SUM-100 SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL) (sot Para uso oe tacoRrey NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: CITY OF LOS ANGELES and DOES 1 (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): chrough 100, inclusive YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: LILLIAN L. CARRANZA (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): TG Vou ve on TG ya NG yg yu apo Th ays, ase Wo we ‘San 0 ALE OS ate unmand p soren acter ahs ge a Seta gee Sa teal aa Sie Satie coast bamlotcaeseane Seo rate iri tte i pte on ene Riess we ect Sie onl ae apart atta tu anor p eu Vsyacanoyehtvm. fa e ewan ony,yumay wt ea o soey en eas et ry aA Se eae yaaa cate easiness Cocos gui at en nnpeaente hee Often GP ie ong Se Segoe i ea ca Sea ean a Ce ee as an Seay et eta ria aod a Otsu saa cess bers ss ioe Sea cone ees RISE Eon arses” ts irs cre Sos pose WSHre som sn ek won nora. | Tar 3) 53 oF CALENDAR det ce noun ot clay papas ges aoa ua espe por exis le cots yh oan ld dae cee sana Ee bi Se ene esa er SE Lice eee Wia se eee eccaeret, satan Eset ot hremars te st nse lee pou wce Serta ies Cc eee Cte ake ea i a cee ee en ee nes i a a ee a eg Me aera te ee es renbent ie ls sits ae arse ea Sapa rate Serr en ea Ty deat notes Ex etrenite fun tanto madonarie 8)n arcs aun hogar aera ic de Cee eee eee ae ae ae ea a Ei tale ed ne en aeons oe be era Es ie Coast oe tc Aico] ie te i te seo ins garni tease oo see eet, assy es en ds cca cate yet Senor onan pana nk LaBare tad Sn 8 nl Sl ees nea esti tacts Sv aaon sf eae aoe ml Tos an eta pectic eas Seas te aie at Said ad siaetat Recs EE gogso7 al Gime acecncs ness eee . SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA C 69 907 Gouna oe nos akeELES = CENTRAL DISTRICE COMbetl Hoe: ASSEEES ios ANCELas, ExLiFoRNIA 90012 onan set, nd lephone conte plats alone, of thot an stomey (Gino le ec yf mre door cl abgace dl comarca oot Gomaraats qu no too aogat, GREGORY ie SHITHE (SBR (342835 Aree Eae ae8y 17995 thw orsrGis° Or Gneone it eran tai 3 ths court and have a coy to fle a wniten respons pons snd mare 1 county law ibrar, of courthouse nearest you Hf you cant py the ing, a hd property 9100 WILSHIRE SQULEVARD, SUITE. 3456 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 9021 pare A ie “SHERAR. CARTER Oy py M8010 Deputy Fecha) yyy 1 (Secretaria) ghdjuntoy (For proo?of Svice oF tis summons, use Proot of Senice of Summons (0m POST] (Para prusba de entrega do esta citation use ol formuiario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served we 1. [__] as an individual defendant [7] as the person sued under the fictitious name of (speci) 3. [7] on behatt of (speci: under: [] GCP 416.10 (corporation) [cer 416.00 (minor) || CCP 416.70 (conservatee) [5 cop 416.20 (defunct corporation) c [= cee 416.40 tassociaton or partnership) =] CCP 416.90 (authorized person) other (speci) 4. [21 by péisonal delivery on (date): age ott Fa nT Naa ‘SUMMONS oe Goon on Pees 1220 “sci et ocala i tant fon tasGREGORY W. SMITH (SBN 134385) DIANA WANG WELLS (SBN 284215) LEILA K. AL FAIZ (SBN 284309) LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY W. SMITH 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 345 Beverly Hills, California $0212 Telephone: (310) 777-7894 Telecopier. (310) 777-7895 Attorneys for Plaintiff LILLIAN L. CARANZA UPERIOR COURT.OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA} SS ele noaneon 12 13 14 15 16 17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FOR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES caseno. BEG 90761 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. 1. WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION (LABOR CODE § 1102.5) LILLIAN L. CARANZA, Plaintiff, vs. ) ) ) ) } CITY OF LOS ANGELES and DOES + ) through 100, inclusive, ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Atalltimes relevant hereto, Plaintiff LILLIAN L. CARANZA (‘Plaintiff’) was and is a person, residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and was and is a competent adult. 2. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was a sworn employee of the Los ‘Angeles Police Department. Plaintiff holds the rank of Captain Ill 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant City of Los Angeles ("City") is and was a municipal entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant City owned, controlled, and operated the law enforcement agency “1. ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:known as the Los Angeles Police Department (‘LAPD’) 4, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, were, all times relevant hereto, residents of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and were agents, partners, and/or joint venturers of Defendants and/or each other, acting as supervisors, managers, administrators, owners, and/or directors or in some other unknown capacity. 5. The true names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1 through 100, and leach of them, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintif will file DOE amendments, and/or ask leave of court to amend this complaint to assert the true names and capacities of these Defendants when they have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that each Defendant herein designated as a DOE was and is in some manner, negligently, wrongfully, or otherwise, responsible and liable to Plaintiff for the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged, and that Plaintiffs damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by their conduct. 