar to reveal these actions by you to the defense in a c~niinal-prac~edii,g:. Should ~'au b~." .a \..'itness, any (E:stimon;1 ~/OU may provid~ in. a subsequent criminal cas.~ could si~niticantl::
damage or makc-i( impossiblo: co achi~ve a successful criminal proseCIJtioll, Th~sc conseqllellc~.sI,\'ould be lrtheren[I.Y unfair and detrimental to (h~ victims.
:;-ion-field duties means :/OU wi!.! not be' ass.igrtcd to an') positIon \vhich ".ould nom1all~'Sllbj~ctyou to ta.."'lng enforcement action. You will be assigned to an administrati,e posicion. Ple:lS-: be
.Qd\'ised chat in thc:= ev~nt chose administrati ~'~ du[i~s require )IOU ta ride in a City I.'~niclc;. ;.~shall [laC became involved'in any PQtic~ action unless a.human Life or seriousbodil;' inju~' is ac ' .5ta~~e and ather law enforcement perso[1.rl~1 cannot be summa !led t~ the scene in sufticicnt tim,c to.' .' co,
safe.:suard the \\'e!l~being o[thas~ in..'crlved, .' "
1 ' ,ThlS action'is i'T\ keeping~'i[h rhr:. mandate tqat rhe Department t:ff~ctil'el~' se,rI.:es the community i;
\,hil~ m.aintaining (h!: public's trust. It i3 t<?tally separate and apart from ~n}' discipline thOlt m'c1~.. i.-be result rroLTI the rc:fer~nced camp.laint investigation. '. ,'.
This ilssignm.ent and [hI: res~c[ions articulated her~inshaJl rem&lin- in e~'[~c( ul1til SLlchtime as '. ,, 'lh~ Chiefar.Palice.withdraws ic in. writing.
oJ-/!' (of.' .,-2-L:...: , .#dft/'..
-.BE.R:.~,AR.D C. PARJ<S DaceC:hicrafPolic~
i h.:rc:b:- ~o:l.l\oJ'~ l~dgc th31 I ha"c b~en s\;r-cd "'Ith ...copy of thIs ord~r.
f~- ,~:,'...,- --]., ".,- Scr\.:db,'O~I':
, ..
;.., , -.\ .C\n"I~1 i,~,...o. , J\a"~\~ $C1;tlan ,_., ' ..!,." .\
; rQP:-emploJ'~ "..Co, I$IQn;1 p"'tan".1 Fall1.r -.l Empll1:-.. Rcl~llon1 Al1mlnls'r:.I~r
- --l ~ ~ I. 1\,.- FXHTRrr '
,I :. ,. .I l. --, - ! , I.1,;:-, ' .-: PAGE. 'OF f-
!_~:--:- ~. J ..,.., ~
..
"
,'., ,I'
...I'
1 SUSAN SILVER, ESQ. (CSB # 109910)ELIZABETH SILVER TOURGErv'1AN, ESQ. (CSB # 193114)
2 SILVER, HADDEN & SI1 VER1428 Second Street
3 P.O. Box 2161Santa Monica, CA 90407-2161
4 (310) 393-1486{310) 395-5801 (Fax)
5 .Attorneys for Plaintiffs LOS ANGELES POLICE PROTECllVE LEAGUE and
6 JOHN ROE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
7 ROCKARD J. DEL9ADIL~O, City Attorney (CSB # 126565)GARY GUESS, AssIstant CIty Attorney ..
8 ANGEL MANZANO; JR., Deputy' City Attorney (CSB # 73889).' JANIS LEV ART BARQUIST, Deputy City Attorney (CSB # 133664)
9 1700CityHallEast. .200 North Main Street
10 Los An~eles, CA 90012(213) 4l55-4511
11 (213) 485-8898 (Fax)
12 Attorneys for Defendants City of Los Angeles, a municipal corporation, and BernardParks, Chief of Police '.
13
14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16 LOS ANGELES POLICE CASE NO. CV 00-10811 ARM (AJWx)PROTECTIVE LEAGUE and JOHN Assigned to Judge A. .Howard Matz, and
17 ROE, on behalf ofhiniself and all Magistrate J~dge Andrew J: Wistrich.others similarly situated,
18 .,
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT'19 Plaintiffs, .
20 v.
21 BERNARD P ARKS~ individuallY andin hi's official c'!Paciry, CITY OF
22 LOS. ANGELES police deRartrnent, apubliC safety agen~y; CITY OF L.GS
23 ANGELES, a munlclRal c:orpor~tIon;and DOES 1 through 20, illcluslve,
24
25 Defendants.
26. -..,
27 III
28 III E.Xlll»ri' =.;;;a~---",,"-
1 ":2'...,.v \ OF -::, )-p ,. UD :--
---
_I._.
1 .RECITALS
2 This matter came on for hearing on ,2003. The Court has "Gonsidered
3 the Settlement ~greement and Special Release of Claims. wi.th ExhibIts ,(the "Settlement" "
4 Agreeinent") and all oral and written objections, briefs, and comments received regarding
5 the proposed settlement, and has reviewed the entire record. Good cause appearing, !
6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
7 1. The Court, for purposes of this Jud~ent and Order of Dismissal of Action, adopts
8 the definitions set forth in paragraphs "2.1 through 2.17 of the Settlement
Agreement.
10 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action; the Plaintiffs, the
11 Class Members, and the Defendants.
12 3. 'The Court finds that the distribution of the Notice of Proposed Settlement, the
13 Proof of Claims and the publication of the Notice as provided for in the
.14 Preliminary Order constitutes the best .notice practicalJle under the circumstances
15 to all persons'within the definition of the Class, and fully complied with Rule 23
L6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitu~ion, and any
17 other applicable la,w~
18 4. The Court approves the settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement, including.."
19 each of the releases and other terms, as fair, reasonable, and adequate. to the.
20 Settling Parties. The Settling Parties shall consummate "the se~lement in,
21 accordance with its terms as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
22 5. The Action, and all claims contained therein, are dismiss~d on the merits and with-'
23 prejudice to the Plaintiffs and all Class Members, and this dismissal shall be
24 without costs to any party.
25 6. As of the Effective Date, all Releasors shall conclusively be deemed to have
26 acknowledged that the Released Claims include all claims to injunqtive;"-'; :
27 declaratory, ancillary, and monetary r~lief, including statutory and pUnitive.'
28 penalties urider federal, state or local law, statute, ordinance, Charter,
2 .¥XH1BIT -d_- ---'- PAGE a--- 0 F _3~~__-
;i""A' , ,i
-
.I I
1 Memorandum of Understanding, contract common law, or any other source, based
2 on the same taculal assertions and causes of action asserted in this Action, or upon
3 any act or omissionielated to those claims, which was raised in this Action relating,
,4 to or arising out of the "Brady" Policy, including ,all claims of whatsoe~er kind
5 arising out ot~ relating to, or in connection with the defense Qr resolution of the
6 action or the released claims by the Plaintiffs excluding any lawsuits pending at the
7 time the Plaintiff or Class member signs a Special Release relating to causes of
8 action not raised in this case or any fllture claims vyhich arise out of the proc'edtires!
9 implemented as a result of the Settlement Agreement.,
10 7. The Court reserves exclusive and continuing'jl,lrisdiction over the Action, the
11 Plaintiffs, the Class, and the Defendants for.purposes including: (1) supervising the
12 implementation, enforcement, construction and interpretation o~ the Settlement
13 Agreement, the Preliminary Order, the Plan of Allocation, and the Judgment; and
1 (2) supervising the distribution of the Settlement Fund:
1 .Neither this Judgment, nor the Settlement Agreement, nor any of its tenns or
16 provisions, nor any of the negotiations or proceedings connected with it, sh'all be:
17 (1) construed as an admission or concession by Defendants of the truth of any of,..
18 the allegations in the complaints, or of any liability, fault, or wrongdoing of any
19 kind; or (2) construed as an admission by the Plaintiffs, Class Members, or
20 Plaintiffs' Counsel as to any lack of merit of the Action.
21 9. The clerk is ordered to enter this .1 udgment forthwith.
22
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25 DATED:'1 'HE HUNOKAHLb HOWAKU MA'l'Z
26 United States District J,udge\ .
27 02410-pld.wpd '
28
" ~»IT 3-.) -~
PAGE'~ OF-3;c- --
,-
lyIErvlOR..:.J:iDUl'rl N.O. " 'j' .';i"!,~.j"';'"~Ji July 3 ?OO.J"-.,-
SUBJE.CT: LONG-TERlvl Dun' RESTRlCTION OF DEP.~TlVIENT Ei'YipiOYEES
This Memorandum notifies employees of the possible.legal and departttl.~rita1 consequences
relative to certain types of \:!.D.acceptable behavior; which mayor may not aniount to misconduct,
and the impact such behav.ior miggthave upon their career. The legal consequences of these
acti.ons may result in the employee being entered into the. District Attorney's Brady Alert
.:' SY$tem. The departmental consequences of these actions may result in the ~mp19yee being
subject to a Long-Term Duty Restriction Letter (fo~erly lmo"vn as a ~~oIf~tter). Both the.,~{~~,
District Attorney:sBrady Alert System and the Dep~ent's~.(/f".JY Restriction.,,~, ~~,-,011\'.';1.- -", .~!~~,
Po.licy ..'liill be discussed ~eparately herein. ~ !!{~t~'!i!!:~~ "!i;\\,:ili"
.-:,111'" ~,~...-' ." (", ',,;,"" I-." I."." ,,-,,"~ , ." c,"" ,"'"
'"I,," "
Note: An employee's i s~ ey's Brady Alert System does not..,
~I "
mean the employee "viII 'suE] ect .to a Long-Term Duty Restrictio~ Letter .
by the Dep :
, .,
-'~~.c -~"
~~~...,. ~', .~9\ ~..