6. __ Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times material herein the Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, and lemployees, or ostensible agents, servants, or employees of each other Defendant, and as such, were acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment or ostensible agency and employment, except on those occasions when Defendants were acting as principals, in which case, said Defendants, and each of them, were negligent in the selection, hiring, and use of the other Defendants. 7. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that at all times relevant hereto, Defendants, and each of them, acted in concert and in furtherance of the interests of each other Defendant. 8. In 2014, Plaintiff conducted and audit of Foothill Area and found that violent -2- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES‘crime reports for 2014 were being under-reported. 9. The Plaintiff first complained to Deputy Chief Jorge Villegas and Commander Regina Scott that violent crime in Foothill Division was being underreported, Despite her complaint, no investigation or action was taken. 10.. After Plaintiff was promoted to Area Captain for Van Nuys in 2018, she did a personal audit of her Division and found that violent crime reports for 2014 had been systematically underreported and presented COMPSTAT. 11. Assecond complaint by the Plaintiff was made regarding the underreported 2014 statistics from Van Nuys Division to Assistant Chief Jorge Villegas. Again, no action lor investigation was undertaken 12. _ Plaintiff also complained to Commander Regina Scott regarding the audit results of underreported violent crime statistics. In response to Plaintiff's complaint, Commander Scott ordered Plaintiff to stand down that she was not to update any crime codes and to provide her directly and immediately with Plaintiff's written audit, Scott told Plaintiff that she was directed by Beck's chief of staff to immediately cease the audit of \Van Nuys Division and that the chief of staff further directed that no corrections would be made to the underreported crime statistics. 13. Asa result of her interaction with Scott and directions from high level officers in command staff, Plaintiff was concerned that other Divisions in the Los Angeles Police Department were also under-reporting violent crime, so she accessed the Crime Analysis Mapping System (CAMS), which is open to trained users. CAMS serves as the electronic storage of all crime reports and statistics. Plaintiff personally audited the crime reports land statistics for 2016 aggravated assaults (assaults in which a weapon or threat was used) for Pacific Division (Commanding Officer Nicole Alberca, Bureau Commander Jon -3- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPeters) and Central Division (Commanding Officer Howard Leslie). After examining each lcrime summary report, Plaintiff was surprised to find that the two Divisions she audited (both of which claimed a decrease in crime) were under-reporting violent crime for 2016, {and that instead of crime reduction in the two Divisions, violent crime actually increased. 14. Plaintiff reported to Deputy Chief Jon Peters on or about March 8, 2016 that there was a great deal of under-reporting of crime in Pacific Division and Central Division, in particular as related to aggravated assaults. Peters told Plaintiff, “We'll look into it.” However, nothing was done. 15. Onor about June 23, 2016, Plaintiff was scheduled to meet with Arif Alikhan, the commanding officer and special assistant for Constitutional Policing for the Los. Angeles Police Department. The meeting was arranged by Chief Green for Plaintif to discuss a number of issues including the underreporting of violent crime. Alikhan did not show up for the meeting, instead sending Michael Hyams, his assistant. Plaintiff told Hymes she wanted the underreporting corrected. However, several months later after meeting Hymes at a training event, Plaintiff told Hymes that nothing changed. Hymes replied that these things take time. 16. In 2016, after none of her complaints were acted upon by command staff, Plaintiff complained about the underreporting of violent crime to the Integrity Division of COMPSTAT overseen by John Newman and Renee Redell. However, no action was taken by these individuals and Plaintiff's email was ignored without response. 17. Onor about September 12, 2016, Plaintiff sent an email to the Inspector General's Office stating that crime statistics for 2016 were being intentionally manipulated and under-reported to the FBI by multiple commanding officers and sanctioned by Command Staff. Attached hereto as Exhibit "1” is a true and correct copy of said email -4- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESery Ook wH 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 with redactions. 18. Despite Plaintiff's email to the Inspector General, they took absolutely no faction and did no follow-up with Plaintiff 19. Onor about September 19, 2016, Plaintiff had a meeting with Deputy Chief Bob Green and complained to him that nothing was being done to stop the false under- reporting of the 2015 and 2016 crime statistics. Green replied by saying, “You have no proof of that.” Plaintiff replied that she had the data to back up her claim, but Green refused to look at it. Plaintiff also told Green that she had reported the underreporting to Integrity Division, and that they had ignored her email and taken no action, and subsequently reported the underreporting to the Office of the Inspector General. At Green's request Plaintiff provided him with a copy of the email that she sent to the Inspector General on September 12, 2016 20. On November 3, 2016, John Neuman, the commanding officer of Integrity Division in charge of COMPSTAT, sent an email to virtually every command officer in the Department with the exception of Charlie Beck. This email states an audit was conducted ion the underreporting of aggravated assaults and stated: “The inspection is looking at a total of 1,792 Simple Assaults Citywide from the past 22 months. A very quick sampling lof such showed that up to 80% of these were misclassified." Attached hereto as Exhibit is a true and correct copy of said email along with the names of the recipients. 20. Towards the end of 2016, the 2018, violent crime reclassifications were made by Newman's Integrity Division directly resulting from Plaintiff's multiple complaints as described above. 21. On Christmas Day 2016, the Department promoted Captains Leslie and Alberca, the two Captains that commanded the Divisions that were underreporting crime Be COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESstatistics, to the rank of Commander. 22, In or about June 2017, Plaintiff audited Hollenbeck Division and Mission Division concerning their 2017 aggravated assault numbers. Plaintiff once again found that these two Divisions were underreporting violent crime. 23, When Plaintiff reported to Neuman that the numbers for Hollenbeck were underreported, Neuman replied “You know we can't audit every single report.” Later, Neuman emailed Plaintif telling her that Commander Leslie would audit the Hollenbeck Division. Plaintiff was shocked at this because Leslie was in charge of Central Division during the time Central's crime numbers were audited by her and found excessive underreporting while Leslie was the commanding officer. Plaintiff objected to Leslie ‘conducting the audit complaining that Leslie was one of the Captains that had engaged in underreporting, Neuman told Plaintiff that the orders for Leslie to conduct the audit came directly from Assistant Chief Michel Moore. 24, After Plaintiffs disclosures, she was told by Assistant Chief Moore, that she ‘should stop looking at the numbers of other Divisions and she should just focus on her own numbers. 25. Onor about September 2017, Plaintiff's Bureau Chief, Deputy Chief John ‘Sherman told Plaintiff that she would not be promoted to Commander because she did not have executive level communication skills. Sherman said “If you want to promote you need to stop meddling into others’ business and stop auditing others’ numbers, stay in your lane.” 26. Asa result of Sherman's “stay in your lane” comment and threats that she lwould not promote, Plaintiff wrote Sherman an email on October 3, 2017 asking Sherman to share her audit of Mission Division with the commanding officer of Mission, John 6- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESMarino. Marino then actually adjusted his aggravated assault numbers from a decrease in aggravated assaults to an increase. 26. In October 2017, Plaintiff received a performance evaluation from Deputy Chief Green, which said: “During this period Captain Carranza conducted an inspection of three of her peers’ violent crime statistics for their Areas. When Carranza advised this rater that she had conducted the inspection, she alleged that her peers were under- reporting their violent crime. She then made disparaging remarks about the commanding officers, stating they cannot effectively run a command, were under-reporting crime and did not deserve to get promoted. Following feedback that is unprofessional and not reflective of her tenure as a commanding officer to disparage other commanding officers.” 27. _ In response to Plaintiff's claim that the Department was underreporting violent crime, on or about November 7, 2017, Chief of Police Charlie Beck went on television and specifically stated that Plaintiff was a liar, that not everybody gets to be a commander and that not everybody in the third grade goes to fourth grade. 28. Onor about November 7, 2017, Plaintiff was scheduled for a career development meeting with Deputy Chief Malinowski for commander's career development lwhich he abruptly cancelled and never rescheduled 29. On or about November 8, 2017, Plaintiff was scheduled for a career development meeting with Deputy Chief Green for commander's career development which he abruptly cancelled and never rescheduled. 30. On November 13, 2017, the department cancelled COMPSTAT working group of which Plaintiff was a member. 31. On or about December 5, 2017, in retaliation for her disclosures of underreporting of violent crime, Chief Green in an agitated voice ordered Plaintiff to the 7- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGEScommand post for the Creek fires, Plaintif went to the command post and Sherman assigned her to be a liaison to Parks and Recreations for evacuations, a position more suited for a Sergeant or a police Officer. Green and Sherman knew that Plaintiff had major spinal chord reconstruction surgery in February 2017 and was still convalescing, but on full duty. While Plaintiff was at the fire, she was exposed to smoke and other [carcinogens for 10 to 14 hours a day for three days. Plaintiff was provided with inadequate protective equipment from the smoke and was provided no relief. Her duties required her to stand almost her entire shift. After the first day, Plaintiff exhibited symptoms of shortness of breath, chronic cough, tightness of chest, congestion and high blood pressure. It was clear to everyone that Plaintiff was in obvious distress and Captain Kathleen Burns offered to relieve her. Sherman denied the request. A day after she was relieved she was taken off work for four days and put on a regimen of steroids, antibiotics, pain medication, breathing treatments, inhaler and eye-drops. 