District At "t1~'~~~'J;1'~dy J,r; SystemJ '¥;fJ:'." ~'~.~ ~,~
.'.."
Theca -,~ _,~~1f£i~"ofcase decisions beginning with Brady v.-Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (19f:i3)", ;;;'~jf)'" ,
arid in;cludin?i~ re Brown, 17 CaL4th 873 (1998) and Kyles,v. Whitley~ (1995), identified
spe~ific evide~ce:that prosecuto~ are required to disclose to the def~nse. This, evidence is
evidence that is favorable to a defendant by yirtue that it is either'exculpatory or impea'chin2
and is material to ~ither guilt or punishment. Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the ;
defendant and material to the issue of guilt or punishment. In others "yards, it tends to prove the
,-"
innoc~:nce pf the defendant. Impeachment evidence is that.evidence which the court or jury m~y' "'T;.i.
/oJ
L'X1ll:BIT ~ .
il'.\.{;E ~ ~-..L.Q--
.".. 0"" ," ~ ..
11.1.r,"lr.lLJ.r--~!.1l)Uii.I.!."1V. -.L- JUI.Yj1.LUUJ., , , .
crnsider in dclemli.ning the credibility of a ',vitn~ss dllringany matter [hat has any tendency ini
.re~on to proy.e or disprove the ~thful:ness of his/Iter testimony at a hearing which mclu.des, but
.i~ not limited to, anyone of the follo'vYitlg: : .
.His/her ch~racter for honestY or veracity or ~eir oDDosites: '
.The existence or nonexisten.ce of a ~ interest or other motive;
.A statement made by him/her that is inconsist~ with any Partofhis~~J~~timony; at the
he .~fJt,';,anng. A~\"ft;;t~!it1!i!....", "",;,:,...,.~~\i".~r~~:~a~";,
I!if.~" I,~""", ,, ., ~$~~::~;" ,"~'ji~'"
And finall "al .d . 11 ...,.I~., ~i~.- ..y, maten. eVI ence IS genera y provIded rFJj,~i~~~text of an appeal from conviction~
~~~~~~~~~'-~"Evidence is material if there is a reasonable ~,~b!;;~jgty ili~!1W[."'result of the proceeding would.~ ~.",~, "'<1"" "',"". ..;;".." ","" '"' ",., ,..i !!i~ -'~J~~ have been different had the evidence probability o! ~ different. } :
~- I~"'""outcome is sho'vvn whe~e suP2Fe~~~Unde~es the confidence of the o~tcome." 'i~k'i!""-~iii!r;-" \1~'"
..r,. ",iI"'"~ ~~\iE"'~:'~"'. .,.J"" w;!.. ~~~~ti-II!"~1! ,- ..Jfj1"' .~., :",- -j,~;!IL'"J!"- "
"'.~f2~~;;~~~"." "j..~~tJ~-'~ '-.' '" .'1.
In the Bra;tldY 'f-qi~-~E~bfl~~tI,ythe District Attorney's Office on December,7, 2002, the ..:'. .~!~,"1'I$o~~~,. -.\ ~~,"~":i'".., "'Ji .,,~
District ~~0~'!).I de~~iltes specific criteria Upon which if met. a D~artment emplo yee mav be.';"""_0.. .~~r". , -r ..:;:;.::.L.~~ ::. ;&.;,..~. ..
included in ':~i'Erady Alert System. The policy identified witness impeachment evidence as
any matter that has a tendency to prove or disprove the truthfulness of the individual's testirn~ny
including, but not limited to, any of the follo.wing:
1. False reports by a prosecution ...vito.ess.
2. Pending criminal charges against a prosecution ...vitness.
3. Parole or probation status of the witness; )
4. Evidence contradicting a pro.secution witness' statement orreports; ,.
5,' Evidence uride~g a prosecution ...vitness' expertise (e.g., inaccurate statements); .::".-:, :.
~ .E.'{lll:!l.lT _J-,.-'--
1PAI:;!i:---~::3- ':.OF __i~Q-
---
-;,~'"~~'IIII.I'II~I~I~lllllIlillc. ~.,.. ,"" 04 V~'" t.f, V U 1:1 -"': 1.lJU.J '
,C '. I,
-C
6. A finding of misconduct by a Board of Rights or Civil ?ervice Commission,tl-lat reflects
on the witness' tnlthfuLness, bias or moral turpitude;
7. E,vidence that a ,,'\fitness has a reputation tor untruthfulness; ,1
8. E vidence that a witness has a racial, religious or per~onal bias against the defendant
individually or as a member of a group; or.
9. Promises, offers oiinducements to the 'vvitnesses, including a grant ~{~wiity.-§~.,.~., .,.,.""'" .
...,eo".."~-"'\"~,!:~!1'"'ffu.,~=, '-,'-'
:5.~~ii~J1J!~i..," 4}$,t::~.'..~~~~-",~"..Department Long-Term Duty Restriction Policy ..'f-~'" .~"" -'~~'1~
~.. ~ '
Although the District Attorney's Brady Criteria 'vvillb.~~~Y~!~ consideration when-"'!'*""-;;:"'~j:!f¥" ~
deteanining whether or not; Long-Term Dub ;i.' estrictio~~1tt~r will be issued to a:DepaI:tment
employee, it is not the sole criteria for det For this reason The,
Dep~ent no longer usest~.ei,,!.;Bra ployed th~ tenn, ',~"'~'., "~",,,...:,;o-' ..' .
.." ~~~ ~~~ '.""'~.Long-Term Duty Resm-, ;Q~ime:~i~i~,mR)." Department employees should understand that""'.'.".--=0;.". "
..the, Chief 6fPq1i~'tfIl~:~ -1~~~ek to restrict an emulovee's dutY status for articulabie" ""'~'. " ,
, considers:' credibility issues. Tflis ability of the COP. to restrict an employee's.-, .
duty ,is can ~i,.~~Vl 574 of the Los Angeles City Charter and § 4.859 of the Los Angeles
City Administrative CGde(Authority 6fthe ChiefofPolic~ to transfer/reassign employ~es). For. I.: '
purposes Qfease and c;larification, Long-Term Duty restrictions for credibility and non- '.'
credi'i;>ility purposes will be dis.cussed separately.
Prior to the Chief of Police deciding whethe:r or not to issue a permanent LTDR, the facts ~, ~
,
sUiToun~g the involved emplo'yee's case and personnel history will be reviewed by the Risk
Management Exec\ltive Committee (RMEC;). ..:";"-. :.'. ..
£:allBIT .is ~'
I' .t\G ~ ~ 0 F _~_i:Q__-
." ..",.,"
~r.l.l'",lr.lUJ;'-'"3.l'.L)Ul~ll'l\.J~~~+:~',. ~UIY j LUU.,.;".to: ::~:!: '
This coffi.T11ittee is composed of management personnel selected b,:,' the Chief of Police.
Prior to the meeting of the full RlvLEC, a RlvLECsubcommitf.ee meeting will tak~ place to
cqnduct an in~depth review of the facts sunounding the employee's personnel history prior to a
meeting of the full RMEC.
.Any time the R1vlECsub.cqmmittee refers an of:fi~er to R.NIEC for review £ .:~y potential duty.
,
restriction, the officer is notified by certified mail ~at he or she is en(~: a copy of all the~~d~ , ;'° V:!,;". .
written personnel information relied upon by the R.NIEC suq.£($!Ibittee _.,_,oe officer for.~-"'" "I"~?;:..,.~ '"
R1vfEC review, as well as iIlI additional materials fon~¥i;f~~:~tl; full Rl~lEC, if any, and b)
.° ..'.f". '.'subInlt vvntt~n correspondence to Rl"\1EC ' '" PFI\19':Rtv1EC~s evalu~tlon o! the
employee for any potential duty restrictio ~~ ~ay obtain the ~sistance of~
"~.~" .:.on-duty Employee Representq.);1:~~~r~UIT.. ill SectIon 10 of the MOU , a Lea oC7ue,;~~w£_. ~"".
.A\" :::jj}~~~~J.~.' ...representatIve and/or a~-ffi0:mec' ;;fl:~,fipare his Qr h~r corresp,ondenceto RrvfEC. Wn~en
responsesm.~~ "EC within.20 calendar days follo~g mailing:Qfacopyofthe .
ott -i,.r"'"",," , b ofi d ' I Th 1 ' f!hi 'wn en p'.;J;_. c' lllj.fllJPatlOn y cern e maIo e emp oyee may req\;Lest a walyer 0 s tIme
.limit for e,. -0_" ~stances, The Department ~yiJl act in good faith in considering the ~aiv~r
request.
When the full RlvIEC meets to review an officer's record for a potentia} duty restriction after
reviewing the personnel profile and the employee's written information; if any, and the full 0, .
RMEC intends to recommend a duty restriction fora period less than one year for reasons other "."
than cr~dibility issues (a shQrt-term duty re~triction), the~ll RMEC will notify the employee by
certified mail of its intent and the specific basis therefor and inform the employee of his orher ."-.. .:." ."',. ~
, EXJill1IT _:~ --~
"3IIAGE ~ OF _LQ.-
.",1.1,...". " 11'"'11 ill;]lill.-
P
..' ". ,;.;1'.LLl'.J.V.L'.:"'~1A.JUlr.l.l1\J ~ii ,JUJ_Y J, LUU.Jt:"
,
, right to provide a written response withip 20 calendar days tollowipg recci~t ot- tl"iatnotice to the
full R..i'vlEC, with the assistance ~t- an on-duty Employee Repre~entati ve as currentl.y defined in
Sec~on 10:0 of the MOU, a Leagt,le representative and/or an attorney, for consideration by the
full R1\1EC before m~g its final decision to impose the short-terni duty restriction, '!Pis will'
..constitute the employee's oppo~ty for an administrative appeal pursuant to Government Code
Settio~ 3304(b) \~th respect to duty restrictions for less than one year othe~~.~nthose that
"it';:"..involve credibility issu.es" ..K£_!$.(., ;;!1tj'l\.=.. "~""~"""
,', .",\,!"r~,;." -~I'" ~-"4~"" -.", .,;?;:~'rf'
.-#'#~;~. '~iIJ'"'When the full RMEC intends to either (a) impose a d\:J::&~$!$ti6p for a period of one year or
,~.more (a l~ng-term duty restriction), (b) impo~~~,~~ty r~~~f~h based on credibility i~sues (a .
~"1' " "
.short.,termor long-term duty restriction) cr"a shQrt-tenn duty restnctlon, the full~C ...viII notify the emplox,;.,.fi ~;¥f!';" inteD,tion apd the specific b.asis therefor. l '
1.i~~1;~~. ~~.d "fy ~.~;.. .""~~!L~'iJ.t -t b fi th full "D~,rr::c accompam"eA 'fan no.n eI;"'~;"1"~Ji%~~:ga 0 appear. eOTe e .1'-.LY.I.J::" u.,l( .
,desired, by tRepTesentative as currently defined in Section 10.0 of the..
MOU, a": d/oran attorney, to m~e apresen~ation. The parties agi-ee that,
.,
the pTesent n the employee's response to the specific proposed duty .,.~". ...,~j1'"
.,
restriction, and the reasqns fo~ that duty restriction. RlvIEC ...vill not re-visit the validity' of prior
.disciplinary detennin~tions, including, but not limited. to, boards of rights detel"IIlinations. The
presentation may take the form of witness statements (but without subpoena power), a statement
...by the employee or docu:men~ary subprissions: R1vfEC encotlrages the submission of Witness .
declarations. The RlvIEC Chair has the discTetionto limit the presentation, including the number ~*
of"vitnesses and the lengthoftinle given to each speakeT. Once the app.eal has been completed,
.the employee ~~.be.excusedfromthe full RMEC and ...vill not 'be present during:fue full.RMEC. ..:.;.~ ::
L~T~-3-¥AGE 5 O"i / (J
---
V".J -', "'.lV..!
deliberations, This will constitute the employ~e's opportunity tor an adminlstrati\le appeal I
pursuant to Government Code Section 3304(b) with respect to long-tenD duty restrictions for a,
period ?f one year or more, dUPj restrictions based on credibility issues or extensions of
short-term dutY restric,tions.
The Departme~t will notify the ~mployee of the recommendation in writing:.~~r the full R1vffiC
ved the; ,"", ,.~. ..c
11 ",,~"o" duty restrictio,n';;'0'
d "misconduct included the.
Letter, wherein, the
gned to non-field duties
restriction letter "vould be,
yee's complaint -
investigation o,r Board of Rights hearing, This will no longer be the practice of the Department.
The Department ~l~ .not initiate any permanent reassignments or duty res~ctions when ~
officer has beenoffiqially charged with misconduct, until aft.er such time as the officer has
completed ,the process of a hearing before a Bo,ard of Rights, 'or has waived his/her rights to such
a hearing orprocesso The Department will, however, continue its practice of temporarily ,; ,
reaS~gI1;in~ empioyees to" non-field assignments if the ~sconduct alleged is so 'egre,gious that'
,,;;~~~ ,0: .
E.'\tll:& 1~ ~~:Z =--,.- -
P AGE ~ OF __';L~2-
...01".1 ,"jJJ.I:"~ CIJ IliIi*'i~illl",lilliJll&i' I
"I"~-;":' ';l'~ ,'*" c,~"';"" ' ...U'.' oJ} -UlJJ,r .?tfit1f,,; t~*
lcaving' an emplo:.fee assigned to field duties "..ould not be in th~ best in[er-:st of the Department
and/or the employee.
, In consideration of the District Attorney's Brady po~cy and the Dep8;rbnent's desire for its
officers to maintain the highest level of integrity, the following credibility related conduct
.'
m!~tibnafu committed on or off duty may subject an employee to a long-~~ duty restriction:
,J'::~;"'., "",*,~..,.,'.ii$;&...""..,, .' A~_:;;..
"Note: The be~o'vY listed conduc: IS not intended to be a~~~jIsh'~i~~.::..~hiefofPolicereserves the nght to deem certaIn types of employee.,~.ronduct cF~aIPil1ty related and as
.-:. ~"'ffl:'- ~~vsuch lInPQse a long-term duty restnchon for the ~ro'Le#'t- '
..~~~u;;:".*Dishon~sty; :~-~):;,*Frau~ (mclud~g but not limited to ban1<;ru~,W~~f:1"t~,d, msv:c-e fraud, real estate fraud);*Certam FelonIes; ~11;;~lz.Itrt;i:;:"",.. -.,-,.'*Hit and Ru,n Traffic Collisions (on or off~i~~:: ~,;.,.
.~Falsi.fication of an Official Docu~i,,"~nr:f!i t, in~~ I',.',,:gbut not limited to: ,.~.~ ." 3 -~..Cnme R~ort .1!;'~:~ ;,. ~9t' ,
-~~" .I'~ ~W'.;::;~~~~ D4~-~~- Pursuit, Use of F,orce, Complaint In~e~gatio~) 0' :
.DetecuveI~ww-.'irt (Form 3.14)" Traffic,,4if~.,s:,1!;,I;"';: e~.:;" on or off duty)~=... , oj ~ ~, :.S~~~~~ ~,:~' arrant AffidaVit
.J3fg.'~"Ileld if-wvities Report"~. ~.::;-". ,.Ove '- :" ~,":Jrps
.,~¥*False and JvIisleading'Statements (including statements to both investigato~ from ,vithin andoutside 'the Department).* Failure to rep.ortsenous $isconduct of,another Department employee or employees.
Non-Credibility..;Related Long Term D,uty Restrictions
Whenever a specific incid~nt or a pa,ttern of simil§,!: incidents presents evidence ofunac~ep.table ..,J
behavior, in addition to standard disciplinary practices, the Department must evaluate th~..
liability is~ues posed by the involved employee. This liability evaluation is conducted by the ;~'. .
, "~.,. :'RMEC, which prepares personalized intervention programs designed to either rehabilitate, an .'~
E~\.liiv1;f :3'. -~
P AGE ~ 0 j' -,,~~~:.-
, " ,JOOl""jl ~I.JII~II ""j~8I8;
-
.:'.., :,~"-""~'.
..employee's othenyise endangered career or mitigatc an:v.!iilbilityissues pl.es~nted by the
employee's continued employment. One of.the.mitigating measures available ~o the; Department
: is the imposition ot" aL TDR by the COP. The ~position of a L TDR will dTamatically inipactan
employee's career and should be avoided at all costs. Additionally, a Non-Credibih.rj"'felated
LTDR m.ay result from a single ev~t or an acc~unulation of~i!ni!M events involving any of the
follqwing: ",~ij,,-
.,!"~.i!;;'.~~{~~, * 1\ '1 1 nlTM. tud -"'~""~O!*~J.v. ora .~}'I e .A-ftf:i!;!$f~:;.* F I ;\7"~~4~~II~k.'" e ony drivmg.underfue influence. -.'~.'Ii!',;;'" "'.'f:~~»J\i;;.* Sexual or phYSICal abuse Qf women or children ,,~'f~ .yal;:?1?'* Pattern of.§~ 1M misconduct or a singular act of mis~~i;Jtic'~e,~t c~uses '*fsignificant risk to
the commUnIty, the Department, or the employee; 4h~~::'-'~: Internal investigatiops :equ~g duty r~st,nction to r~'~~bil~ty upon the c:ity;
Other employee behavIor that ill the OPill.l9:g~._t!1f? Chi~:fjS~*Pohce creates aruculable concernsregarding the employee's ability to perf;(;j~W~$fu~1~..d~
pblicln(7functions., i!\"'C' .,~ """""'j~.--J\;" :;J ..~'. ..~t'~tfiJr#~".i' .~.;j"'~JI~/t"'.', .. ~~'~""7 ~. .-.~."., ~.
jIj' fo)1£;:",.'... -' ~~~$j:!;. .~\:.11j"j.i\\~-". ." "
ReYle)v of CredIbility and ~~~~?Iblb~i:~elated J.,ongTerm Duty R~strlctions
..;~4;J;~~ ."""-: ~'~!Ii!'1'.[{~;1.~~!JJiThe Rl'/IEC will'revie"v1aD~fug~I~ml~t~:restrictions ona annual basis, Unless othenvise
..4'~P"I""'~~'_."~"'" " " .noted, the dur"t.1;~ntQI~~:i{)n~~~$' dun; restrictIon WIll not exceed aPenod of five Years from the ~11;?,;' 'i~,)':4ijf'. ~ """""," .J .-Id~ ';'~'~ ~~Ii': 'w"",.", '"", ~"~,, ...., .iI' --.~5 .