32. _ Plaintiff has been denied multiple training activities, and during general staff meetings, Plaintiff is ignored, ostracized and nobody will sit near her. Command staff have taken multiple actions in an attempt to make Plaintiff fail in her leadership role as a Captain til 33. _ At the time Plaintiff made the disclosures, reports, claims and complaints stated herein, she had a good faith belief that the actions regarding such disclosures, reports, claims and complaints were violations of federal and/or state, statutes and/or regulations andlor city charter and/or municipal code violations. More specifically, said violations included but are not limited to: violations of 28 USC 534; California Penal Code section 115, 13020; 18 USC 1001; Los Angeles Municipal Code sections 49.5.6, 49.5.5; Los Angeles City Charter 571(b)(2); Law Enforcement Code of Ethics (POST) 3-1, 3-2, in 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES[conjunction with California Penal Code sections 13522, 13510 and 13506. 34. As a result of her disclosures, reports, claims and complaints Plaintiff will be lunable to advance her career and will be denied the rank of Commander and/or the lactions taken by command staff as set forth above will impact her ability to promote or advance. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION (LABOR CODE SECTION 110: 35. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-34 above, and incorporates same by reference as though set forth fully herein. 36. _ Plaintiff engaged in legally protected activities under Labor Code section 1102.5 and 1102.6, by reporting to her supervisors what she reasonably believed to be violations of 28 USC 534; California Penal Code section 115, 13020; 18 USC 1001; Los [Angeles Municipal Code sections 49.5.6, 49.5.5; Los Angeles City Charter 571(b)(2); Law Enforcement Code of Ethics (POST) 3-1, 3-2, in conjunction with California Penal Code ‘sections 13522, 13510 and 13506 37. After reporting the unlawful conduct as stated above, it was made clear to Plaintif by her superiors that she will never advance or promote in the Los Angeles Police Department. 38. _Allof the disclosures mentioned above were made by Plaintiff to a law enforcement agency within the meaning of California Labor Code section 1102.5, with the good faith belief that the allegations disclosed violations of state and/or federal statutes, rules or regulations. 39. A contributing factor for Defendants, and each of them, engaging in the lforegoing adverse employment actions against Plaintif was to retaliate against the Plaintiff for engaging in protected activities of disclosing information, which Plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe disclosed violations of city, state and/or federal statutes, or -9- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:violations of or noncompliance with city, state and/or federal rules or regulations. 40. As a legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer physical, mental, and emotional injuries, pain, stress, suffering, anguish, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shame, injured feelings, shock, humiliation and indignity, as well as other unpleasant physical, mental, and! emotional reactions, damages to reputation, and other non-economic damages, in a sum| to be ascertained according to proof, Said damages are of the type that any person would! suffer as result of the illegal and wrongful conduct of the City. Plaintiff does not claim that| she has suffered any psychiatric illness as a result of the conduct of the City. Plaintiff claims general damages for such mental distress and aggravation in an amount of be| proven at time of trial 41, Asa further legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered loss of income, wages, earnings, and earning capacity, loss to her pension, inability to promote, and other economic loss, causing Plaintiff to sustain damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof. 42. Asa further legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as a result of Chief Beck’s public statement that Plaintiff is a liar, her ability to seek employment elsewhere or after her retirement with LAPD has been severely harmed. 43. Asa further legal result of the conducts of the Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees and costs in an amount according to proof. 44, Asa further legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3287. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. For physical, mental, and emotional injuries, pain, distress, suffering, anguish, fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shame, mortification, injured feelings, ~10- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 shock, humiliation and indignity, as well as other unpleasant physical, mental, and emotional reactions, damages to reputation, and other non-economic damages, in a sum to be ascertained according to proof; 2. For loss of income, wages, earnings, and earning capacity, depreciation of pension, inability to promote, ability to obtain new employment after retirement and other economic loss in an amount to be ascertained according to proof; 3. Other actual, consequential, and/or incidental damages in a sum to be ascertained according to proof; 4. Attorney fees’ and costs of suit pursuant to, C.C.P, 1021.5, and other authorities; 5. Costs of suit herein incurred; 6. _Pre-judgment interest; 7. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: January 17, 2018 LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY W. SMITH a GREGORY W/SMITH DIANA WANG WELLS Attorneys for Plaintiff LILLIAN L. CARANZA -11- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESEXHIBIT “1”From: Alexander Bustamante Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 5:59:46 PM To: Lillian Carranza Subject: Re: Fwd: Data Integrity Unit ‘Thank you, Lillian, I will get back to you in a bit. Alex >>> LILLIAN CARRANZA 9/12/2016 2:58 PM >>> Wr. Bustamante, Lam reaching our to you as a last resort. I realize that this puts me in a vuinerable position, but after all, itis my duty to report misconduct. I don’t expect this to be a secret since I was recenty told by an Assistant Chief that I don't call, write, talk to , meet or email your office without them knowing about it. 1 have worked for the Los Angeles Police Department for 27 years. The manipulation of statistics has always been a ‘concern, but blatantly ignoring the under reporting of violent crime has reached epidemic proportions. Not long ago, the Los Angeles Police Department was the focus of a series of article by the Los Angeles Times “L.A. police make changes to increase the accuracy of city crime statistics” httn://fw.to/61Mc1Y This was Just one of many articles highlighting the under reporting of violent crime in Los Angeles. Here we are two years later and the problem continues. Thave repeatedly brought this to the attention of the Director of Operations and most recently to the Data Integrity Unit. It simply falls on deaf ears. Nobody wants to be the bearer of bad news, Nobody wants to disclose how violent crime increased during their watch. Despite providing hundreds of specific reports numbers to address it Is ignored. The emalls are opened and ignored. They believe that by ignoring the problem and not responding, the issue will simply go away. ‘The underreporting of crime in our Department has become an epidemic that threatens our City with increased violence and urban anarchy. “The lack of accurate data about crime in our communities results in more risk to both citizens and law enforcement personnel. If as an organization, we don't report crime date accurately, state and federal statistics won't be accurate and planning ‘and resource allocation cannot be effectively deployed to combat the criminals in our society. It is a bottom-up process and accountability must exist at all levels. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports are only as accurate as the information they receive, or don't receive, "Garbage in- Garbage out.’ Manipulating our statistics, pretending we don't have a problem, or simply ignoring the issues is not only wrong but ethical misconduct, This leads all into a false sense of security. 1am available to discuss with your staff and provide them with the necessary information, Very Respectfully, Lilian Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "LILLIAN CARRANZA" To: "John Neuman" RENEE MEDEL” Subject: Data Integrity UnitJohn, 1 was looking at the Divisions with the top reduction in Violent Crime. I did a cursory review of their simple assaults and 1 ‘was quickly able to see why the dramatic decrease. Normally I would not care, but these numbers are being used to ‘compare and rank Van Nuys. Most important, and I am sure you agree..... our numbers should be clean. ‘At a glance you will see sveanons usedyet the cases were coded as battery (vehicles, firearm, cutting instruments, pepper spray, caustic chemicals, blunt instruments etc). Thave highlighted the cases of concern In yellow on the browsers.. Please see attached. Central almost 100! Pacific and North Hollywood almost 50 each! tian Lilian L. Carranza Captain Van Nuys Area ‘Commanding Officer 6240 Sylmar Avenue Van Nuys, CA 91401 "attitude is Everything Follow me on Twitter@LAPOCARRANZAEXHIBIT “2”From: John Neuman Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:07:39 PM : Jami Aiken; Angelo Maldonado; Genevieve Bravo; Central CAD; Ricardo Dominguez; Veronica Escobar; Christopher Fong; Celia Gaeta; Celeste Garin; Hall Smith, Joanie; Cintia Hernandez; Brian Ho; Kerisha Jackson; Jose Leyba; Isaac Lowe; Magda Tellechea; Meredith Cline; Dennis Moeller; Lissa Mora; Nathaniel Ong; Dorota Phillips; Rocio Gomez; Raul Rodriguez; Rona Abutin; Rosa Solis; Matthew Shafer; Chalisha Smith; John Tuason; 77th CAD; Aaron Lowe; Andre Rodriguez; Arrin Lemos; Birthella Tidwell; Alisa Carter; Megan Casalicchio; Dana Lee; Darryl Danaher; Enrico Hizon; Filiberto Garcia; Fred Miller; Jennifer Blomeley; Juan Colon; Kevin Gaines; Marco Vargas; Mario Marquez; Rebecca Nagy; Nicolas Garces; Shandalyn Parnell; Rena Smith; Richard Gaydowski; Sonia Banuelos; Sonya Grayson; Stephanie Briano; Steven Hoesterey; Tara Kessop; Teodoro Urena; Vanessa Henson; Vida Belete; Weaver, Ronald; Andrew Mahoney; Autumn Fernandez; Catherine Hardy; Danielle Statland; Diane Diaz; Edward Maranian; Elizabeth Sandoval; GOODROE, ASHLEY; Robert Greenbaum; James Grey; Camille Howard-Goodall; Jason White; Joe Charbonneau; Kenneth Johnson; Kenneth Keene; Kimberlee Binder; Marissa Ibanez; MCPARTLAND, MONICA; Damon Ormsby; Philip Karle; Rebecca Mcintire; Richard Lozano; Robert Falconer; Marisela Sharrar; Stephanie Mcneil; Steve Villanueva; Thomas Trejo; Victor Suapaia; WATSON, CLIFFORD; Diane Weber; Wilson Linares; Amy Kim; Catherine Banting; Joon Cho; Cindy Feng; Cynthia Curti; Jane Mclurkin; Joanne Lee; John Hart; John Pesusich; Arman Jose; Judy Sang; Marie Paneno; Eugene Shin; Jon Sims; Teri Williams Pacheco; Theodore Williams; Timothy Bedford; William Perez; Yoli Guzman; Martin