.date of t1('~j~g.ed a' ~~\i~ those caSes where the duty restriction Was imposed as a result of a'\\~, I -..,i*~' ..~' ..-'i"""J1{~;
pattern' of ~~.'aY" ~ misconduct, the duration of the long-term duty restriction ~.:!!Q!..
..~'{cee9c a period 0 f five years from the date that the long term duty restriction letter was signed by
the Chief of P_olice. The Chief of Police reserves the right to rescind a long term duty restriction
.: ..at any time if it is detenniried to be in the best interest of the Department and/or employee.
Note: If an officer's personnel records are sought by the court, prosecutor,- defenseattorney, or any o.ther er;ltity,the Department ~vill continue to follow cunent proceduresunder Evidence Code Section 1043 and. 1 070 (y) to ensure that all available measures are ~ .'t'aken to ensure that an employee's person:I1el files are protected as require_d bJ:' law. .
-;.."..-~.
-'
EAl"llbil' -3
PAGE ___2_- OF_1Q -.
""~"'"",11.L\.J"l...""1'.JJV11.1.L1 -t~ .JUl":! -; .::UUJ";*~i ,--- 81 .,
.It is important tllat em.ploy~es are tl'vVilre. that althollgh the D.tpartrncnt "viti in most cases release'
an employee fro~ a long tenn duty restriction after a period of fi'/e years, there 'vv'ill be those
extraordinary cases ,vvhere' a long-tenn duty restriction may remain ill effect for the duration of
the employee's. career. with the Department. Generally, these extraordinary cases .include, but are
not limited to, criminal misconduct on the part of the employee where the employee was not
"
.criminally.filed upon or/and convicted, or the criminal misconduct was :,~~ from a.felony tQ
a misdemeanor. .' ~II~ .,
,"'.' A~~~.~ ~ '\1"
4:~~;'-': ~~'CON C L US ION ~~'f~1,,~"t';/~-V;1~'
In S1.lmIn ary, ~ach of us is the guardian of the.,.~,e.n.artm~J~te~tltation. Our r ep utation is built~ ',"".", ~,. 'IIiI'~y: ;:,~~~~l"~il~~~'" ..:,. .~'
" ., }~~~.~~~;~~'I' ..upon a foundatlon ofmtegnty and professWEr$!}t ~~ij~~:f~' 'Every breach of professIonalIsm
,. ..".
i,v~akens the foundatio~ ofou :1i'_'A\on ah~~~shes the'public's trust in our law .', ':. .~-:" "1$' ,-;s~... ,
... ",-",. -~,- f!i!" .= -~- -
eIiforcement effort~ To~~~~i1fj~--;s trust and minimize adverse civii li~igatio~ the
.~'.De p artm~nt m~'
r;,;~-irf~~U;C'@S.Y"" to P lace an em p lo y' ee on L TDR until such tim~ as' the involved
'~,I :i)",""..Q~ ;~"'~ ' ,d~ ,'~"""J\i'"~ ~~ --,~'" ." -,,' 'rt:"J!!f~-' '1;\ ,tlikii" r
.liabili ty ls1'fiI:d~are re:~{jJt~bd. Therefore , one's dail y conduct both on and off-du ty , must be ..' .-". riI/""irP-'" ..,
", :;\;; :\ -' .~ .'.'., .~ ,
stellar. YOl"':;'~1;;..;~'et and the Department's reput~tion are based upon. the quality of your integrity .
, ' :
and performance. Should your integrity be called into question or the quality of your
., ,.'" performance fall to an',unacceptable level involving significapt liability, your career as well as
the Department's reputation could be temporarily or iITepa:rablydamaged. It is impo;rtant that .:
..you always ..dothe right thing,'; not only for the protection of your career but more importantly
for the protection of the community you serve. As was previously stated,all emplo,yees are .,f
reIninded of their obliGation to conduct themselves in such a manilerthat neither their credibility'" '.
nor their abili.ty to perform their duty is ever brought into question. !~..,' :..-~,. :
.
E.xlUUlT -3, -
.01 .
PAGE _1- OF __L~-
,Ii, ,~j,~", ,,"j"J.;iii,~1I
~"~"' ..6~~""h::~nm ...~
"""'"000 =""'~
-c
.
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES;\;;"i; 3. I .am employed i~ ~e Co~ty of Los .Angeles, Stat~ of California. I am over die age of 18
and not a party to the wIthIn actIon; my busmessaddtess IS 1428 Second Street P.O. Box 21614 Santa Monica, California 90407-2161. "
5 qn December 4,2003, I served the foregoing document described as SETTLEMENTAGREEMENT AND SPECIAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS o~ the parties in this action by placing
6 a copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:
7 Janis Levart Barquist, Deputy City AttorneyOffice of the City Attorney
-8 200 North Main Street, 800City Hall EastLos Angeles, CA 90012-4130
9I deposited such envelope in the mail at Santa Monica, California. The envelope was
10 mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of, collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited
11 with U:S. postal'service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Monica,California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware than on motion of the party served,
12 service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one dayafter date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
13Executed on December 4,2003, at Santa Monica, California.
14STATE I declare under penalty ofperjur)r under the laws of the State of California
-.(15 that the above is true and correct. ..
16 XX FEDERAL .1 declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this courtat"'Whose direction the service was made.
17
18 a II) ,
19 CYNTillA A. WILSON .,t(J U
20
2J
22
23
24 .
25
26
27 .
28
, , j ,...l
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
13FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
SUSAN SILVER, ESQ. (CSB # 109910)ELIZABETH SILVER TOURGEMAN, ESQ. (CSB # 193114SILVER, HADDEN & SILVER1428 Second StreetP.O. Box 2161Santa Monica, CA 90407-2161(310) 393-1486(310) 395-5801 (Fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs LOS ANGELES POLICE PROTECTIVE LEAGUE and JOHNROE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO, City Attorney, (125465)GARY GEUSS, Assistant City AttorneyANGEL MANZANO, JR., Deputy City Attorney (73889)JANIS LEVART BARQUIST, Deputy City Attorney, (133664)1700 City Hall East200 North Main StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012(213) 485-4511 (213) 485-8898 (Fax)
Attorneys for Defendants City of Los Angeles, a municipal corporation and BernardParks, Chief of Police
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES POLICEPROTECTIVE LEAGUE and JOHNROE, on behalf of himself and allothers similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BERNARD PARKS, individually andin his official capacity, CITY OF LOSANGELES police department, apublic safety agency; CITY OF LOSANGELES, a municipal corporation;and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
______________________________
))))))))))))))))))))
CASE NO. CV 00-10811 AHM (AJWx)Assigned to Judge A. Howard Matz, andMagistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich
NOTICE OF PENDENCY ANDPROPOSED SETTLEMENT OFCLASS ACTION AND SETTLEMENTHEARING
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
23FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO WERE OR ARE SWORN OFFICERS EMPLOYED
BY LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT AND WHO RECEIVED OR
WERE SUBJECT TO A �BRADY LETTER� BETWEEN 1997 AND 2003.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY
THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THIS
CLASS ACTION AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION AS TO
YOUR RIGHTS CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT AS FURTHER
DESCRIBED BELOW.
I. NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT HEARING
A hearing will be held on March 4, 2004, at 3:00 p.m., before the Honorable A.
Howard Matz, United States District Judge, Central District of California, at the United
States Courthouse, Room 14, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California (the
"Settlement Hearing"). The purpose of the Settlement Hearing is to determine: (1) whether
a settlement in the amount of approximately $510,000.00 as described below should be
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate to all the Settling Parties; (2) whether the Special
Release of Claims should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate to all the Settling
Parties; and (3) whether the proposed plan of allocation, described below, is fair,
reasonable, and adequate. The Court may adjourn or continue the Settlement Hearing
without further notice to the Class.
II. PURPOSE OF NOTICE AND DESCRIPTION OF LITIGATION
This notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
an order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California entered on
December 10, 2003. The purpose of this notice is to inform you of a proposed settlement
as described below. This notice describes the rights you may have under the proposed
settlement and what steps you may take in relation to this litigation. This notice is not an
expression of any opinion by the Court as to the merits of any of the claims or defenses
asserted by any party in this litigation, or the fairness or adequacy of the proposed
settlement.
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
33FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
III. BACKGROUND
In 2000, a number of police officers in the Los Angeles Police Department
(�LAPD�), and their union, the Los Angeles Police Protective League (�League�) brought
suit against the employer, the City of Los Angeles (�City�), a municipal corporation, and
former Chief of Police Bernard C. Parks, individually and in his official capacity (�Parks�).
Plaintiffs brought suit as a class action, challenging the legality of the LAPD�s �Brady
letter� policy, under which some LAPD officers have been informed by letter �that,
because of .. previous or pending disciplinary action, [they] will immediately be reassigned
to �non-field related� or administrative duties�, with loss of pay status and opportunities.
This policy had been developed in response to the Brady doctrine, which requires the
Government to disclose exculpatory evidence to the accused in a criminal prosecution, as
well as evidence which may impeach the credibility of government witnesses. See Brady
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
The purpose of this Notice is to provide a brief summary of the claims asserted in
the lawsuit and the terms of the proposed settlement. It is not intended to be, and should
not be construed as, an expression of any opinion by the Court with respect to the truth of
the allegations in the Class Actions or the merits of the claims or defenses asserted.
This Notice also describes what you can do if you wish to object to the proposed
settlement. If you wish to be included in the proposed settlement, you must complete and
return a claim form, as described below.