Baeza; Donald Graham; Howard Leslie; Helen Lopez; Jeff Nolte; Edward Pape; Michael Rimkunas; Jorge Rodriguez; Arturo Sandoval; Richard Stabile; Jonathan Tom; Darnell Davenport; Michael Oppelt; Alcenda Neal; Michael Oreb; Alfred Pasos; Marc Reina; Gary Walters; Byford Whittingham; Gerald Woodyard; Peter Zarcone; Stephen Carmona; Lillian Carranza; Peter Casey; Natalie Cortez; Ernest Eskridge; Bryan Lium; Robert Marino; Michael Kozak; Elaine Morales; Brian Pratt;Rafael Ramirez; Maureen Ryan; SETZER, JAMES; Paul Vernon; Brian Whitten; 4; Armand Carranza; Darryl Ito; John Radtke; David Kowalski; Raymond Maltez; Tina Nieto; Timothy Nordquist; Jiro Oka; Cory Palka; Robert Long; Patricia Sandoval; Rolando Solano Ce: Jeffry Phillips; Malinowski; Natalie Humpherys; Kenneth Leduc; Renee Medel; Martha Militello; John Neuman; Gailanne Noyes; Lucila Nunez; Marco Pimentel; Regina Romero; Timothy Shumaker; Elena Barba; Wendy Beck; Laymon Johnson; Sylvia Moreno; Analyn Vergara; Robert Arcos; Todd Chamberlain; Blake Chow; Robert Green; Dennis Kato; Michel Moore; On Peters; Kris Pitcher; William Scott; John|Sherman; Phillip Tingirides Subject: Inspection of Simple Assaults w/ Dangerous Weapons All Area and Patrol C/O’s and CADs, As some of you have probably heard, the Data Integrity Unit (DIU) at COMPSTAT Division is in the process of conducting an inspection of Simple Assaults that were coded with a Dangerous Weapon (ie: Gun, Knife, pepper spray, etc. ) from 1/1/15 to 10/29/16. Crimes that by all account at face value (as a result of the mere presence of these weapons) would indicate that they probably should have been classified as a Part | Aggravated Assault or possibly a Robbery, etc. The inspection is looking at a total of 1,792 Simple Assaults Citywide from the past 22 months. Avery ae sampling of such showed tl t up to 80% of tt Our plan is to have all of these reports inspected, reclassified and 3.14’s issued before the end of the year. The big difference between this inspection and the ones that the DIU typically conduct is that the DIU will be reclassifying the records entered into CCAD in error rather that asking the Bureau Assessors/Coordinators and Areas to do so. This one time exception is only being made to try and facilitate getting the large volume of records for 2015 and 2016 reclassified by the end of the year. The second half of this e-mail is to request your assistance movingforward. We have come up with a query syntax in CAMS (Instructions attached) that selects records that were coded as Simple Assaults w/ Dangerous Weapons used by the suspect. We ask that you have your CADs generate a query in CAMS using this syntax on a weekly basis for a date range that goes back 2 or 3 weeks through to the current date generated. Starting with 10/30/16 moving forward and continuing into next year and beyond. We are confident that if this query is generated and the records that are identified are reviewed and reclassified when needed, that it will greatly decrease your Area’s error rate in Simple Assaults on future DIU inspections. Please refer to the Agg/Simple Assault Decision Trees when determining if these records were coded properly. Do NOT automatically change the records that are returned in the results of your queries to Aggs without first verifying that they were classified incorrectly. . |will be reaching out to each Bureau separately with the breakdown of crimes that we have ID’d and are in the process of pulling. If any of you have any questions, please send me an e-mail, text or call. Thank you all for your help. Together we can all work to improve upon the Department's crime reporting accuracy. Respectfully, John M. Neuman Police AdministratorCommanding Officer, COMPSTAT Division Los Angeles Police DepartmentOffice: 213-484-6720 Direct: [email protected]SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGI LES NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT - UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE - IC BOB O07 EL HIS FORM 1S 10 BE SERVED WITH HE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ‘Case Number _ Your eae assigned for all purposes tothe juicl officerindeated helo. ‘ASSIGNED TODGE [DEFT [ROOM ASSIGNED TUDGE | DEFT [ROO Hon Dee. Wain 1 [si | [ [ton Bizet at White a | 506 _ [en Batwa At 12 [0] [xe] oii wo | sm Hon. Tey A Geo v4 [200 P| [Hon teem a Bema so | 308 Hon. Richard Fruin. zi 1s 307 ha ‘Hon. Michael J, Raphael : St su ion in ier 16 306 Ho, Son Bat Desson 2 | sto Hon ich ico ae) on wa Lal 3 [oe on. Slephie Rowick wf an Hon, Erest M Hiroshige se [sr on, Dat oral Lyons m0 | 310 on, Maltin #.Moekey 6 |B Hon. Rober Less, m4 | 3 Hon, Michael Johnson 36) sid Hon, Yoete M. Plats a | ate Hon. Joa P, Daye | ate on, Bibra Sehoper ao | «0 Hon, Gregory Keon | 7m on Soni Jener a | wo Hon: Misael L. Siem @ | « on Die. My 22 | as on. Mak Mooney |e ion Michael Pint a | a0 on, Wiliam F. Fahy @ | a Hon. Gregory Alarcon I 36, 410 ‘Hon, Monica Bachner a To Ton More Momaro aw [ap oo, Ruth Aw wen | a Ton Mawren Dat Lewis x | an on. aft Ongeto = | Hon aa Fete | as on. Mice Wine Coo a [as on, David Stclo wo | ate Hoa, Gait der Fever we | a0 on, ely. Kenig a | a6 on, Mel Red Reena | a Hon, redeik Challe a | 500 Hon, Randph Hammock o | Given to the Plaintif'Cross-ComplainanvAttomey of Record on, SHERRIR, CARTER, Executive OfficerCletk of Court, By. Deputy Clerk ‘ay Laci 190 (Rev 12/17, NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT — UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE TASC Approved 05105NG UNLIMITED CIVIL CASES INSTRUCTIONS FOR HAND The following critical provisions of the California