IV. SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMS AND THE LITIGATION
The named Plaintiffs in this action are the Los Angeles Police Protective League,
John Roe, Fernando Cardona, Sonny Garcia, David Jacoby, and Ronald Cade. The
certified Class under FRCP 23(B)1(a) was defined by Judge Matz as: those officers who
have already received a �Brady� letter and those who actually receive such a letter during
the course of this litigation and whose substantive claims would not be barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs alleged several causes of action based on
federal and California State constitutional provisions and state law. The first four claims
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
43FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
allege violations of 42 USC § 1983. The fifth claim alleges a violation of Cal.Gov.Code
Sections 3300, et seq. (The Public Safety Officers� Procedural Bill of Rights Act). The
sixth alleges a violation of the California Constitution. The seventh seeks declaratory relief,
and the eighth, injunctive relief. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants� policy deprives officers
of property interests without due process because: 1) the City Charter and other provisions
create entitlement in officer positions and pay; 2) officer reassignments pursuant to �Brady�
letters result in pay and benefit reductions, such as the loss of a patrol bonus and skill or
merit pay; and 3) Defendants do not permit officers to appeal the reassignments
administratively. Plaintiffs additionally allege that Defendants violated California
Government Code Section 3304(b) by failing and refusing to provide Plaintiffs with an
administrative appeal from alleged punitive action imposed by the �Brady� letters.
Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants� dissemination of a �Brady� letter to a district attorney
and defense counsel, without complying with statutory disclosure limitations, worked an
invasion of the officers� privacy rights in their personnel files and caused embarrassment
and emotional distress. Finally, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants sent �Brady� letters only
to �rank and file�, but not to �management� officers and that this violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the federal constitution. Defendants dispute each and every one of
these claims.
Defendants have denied and continue to deny all of Plaintiffs� claims and are
convinced that they acted in conformity with all legal requirements. Nonetheless,
Defendants have decided to voluntarily settle these claims pursuant to the terms set forth
below, because the settlement benefits both Plaintiffs and Defendants, and because
Defendants want to avoid further litigation.
V. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
The terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement are set forth in detail in the parties�
Settlement Agreement and Special Release of Claims with Exhibits (�Settlement
Agreement�), which has been filed with the United States District Court, Central District
of California in this Action. This document is available to the public to review during
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
53FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
regular business hours at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court, Central
District, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. BOTH THIS NOTICE
AND THE FULL TEXT OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ARE ALSO
AVAILABLE AT THE FOLLOWING WEB SITES: WWW.LAPDONLINE.ORG
AND AT WWW.LAPD.NET. The following is a summary of the principal terms of the
Settlement Agreement:
DEFINITIONS
THE �LEAGUE� AND �LAPPL� MEANS THE LOS ANGELES POLICE
PROTECTIVE LEAGUE.
�PLAINTIFFS� MEAN ALL OF THE NAMED AND CLASS PLAINTIFFS.
THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS ARE: THE LEAGUE, FERNANDO CARDONA,
SONNY GARCIA, DAVID JACOBY, AND RONALD CADE. THE CLASS HAS
BEEN DEFINED BY JUDGE MATZ AS: THOSE OFFICERS WHO HAVE
ALREADY RECEIVED A �BRADY� LETTER AND THOSE WHO ACTUALLY
RECEIVE SUCH A LETTER DURING THE COURSE OF THIS LITIGATION
AND WHOSE SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS WOULD NOT BE BARRED BY THE
APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. THE PARTIES ESTIMATE
APPROXIMATELY 80 CLASS MEMBERS. �JOHN ROE� IS A FICTITIOUS
PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFFS HAVE IDENTIFIED NO NEW �ROE�
PLAINTIFFS.
THE �CITY� MEANS THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES.
THE �DEPARTMENT� OR �LAPD� MEANS THE LOS ANGELES
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THE �DEFENDANTS� MEAN ALL OF THE NAMED DEFENDANTS:
THE CITY, THE LAPD, AND FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE BERNARD PARKS
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY. PLAINTIFFS HAVE
IDENTIFIED NO NEW �DOE� DEFENDANTS.
///
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
63FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
�CLASS COUNSEL� MEANS SILVER HADDEN & SILVER, 1428 SECOND
STREET, P.O. BOX 2161, SANTA MONICA, CA 90407-2161. 310-393-1486.
�RELEASED CLAIMS� MEANS ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR
INJUNCTIVE, DECLARATORY, ANCILLARY, AND MONETARY RELIEF,
INCLUDING STATUTORY AND PUNITIVE PENALTIES, UNDER FEDERAL,
STATE OR LOCAL LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE, CHARTER,
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, CONTRACT COMMON LAW, OR
ANY OTHER SOURCE, BASED ON THE SAME FACTUAL ASSERTIONS AND
CAUSES OF ACTION ASSERTED IN THIS ACTION, OR UPON ANY ACT OR
OMISSION RELATED TO THOSE CLAIMS, AND INCLUDING, WITHOUT
LIMITATIONS, CLAIMS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION, THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, CAL.GOV.CODE
SECTION 3300 ET SEQ.(THE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS� PROCEDURAL
BILL OF RIGHTS ACT), CLAIMS FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY,
DECLARATORY RELIEF AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND ANY OTHER
STATE OR FEDERAL STATUTE THAT WAS RAISED IN THIS ACTION,
RELATING TO OR ARISING OUT OF THE �BRADY� POLICY AS SET FORTH
IN THE RECITALS ABOVE, INCLUDING ALL CLAIMS OF WHATSOEVER
KIND ARISING OUT OF, RELATING TO, OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
DEFENSE OR RESOLUTION OF THE ACTION OR THE RELEASED CLAIMS
BY THE PLAINTIFFS. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, �RELEASED
CLAIMS� DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY LAWSUITS PENDING AT THE TIME
THE PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER SIGNS THE ATTACHED SPECIAL
RELEASE THAT RELATE TO CAUSES OF ACTION NOT RAISED IN THIS
CASE. �RELEASED CLAIMS� DO NOT INCLUDE ANY FUTURE CLAIMS
WHICH ARISE OUT OF THE PROCEDURES IMPLEMENTED AS A RESULT
OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS DESCRIBED BELOW.
///
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
73FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
�RELEASED PARTIES� MEANS DEFENDANTS AND ANY RELATED
PARTIES, INCLUDING THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, AND ALL ITS PAST OR
CURRENT EMPLOYEES, DEPARTMENTS, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS,
MANAGERS, RETIREES, AND ALL PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERT WITH
IT.
�SETTLEMENT HEARING� MEANS THE HEARING TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE FINALLY APPROVED, AS
PROVIDE FOR BELOW.
THE �ACTION� MEANS THE LOS ANGELES POLICE PROTECTIVE
LEAGUE AND ROE V. PARKS, ET AL. CASE NO. CV 00-10811 AHM.
�BRADY LETTERS� REFERS TO THE DUTY REASSIGNMENT
LETTERS GIVEN TO CLASS MEMBERS BETWEEN ABOUT 1997 - 2003
WHEN THEIR DUTY WAS BEING RESTRICTED BECAUSE OF CREDIBILITY
RELATED CONCERNS. THE EARLIEST KNOWN DATE OF A BRADY
LETTER IS JULY 23, 1999. A COPY OF SUCH A LETTER IS ATTACHED TO
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS EXHIBIT 1.
THE RISK MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (�RMEC�) IS AN
LAPD COMMITTEE CHAIRED BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF
HUMAN RESOURCES BUREAU. THE CURRENT COMMITTEE IS
COMPRISED OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF; THE SPECIAL ASSISTANT; THE
COMMANDING OFFICERS OF OPERATIONS HEADQUARTERS BUREAU,
RISK MANAGEMENT BUREAU, OPERATIONS CENTRAL BUREAU, SOUTH
BUREAU, WEST BUREAU, VALLEY BUREAU, FISCAL SUPPORT BUREAU,
RISK MANAGEMENT GROUP, UNIFORMED SERVICES GROUP, RISK
M ANAGEM ENT DIVISI ON, T HE E M P L OYE E RELATIONS
ADMINISTRATOR, THE CHIEF PSYCHOLOGIST AT BEHAVIORAL
SCIENCES SERVICES SECTION, WITH THE ADVICE OF THE CITY
ATTORNEY. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS AN OBSERVER. RMEC IS
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
83FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
RESPONSIBLE FOR, AMONG OTHER THINGS, REVIEWING EMPLOYEES�
PERFORMANCE TO ASSESS RISK MANAGEMENT CONCERNS AND
MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE FOR
CORRECTIVE, NONDISCIPLINARY (AS DEFINED IN CHARTER SECTION
1070) STEPS TO ADDRESS ANY PERFORMANCE, BEHAVIORAL, OR OTHER
MANAGERIAL CONCERNS. THIS AGREEMENT DOES NOT LIMIT THE
RIGHT OF LAPD TO CHANGE THE NAME OR CONFIGURATION OF THIS
COMMITTEE, HOWEVER LAPD AGREES THAT IF THE COMMITTEE IS
CHANGED IN THE FUTURE, THE COMMITTEE WILL CONTINUE TO BE
COMPRISED OF COMMAND LEVEL OFFICERS.
�MOU� MEANS THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, AND ANY
SUBSEQUENT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
LOS ANGELES AND THE LEAGUE FOR THE POLICE OFFICERS,
LIEUTENANT AND BELOW REPRESENTATION UNIT. THE CURRENT MOU
IS IN EFFECT FROM JULY 1, 2000 - JUNE 30, 2003.