Rules of Co for your assistance. wor, are summarized splicable in the Superior ( APPLICATION The Division 7 Rules were effective January 1, 2007. They apply to all general civil cases. PRIORITY OVER OTHER RULES The Division 7 Rules shall have priotily over all other Local Rules to the extent the others are inconsistent CHALLENGE TO ASSIGNED JUDGE ‘A challenge under Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6 rmust be made within 15 days after notice of assignment for all purposes to a judge, or ia party has not yet appeared, within 1S days ofthe first appearance. ‘TIME STANDARDS Cases assigned to the Independent Calendaring Courts will be subject to processing under the following time standards: COMPLAINTS ——All-complainis-shal-be served within.60.days-of filing and proof oF service shall: be filed-within 90-days-————— CROSS-COMPLAINTS ‘Without leave of court first being obtained, no eross-complaint may be filed by any party after their answer is filed, Cross- complaints shal! be served within 30 days ofthe filing date and a proof of service filed within 60 days of the filing date STATUS CONFERENCE, ‘A status conference will be scheduled by the assigned Independent Calendar Tudge no later then 270 days afte the filing of the ‘complaint. Counsel must be filly prepared to discuss the following issues: alternative dispute resolution, bifueation, sellement, trial date, and expert witnesses. FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE The Court will require the partes to atlend a final status conference not more than 10 days before the scheduled trial dae. All parties shall have motions in Timine, bifurcation motions, statements of major evidentiary issues, dispositive motions, requested form jury instructions, special jury instructions, and special jury verdicts timely fled and served prio to the conference. These matters may be heard and resolved at this conference. At least five days before this conforence, counsel must also have exchanged lists of exhibits and witnesses, end have submitted to the court a brief statement of the case to be read tothe jury panel as required by Chapter Three ofthe Los Angeles Superior Court Rules SAM INS. ‘The court will impose appropriate sanctions for the failure or refusal to comply with Chapter Three Rules, orders made by the ‘Court, and timo standards ar deadlines established by the Coust or by the Chapter Three Rules, Such sanctions may be on a party, or if appropriate, on counsel for a party. This is not a complete delineation of the Division 7 or Chapter Three Rules, and adherence only to the above provisions is therefore not a guarantee against the imposition of sanctions under Trial Court Delay Reduction. Careful reading and compliance with the actual Chapter Rulesis imperative. Class Actions ‘Pursuant to Local Rule 2.3, all class actions shall be filed at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse and aro randomly assigned to a complex judge at the designated complex courthouse. If the case is found not to be a class action it will be returned fo an Independent Calendar Courtroom forall purposes. +Provisionally Complex Cases Cases filed as provisionally complex are initially assigned to the Supervising Judge of complex litigation for determination of complex status. If the case is deemed to be complex within the meaning of California Rules of Court 3.400 et seq. it will be randomly assigned to a complex judge at the designated complex courthouse. If the ease is found not to be complex, it will be returned to an Independent Calendar Courtroom forall purposes, taciy 190(Rev 217) NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT - UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE ASC Approves 05106ES ‘TELERIONE NO. FAXNO.(Optonaly EMAL ADDRESS (Optora) ATTORNEY FOR Name) as ca SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ‘COURTHOUSE ADDRESS PLANT, [BER STIPULATION ~ DISCOVERY RESOLUTION This stipulation is intended to provide a fast and informal resolution of discovery issues through limited paperwork and an informal conference with the Court to aid in the resolution of the issues. The parties agree that: 1. Prior to the discovery cut-off in this action, no discovery motion shall be filed or heard unless the moving party first makes a written request for an Informal Discovery Conference pursuant to the terms of this stipulation. 2. Atthe Informal Discovery Conference the Court will consider the dispute presented by parties and determine whether it can be resolved informally. Nothing set forth herein will preclude a party from making a record at the conclusion of an Informal Discovery Conference, “either orally or in writing. 3. Following a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue to be presented, a party may request an Informal Discovery Conference pursuant to the following procedures: a. The party requesting the Informal Discovery Conference will: 1. File a Request for Informal Discovery Conference with the clerk's office on the approved form (copy attached) and deliver a courtesy, conformed copy to the assigned department; ji, Include a brief summary of the dispute and specify the relief requested; and Serve the opposing party pursuant to any authorized or agreed method of service that ensures that the opposing party receives the Request for Informal Discovery Conference no later than the next court day following the filing. b. Any Answer to a Request for Informal Discovery Conference must: i. Also be filed on the approved form (copy attached); ji, Include a brief summary of why the requested relief should be denied; iV 036 (new) a TASC Aone ort STIPULATION ~ DISCOVERY RESOLUTION Feropenase Page totfii. Be filed within two (2) court days of receipt of the Request; and iv. Be served on the opposing party pursuant to any authorized or agreed upon method of service that ensures that the opposing party receives the Answer no later than the next court day following the filing. ¢. No other pleadings, including but not limited to exhibits, declarations, or attachments, will be accepted. 