�EFFECTIVE DATE� MEANS THE DATE THE COURT APPROVES THIS
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR IF INTERVENORS OR OTHER PARTIES
FILE APPEALS, THE LATEST OF: (I) THE DATE OF FINAL AFFIRMANCE
ON AN APPEAL OF ANY JUDGEMENT OR ORDER OF DISMISSAL, THE
EXPIRATION OF THE TIME FOR A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW ANY JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF DISMISSAL
AND, IF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED, THE DATE OF FINAL AFFIRMANCE OF
ANY JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOLLOWING REVIEW
PURSUANT TO THAT GRANT; OR (II) THE DATE OF FINAL DISMISSAL OR
WITHDRAWAL OF ANY APPEAL FROM ANY JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF
DISMISSAL OR THE FINAL DISMISSAL, DENIAL OR WITHDRAWAL OF
ANY PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI TO REVIEW ANY JUDGMENT OR
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; OR (III) THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE TIME
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
93FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
FOR THE FILING OR NOTICING OF ANY APPEAL FROM ANY JUDGMENT
OR ORDER OF DISMISSAL.
�JUDGMENT� MEANS THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
DISMISSAL TO BE RENDERED BY THE COURT IN THIS ACTION , AS
PROVIDED FOR IN PARAGRAPH 23, AND SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM
ATTACHED TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS EXHIBIT 2.
�COMMAND LEVEL OFFICERS� MEANS CAPTAINS, COMMANDERS,
DEPUTY CHIEFS, ASSISTANT CHIEFS, AND THE CHIEF OF POLICE, AND
THEIR CIVILIAN COUNTERPARTS.
�AGREEMENT� OR �SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT� MEANS THIS
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE PROTECTIVE
LEAGUE AND ROE V. PARKS, ET AL. CASE NO. CV 00-10811 AHM.
TERMS OF AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT
1. The City agrees that the LAPD will cease using the �Brady Letters� when it
informs an officer that the officer�s duty is being restricted for purposes relating to
credibility concerns. Instead, the LAPD will issue a duty restriction letter which simply
documents the fact that an officer�s duty is being restricted pursuant to LAPD policy as
described in paragraph 3 to inform his or her command officer of the duty restriction. The
long-term duty restriction letter will not reference any specifics of an officer�s personnel
history including, but not limited to disciplinary history. A copy of the long-term duty
restriction letter will be maintained in the officer�s personnel file. Any current Brady letters
or duty restriction letters will be replaced by the new duty restriction letter. Old �Brady
Letters� and any letters or orders rescinding these letters, will be maintained in files at Risk
Analysis Unit in the Human Resources Bureau, but will not be placed in the officers�
personnel files or files used for personnel purposes. The Agreement does not limit LAPD�s
right to change the name of Risk Analysis Unit, or Human Resources Bureau, or to
consolidate the duties of that Unit or Bureau with those of another unit or bureau. (SEE
PARAGRAPH 5 OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.)
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
103FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
2. The Department agrees not to initiate any permanent reassignment or
permanent duty restrictions when an officer has been officially charged with misconduct,
until after such time as the officer has completed the process of a hearing before a Board
of Rights, or has waived his or her right to such a hearing or process or any process which
may replace the Board of Rights. The Department may continue its policy or practice of
initiating temporary duty restrictions or reassignments pending the completion of the Board
of Rights process or waiver thereof. Upon an officer being found not guilty of the charges
which formed the basis for the duty restriction, the Department agrees to immediately
remove the duty restrictions placed on the officer and retract the duty restriction letter and
reassignment. (SEE PARAGRAPH 6 OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.)
3. The Department and Plaintiffs� counsel and the LAPPL will develop a
mutually - agreed upon policy setting forth guidelines for determining whether or not an
officer should be subject to a duty restriction based on credibility issues (which will
reference the District Attorney�s Brady policy) or other long-term duty restrictions. This
policy will be read consistent with the terms of Penal Code Section 832.5. The Department
will implement and disseminate this Policy immediately upon its agreed-upon completion.
The newly drafted policy IS ATTACHED TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
as Exhibit 3. Nothing in the Agreement will prohibit the LAPD and the League from
mutually agreeing to implement changes to the policies and procedures agreed to herein.
(SEE PARAGRAPH 7 OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.)
4. Any time the RMEC subcommittee refers an officer to RMEC for review for
any potential duty restriction, the officer will be notified by certified mail that he or she is
entitled to a) a copy of all the written personnel information relied upon by the RMEC
subcommittee to refer the officer for RMEC review, as well as all additional materials
forwarded to the full RMEC, if any, and b) submit written correspondence to RMEC for
its review prior to RMEC�s evaluation of the employee for any potential duty restriction.
The employee may obtain the assistance of an on-duty Employee Representative as
currently defined in Section 10 of the MOU, a League representative and/or an attorney to
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
113FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
prepare his or her correspondence to RMEC. Written responses must be received by
RMEC within 20 calendar days following mailing of a copy of the written personnel
information by certified mail. The employee may request a waiver of this time limit for
exigent circumstances. The Department will act in good faith in considering the waiver
request. (SEE PARAGRAPH 8 OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.)
5. When the full RMEC meets to review an officer�s record for a potential duty
restriction after reviewing the personnel profile and the employee�s written information, if
any, and the full RMEC intends to recommend a duty restriction for a period less than one
year for reasons other than credibility issues (a short-term duty restriction), the full RMEC
will notify the employee by certified mail of its intent and the specific basis therefor and
inform the employee of his or her right to provide a written response within 20 calendar
days following receipt of that notice by certified mail to the full RMEC (note: this period
may be extended due to vacation, military call-out or hospitalization or other exigent
circumstances where the officer is unavailable), with the assistance of an on-duty Employee
Representative as currently defined in Section 10.0 of the MOU, a League representative
and/or an attorney, for consideration by the full RMEC before making its final decision to
impose the short-term duty restriction. This will constitute the employee�s opportunity for
an administrative appeal pursuant to Government Code Section 3304(b) with respect to
duty restrictions for less than one year other than those that involve credibility issues.
(SEE PARAGRAPH 9 OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.)
6. When the full RMEC intends to either (a) impose a duty restriction for a
period of one year or more (a long-term duty restriction), (b) impose a duty restriction
based on credibility issues (a short-term or long-term duty restriction) or (c) to extend a
short-term duty restriction, the full RMEC will notify the employee by certified mail of its
intention and the specific basis therefor and notify the employee of his or her right to appear
before the full RMEC, accompanied, if desired, by an on-duty Employee Representative
as currently defined in Section 10.0 of the MOU, a League representative and/or an
attorney, to make a presentation. The parties agree that the presentation will be focused
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
123FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
on the employee�s response to the specific proposed duty restriction, and the reasons for
that duty restriction. RMEC will not revisit the validity of prior disciplinary determinations,
including, but not limited to, boards of rights determinations. The presentation may take
the form of witness statements (but no subpoena power), a statement by the employee or
documentary submissions. RMEC encourages the submission of witness declarations. The
RMEC chair has discretion to limit the presentation, including the number of witnesses and
the length of time given to each speaker. Once the appeal has been completed, the
employee will be excused from the full RMEC and will not be present during the full
RMEC deliberations. This will constitute the employee�s opportunity for an administrative
appeal pursuant to Government Code Section 3304(b) with respect to long-term duty
restrictions for a period of one year or more, duty restrictions based on credibility issues
or extensions of short-term duty restrictions. (SEE PARAGRAPH 10 OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.)
7. The Department will notify the employee of the recommendation in writing
after the full RMEC has decided upon the proposed duty restriction and the Chief of Police
has approved the recommendation. (SEE PARAGRAPH 11 OF SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT.)
8. RMEC will re-evaluate all duty restrictions yearly. RMEC will remove the
credibility-related duty restrictions after a period of five years have elapsed from the date
of the underlying discipline or incident which triggered the duty restriction except in those
limited circumstances defined in the mutually agreed upon policy described above in
paragraph 7. The officer will be notified of the annual and five year re-review and will
have the opportunity to submit any new information to RMEC prior to such re-evaluation
under the procedures set forth above in paragraphs 4 - 7. SEE PARAGRAPH 12 OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.)
///
9. The procedures set forth in paragraphs 4 - 7 will not deprive an employee who
is subject to a re-assignment which results in a loss of pay (e.g.: uniform field incentive
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
133FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
pay) of his or her entitlement to request an administrative appeal of the loss of pay pursuant
to the Public Safety Officers� Procedural Bill of Rights Act, California Government Code
Section 3304(b), which may fall within the administrative appeal procedures set forth in the
MOU. The parties further agree that the appeal mechanisms set forth above in paragraphs
4-7 do not preclude an employee who is subject to actions of which he or she is entitled to
appeal under the administrative appeal procedures set forth in the MOU (i.e., transfers,
etc.) from pursuing such appeal unless the employee elects to challenge that action through
the procedure described in paragraphs 4-7. (SEE PARAGRAPH 13 OF SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT.)
10. Nothing in the agreement shall constitute a waiver by any affected employee
or any other entitlement to an administrative appeal under Section 3304(b) of the California
Government Code (assuming one is mandated by that provision). SEE PARAGRAPH 14
OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.)
11. Within 45 days after judgment, the Department will notify class members by
certified mail who currently have credibility or other duty restrictions that they may request
reconsideration of their duty restrictions. Those employees will be entitled to the benefits
of the appeal procedures described in paragraphs 4 - 10 of the Agreement. Such requests
must be made within 60 days of the notification (note: this period may be extended due to
vacation, military call-out or hospitalization where the officer is unavailable), measured by
the post marked date of the notice. Those employees will be entitled to utilize the
procedures described above. (SEE PARAGRAPH 15 OF SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT.)
12 The City and the Department agree that documents made public pursuant to
Los Angeles City Charter Section 1070(y) shall be disclosed only pursuant to the
procedures mandated by Charter Section 1070(y), and as required by law. The Department
agrees to instruct employees that supervisors, other than any person designated as a
custodian of records under Charter Section 1070(y), do not have authority to release the
documents made public by Charter Section 1070(y) or the information contained therein,
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
143FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
and that they should not order subordinate employees to release the documents or
information. Long-term duty restrictions are not documents made public under Charter
section 1070(y). (SEE PARAGRAPH 16 OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.)
13. The Department agrees to notify the Commonwealth of Virginia District
Attorney�s Office in writing of the decision reached by the Board of Rights in the case of
the charges against David Jacoby within 30 days after the Effective Date of the Agreement.
(SEE PARAGRAPH 17 OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.)
14. The City agrees to pay $350,000.00 to the class of Plaintiffs certified by Judge
Matz upon the effective date of the Agreement. The payment will be made in one lump
sum, payable in trust to Silver, Hadden & Silver for the Plaintiffs� class. The League and
the Plaintiffs have represented that the sum will be distributed to individual class members
on a pro rata basis in proportion to the time period BEGINNING THE FIRST FULL
MONTH FOLLOWING THE DATE ON WHICH THE CLASS MEMBER WAS
SERVED WITH A DUTY RESTRICTION BASED ON CREDIBILITY (I.E., A
BRADY LETTER) THROUGH THE FULL MONTH PRECEDING THE DATE
ON WHICH EITHER (1) THE DUTY RESTRICTION WAS REMOVED, (2) THE
CLASS MEMBER WAS TERMINATED FROM EMPLOYMENT, (3) THE CLASS
MEMBER RESIGNED, (4) THE CLASS MEMBER RETIRED, OR (5) ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. REMOVAL OF THE DUTY
RESTRICTION WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE OCCURRED ON THE DATE
THAT THE CLASS MEMBER WAS NOTIFIED THAT HE OR SHE WAS
ALLOWED TO WORK IN A FIELD ASSIGNMENT OR THE DATE ON WHICH
THE CLASS MEMBER WAS SERVED WITH AN ORDER RESCINDING THE
DUTY RESTRICTION (BRADY LETTER), WHICHEVER OCCURRED FIRST.
The individual distribution will be ascertained by dividing the $350,000.00 by the total
number of months all qualifying individuals were reassigned AS DEFINED ABOVE.
THE TERM �MONTH� FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CALCULATION SHALL
REFER ONLY TO FULL CALENDAR MONTHS, NOT EXCLUDING TIME
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
153FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
THAT THE MEMBER WAS OFF ON PAID OR UNPAID LEAVE.
FOR THOSE CLASS MEMBERS WHOSE DUTY RESTRICTIONS HAVE
BEEN REMOVED AS DEFINED ABOVE, A MONTH WILL BE COUNTED
FROM THE FIRST FULL CALENDAR MONTH FOLLOWING THE DATE ON
WHICH THE CLASS MEMBER WAS SERVED WITH THE DUTY
RESTRICTION UNTIL THE FULL CALENDAR MONTH PRECEDING THE
DATE WHEN THE DUTY RESTRICTION WAS REMOVED. FOR EXAMPLE,
IF THE CLASS MEMBER WAS SERVED WITH A DUTY RESTRICTION ON
FEBRUARY 3, 2000, AND IT WAS REMOVED ON DECEMBER 20, 2000, THE
NUMBER OF CREDITED MONTHS WILL BE 9 (MARCH - NOVEMBER).
CALCULATIONS FOR THOSE CLASS MEMBERS WHO ARE NO LONGER
EMPLOYED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT VIA
TERMINATION, RESIGNATION OR RETIREMENT WILL BE MADE IN A
LIKE MANNER.
FOR THOSE CLASS MEMBERS WITH CURRENT DUTY
RESTRICTIONS, THEIR CALCULATION WILL START WITH THE FIRST
FULL CALENDAR MONTH FOLLOWING THE DATE ON WHICH THE CLASS
MEMBER WAS SERVED WITH THE DUTY RESTRICTION AND WILL END
WITH THE LAST FULL CALENDAR MONTH PRECEDING THE ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE CLASS MEMBER WAS
SERVED WITH A DUTY RESTRICTION ON APRIL 6, 2000, AND ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT WAS ON NOVEMBER 10, 2003, THE NUMBER OF CREDITED
MONTHS WOULD BE 42 (MAY, 2000 - OCTOBER, 2003).
///
THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 80 PEOPLE IN THE DESIGNATED
CLASS. THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 1515 TOTAL MONTHS OF DUTY
RESTRICTION AMONG ALL THE KNOWN CLASS MEMBERS. USING THIS
NUMBER OF MONTHS, AND THE FORMULA EXPLAINED ABOVE, EACH
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
163FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
�MONTHLY UNIT� OF DUTY RESTRICTION WILL BE WORTH $231.02.
(THE $350,000 COMMON FUND DIVIDED BY 1515, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
DUTY RESTRICTION MONTHS.) That monthly value will be multiplied by the
number of months each officer was SUBJECT TO THE BRADY LETTER AND/OR
ACCOMPANYING DUTY RESTRICTION AS DEFINED ABOVE to determine the
amount payable to him or her. UNDER THIS FORMULA EACH CLASS MEMBER
WOULD RECEIVE $231.02 X THE NUMBER OF MONTHS THEY WERE
SUBJECT TO THE BRADY LETTER AND/OR DUTY RESTRICTION AS
DEFINED ABOVE. SO, IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CLASS MEMBER HAD 6
MONTHS OF DUTY RESTRICTIONS, THEY WOULD GET $1386.12. THE
AVERAGE NUMBER OF MONTHS THAT A CLASS MEMBER WAS SUBJECT
TO A DUTY RESTRICTION IS 19. THEREFORE, THE AVERAGE AMOUNT
OF RECOVERY UTILIZING THE FORMULA SET FORTH HEREIN WOULD
BE $4,389.38 ($231.02 X 19 MONTHS).
Class members, including named Plaintiffs must each individually sign the attached
release of liability prior to receiving any money under the Agreement. Plaintiffs who refuse
to sign the release will not be entitled to participate in the settlement monies. The League
and Class Counsel agree to ensure that only CLASS MEMBERS, INCLUDING
NAMED PLAINTIFFS, who sign the release receive monies from the settlement fund.
CLASS MEMBERS AND PLAINTIFFS WHO REFUSE TO SIGN THE RELEASE
WILL STILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION, BUT
WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMON FUND.
NEITHER the City NOR CLASS COUNSEL NOR PLAINTIFFS makes ANY
representations to the recipients about the tax consequences of any such amount or any
other amount paid pursuant to the Agreement. (SEE PARAGRAPH 18 OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.)
15. The City agrees to pay $150,000.00 as attorney�s fees which were actually
incurred by Silver, Hadden & Silver, and paid by the LAPPL in the litigation of this action.
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
173FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
Silver Hadden & Silver represents that these fees were reasonably and necessarily incurred
in the litigation of the plaintiffs� claims. The check will be payable to the LAPPL. This
money is in full settlement of any claims for costs or fees by Plaintiffs or Class Counsel.
(SEE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
ATTORNEYS� FEES PAID PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,
DECLARATIONS OF ELIZABETH SILVER TOURGEMAN, SUSAN SILVER
AND PAUL CROST IN SUPPORT THEREOF) (SEE PARAGRAPH 19 OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.)
16. The City agrees to reimburse any class member who, when duty restricted for
credibility related reasons, was reassigned to a position which did not qualify for the
uniform field incentive pay or motor officer bonus, and as a consequence lost such
payments. These payments will be made directly to the officers by the Department.
THESE PAYMENTS ARE IN ADDITION TO THE COMMON FUND MONEYS
DISTRIBUTED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 14, ABOVE. The reimbursement
will be equal to the amount of the lost bonus(es) plus interest at the legal rate. THE
PAYMENTS WILL BE MADE TO CLASS MEMBERS BASED ON THE
NUMBER OF FULL PAY PERIODS FOLLOWING THE DATE THE CLASS
MEMBER WAS SERVED WITH A DUTY RESTRICTION BASED ON
CREDIBILITY (I.E., A BRADY LETTER) AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH 14 OF
THE AGREEMENT, UNTIL EITHER (1) THE FULL PAY PERIOD PRECEDING
REMOVAL OF THE DUTY RESTRICTION, AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH 14
OF THE AGREEMENT, (2) THE FULL PAY PERIOD PRECEDING
TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT, RESIGNATION, OR RETIREMENT,
OR (3) THE FULL PAY PERIOD PRECEDING THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN
THIS CASE, WHICHEVER OCCURS SOONER.
THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 21 CLASS MEMBERS WHO WILL BE
ENTITLED TO RECOVER LOST PAYMENTS UNDER THIS PROVISION. THE
AVERAGE NUMBER OF FULL PAY PERIODS EACH AFFECTED CLASS
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
183FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
MEMBER LOST A BONUS BASED ON THE DUTY RESTRICTION IS 35.38.
THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF FULL MONTHS EACH AFFECTED CLASS
MEMBER LOST A BONUS BASED ON THE DUTY RESTRICTION IS 17.69.
THE AVERAGE AMOUNT OF MONETARY COMPENSATION LOST
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BONUS IS $48.60 PER PAY PERIOD OR $97.19 PER
MONTH. THE AVERAGE ANTICIPATED REIMBURSEMENT PER CLASS
MEMBER IS APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO $1,719 (35.38 PAY PERIODS X.
$48.60 PER PAY PERIOD OR 17.69 MONTHS X $97.19 PER MONTH). THE
ANTICIPATED TOTAL AMOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT IS $36,108.80. This
is a one time payment.
CLASS MEMBERS, INCLUDING NAMED PLAINTIFFS, MUST EACH
INDIVIDUALLY SIGN THE ATTACHED RELEASE OF LIABILITY PRIOR TO
RECEIVING ANY PAYMENTS UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH. CLASS
MEMBERS AND PLAINTIFFS WHO REFUSE TO SIGN THE RELEASE WILL
NOT BE ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PAYMENTS PURSUANT TO
THIS PARAGRAPH. CLASS MEMBERS AND PLAINTIFFS WHO REFUSE TO
SIGN THE RELEASE WILL STILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT OF
THIS ACTION, BUT WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE PAYMENTS
PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH. NEITHER THE CITY NOR CLASS
COUNSEL NOR PLAINTIFFS MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS TO THE
RECIPIENTS ABOUT THE TAX CONSEQUENCES OF ANY SUCH AMOUNT.
In the future, officers whose duty is restricted pursuant to the new long-term duty
restrictions policy referenced in paragraph 3 above may be reassigned to positions which
do not qualify for such bonuses as the Uniform Field Incentive Award, or the Motor bonus.
In such cases, the bonuses will be lost until such time as the employee is reassigned to a
position qualifying for the bonus. However, should an officer successfully challenge the
Department�s decision to reassign him/her to a position which does not qualify for a
uniform field bonus, motor bonus, or similar bonus, pursuant to one of the appeal
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
193FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
procedures set forth above, the Department agrees to immediately reimburse the lost
bonus(es) to the officer. (SEE PARAGRAPH 20 OF THE AGREEMENT.)
17. In addition to any other monies which may be paid to plaintiff David Jacoby
under the Agreement, the City agrees to pay $10,000.00 to plaintiff David Jacoby in
settlement of his claim for invasion of privacy. This settlement is not an admission of
liability. (SEE PARAGRAPH 21 OF THE AGREEMENT.)
18. Subject to the approval by the Court the Settlement Fund shall be distributed
to Class Members who submit valid, timely Proofs of Claim as follows:
(a) Each person claiming to be an authorized claimant shall be required to
submit a separate Proof of Claim signed under penalty of perjury and supported by
such documents as specified in the Proof of Claim.
(b) Class members must postmark Proof of Claim and Special Release
forms within 30 days after the Court grants final approval of the Settlement
Agreement. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any Class Member who fails
to submit a Proof of Claim within such period, or such other period as may be
ordered by the Court, shall be forever barred from receiving any payments pursuant
to the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation, but will in all other respects be subject
to the provisions of the Settlement Agreement and the Final Judgment entered by the
Court.
(c) Each claimant must sign the Special Release of Liability, attached to
the Proof of Claim form, prior to receipt of any settlement check of moneys from the
settlement fund. Failure to sign the Special Release of Liability precludes receipt of
a settlement check. Class members who fail or refuse to sign the Special Release
of Liability will still be bound by PARAGRAPHS 5 THROUGH 17 OF THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND PARAGRAPHS 1 THROUGH 13 OF
THIS NOTICE REGARDING THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
GOVERNING THE DEFENDANTS� ABILITY TO IMPOSE DUTY
RESTRICTIONS, but will forfeit their settlement check.
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
203FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
(d) Payment pursuant to the Plan of Allocation set forth above shall be
conclusive against all authorized claimants. No person shall have any claim against
Plaintiffs� counsel or any agent designated by Plaintiffs� counsel or Released Persons
or their counsel based on the distributions made substantially in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement, the Plan of Allocation, or further orders of the Court. The
Defendants, the Released Persons, and Defendants� counsel shall have no
responsibility for or liability whatsoever for the investment or distribution of the
Settlement Fund, the Plan of Allocation or the determination, administration,
calculation or payment of the claims, the settlement administrator�s performance or
non performance of its duties, the payment or withholding of taxes owed by the
Settlement Fund, or any losses incurred in connection therewith. All Class Members
who failed to complete and file a valid and timely Proof of Claim shall be barred
from participating in distributions from the Settlement Fund (unless otherwise
ordered by the Court), but otherwise shall be bound by all of the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, including the terms of any Judgment entered and the Special
Releases given.
19. To share in the Settlement Fund, you must submit a valid Proof of Claim on
the form enclosed with this Notice within 30 days after the date the Court grants final
approval of the Settlement Agreement, to the address set forth in the attached Proof of
Claim form.
20. The Settlement Fund, less any deductions for fees and costs allowed by the
Court, shall be maintained by the escrow agent for the benefit of the Class, as provided in
the Settlement Agreement.
///
21. Any Class Member may appear at the Settlement Hearing and show cause, if
he or she has any, why the Court should or should not (a) approve the proposed Settlement
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (b) enter the Judgment; or (c) approve the proposed Plan
of Allocation; provided, however, that no Plaintiff or Class Member or any other person
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
213FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
shall be entitled to object to the foregoing matters unless on or before February 17, 2004
that person has served by hand or by post-marked first class mail written objections and
copies of any papers and briefs on Elizabeth Silver Tourgeman, Silver Hadden & Silver,
1428 Second Street, P.O. Box 2161, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2161 and Janis Levart
Barquist, Deputy City Attorney, 867 City Hall East, 200 North Main Street, Los Angeles,
Ca. 90012, and has filed said objections, papers and briefs with the Clerk of the Court.
Any Class Member who does not make his, her or its objection in the manner provided
shall be deemed to have waived such objection and shall forever be foreclosed from making
any objection to the fairness or adequacy of the foregoing matters, unless otherwise ordered
by the Court. In order to protect the confidentiality of a class member who wishes to object
to the Settlement Agreement, such class member shall be entitled to file such objections,
papers or briefs with the Court under a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)
and shall be entitled to address his or her objections to the Court in camera.
22. If the Proposed Settlement is approved by the Court, the Court will enter a
judgment which will dismiss this Action against Defendants with prejudice, and bar and
permanently enjoin representative plaintiffs and each Settlement Class Member, whether
or not such Class Member has submitted a Proof of Claim and Special Release, from
prosecuting the Released Claims against the Released Persons, and any such Class Member
shall be conclusively deemed to have released any and all such Release Claims against the
Released Persons. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over implementation of the
Settlement, disposition of the Settlement Fund, interest and enforcing and administering the
Settlement Agreement, including any releases executed in connection therewith.
23. �Released Claims� means any and all claims for injunctive, declaratory,
ancillary, and monetary relief, including statutory and punitive penalties, under federal,
state or local law, statute, ordinance, Charter, Memorandum of Understanding, contract
common law, or any other source, based on the same factual assertions and causes of action
asserted in this Action, or upon any act or omission related to those claims, and including,
without limitations, claims for violations of the United States Constitution, the California
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
223FDF390B-6A77-181FA4.wpd
Constitution, Cal.Gov.Code Section 3300 et seq.(The Public Safety Officers� Procedural
Bill of Rights Act), claims for invasion of privacy, declaratory relief and injunctive relief,
and any other state or federal statute that was raised in this Action, relating to or arising out
of the �Brady� policy as set forth in the recitals above, including all claims of whatsoever
kind arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the defense or resolution of the action
or the released claims by the Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, �Released Claims�
does not include any lawsuits pending at the time the Plaintiff or Class member signs the
attached Special Release that relate to causes of action not raised in this case. �Released
claims� do not include any future claims which arise out of the procedures implemented as
a result of the Settlement Agreement as described below.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: December ___, 2003 SILVER, HADDEN & SILVER
By:____________________________________ELIZABETH SILVER TOURGEMANAttorneys for Plaintiffs
DATED: December ___, 2003 ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO, City Attorney
By:____________________________________JANIS BARQUIST, Deputy City AttorneyAttorneys for Defendants
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
LOS ANGELES POLICE PROTECTIVE LEAGUE AND ROE V. BERNARD PARKSAND CITY OF LOS ANGELES CV 00-10811 AHM
PROOF OF CLAIM FORM
1. Name _________________________________________________________________.
2. Address________________________________________________________________.
3. Telephone number work______________________, home______________________.
4. LAPD Serial number____________________________.
5. LAPD current assignment ______________________________________________.
6. Do you contend that you received a written duty restriction based upon credibility concerns (a �Brady� letter) ? _____________________________________________.
7. LAPD assignment at the time you received a written duty restriction _____________________________________________________________________.
8. On what date do you contend that you were served with a written duty restriction letter? ______________________________________________________________.
9. Was the duty restriction lifted or rescinded?_________________________________.
10. When was the duty restriction lifted or rescinded?__________________________.
11. How did you learn that the duty restriction was lifted?_________________________ _______________________________________________________________________.
12. When did you return to work in the field?___________________________________.
13. What was your assignment after you were returned to the field?_________________.
14. Do you claim that you lost a Uniform Field Bonus or a Motor Bonus as a result of the duty restriction?_____________________________________________________.
15. If you claim that you lost a Uniform Field Bonus or a Motor Bonus, for what time period do you claim that you lost the bonus?_________________________________.
16. Are you still employed by LAPD? _________________________________________.
17. If not, when did your employment relationship with LAPD end? ____________________________________________________________________.
BY SIGNING THIS FORM, YOU AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION YOUARE PROVIDING IS ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE.
______________________________________Print your name
______________________________________Signature