4d. If the Court has not granted or denied the Request for Informal Discovery Conference within ten (10) days following the filing of the Request, then it shall be deemed to have Request for Informal Discovery Conference has been granted or denied and, if granted, the date and time of the Informal Discovery Conference, which must be within twenty (20) days of the filing of the Request for Informal Discovery Conference. e. If the conference is not held within twenty (20) days of the filing of the Request for Informal Discovery Conference, unless extended by agreement of the parties and the Court, then the Request for the Informal Discovery Conference shall be deemed to have been denied at that time. 4, If(a) the Court has denied a conference or (b) one of the time deadlines above has expired without the Court having acted or (c) the Informal Discovery Conference is concluded without resolving the dispute, then a party may file a discovery motion to address unresolved issues. 5. The parties hereby further agree that the time for making a motion to compel or other discovery motion is tolled from the date of filing of the Request for Informal Discovery Conference until (a) the request is denied or deemed denied or (b) twenty (20) days after the filing of the Request for Informal Discovery Conference, whichever is earlier, unless extended by Order of the Court. itis the understanding and intent of the parties that this stipulation shall, for each discovery dispute to which it applies, constitute a writing memorializing a “specific later date to which the propounding [or demanding or requesting] party and the responding party have agreed in writing," within the meaning of Code Civil Procedure sections 2030,300(c), 2031.320(c), and 2033.290(c). 6. Nothing herein will preclude any party from applying ex parte for appropriate relief, including an order shortening time for a motion to be heard conceming discovery. 7. Any party may terminate this stipulation by giving twenty-one (21) days notice of intent to terminate the stipulation. 8. References to “days" mean calendar days, unless otherwise noted. If the date for performing any act pursuant to this stipulation falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Court holiday, then the time for performing that act shall be extended to the next Court day. TACIT O56 Tew) ae ASC Approved 04/11 STIPULATION ~ DISCOVERY RESOLUTION For Optonal Use Page 20f3 —_been-denied.—it the Court-acts-on-the Request, the parties will be-notified whether theThe following parties stipulate: Date: TYPEORPART ANE) TATTORIEY FORPCARTFFY Date: ‘TYPE OR PRT HAUT ATTORNEY FOR DEFRRGANTS Date: TYPE OR eT IE TORREY FOR DEEROANTY Date: TPE PRT AES TORREY FR DERRY Date: TYPE GR PRT HE ‘PATORNEY FORT Date: TREO PART RAE TITORREV FOR. Date: TREOR PRR aie} TORREY FOR TACIVO36 (new) on LASC Aaproved 04/1 ‘STIPULATION — DISCOVERY RESOLUTION For Optonal Use Page 30f3[ rae nco so ATERAEY GRD WOUTATORNEY ‘wane maa aanir ae TELEPHONE NO FAXHO (Optonal EMAIL ADDRESS (Opts) ‘ATTORNEY FOR Name) ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ‘COURTHOUSE ADDRESS PLANT DEFENDANT. a - — | ‘STIPULATION — EARLY ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING This stipulation is intended to encourage cooperation among the parties at an early stage in the litigation and to assist the parties in efficient case resolution. The parties agree that: 1. The parties commit to conduct an initial conference (in-person or via teleconference or via videoconference) within 15 days from the date this stipulation is signed, fo discuss and consider whether there can be agreement on the following: a. Are motions to challenge the pleadings necessary? If the issue can be resolved by amendment as of right, or if the Court would allow leave to amend, could an amended complaint resolve most or all of the issues a demurrer might otherwise raise? If so, the parties agree to work through pleading issues so that a demurrer need only raise issues they cannot resolve, Is the issue that the defendant seeks to raise amenable to resolution on demurrer, or would some other type of motion be preferable? Could a voluntary targeted exchange of documents or information by any party cure an uncertainty in the pleadings? b. Initial mutual exchanges of documents at the “core” of the litigation. (For example, in an employment case, the employment records, personnel file and documents relating to the conduct in question could be considered “core.” In a personal injury case, an incident or police report, medical records, and repair or maintenance records could be considered “core."); c. Exchange of names and contact information of witnesses; d. Any insurance agreement that may be available to satisfy part or all of a judgment, or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy a judgment; e. Exchange of any other information that might be helpful to facilitate understanding, handling, or resolution of the case in a manner that preserves objections or privileges by agreement; f. Controlling issues of aw that, if resolved early, will promote efficiency and economy in other phases of the case. Also, when and how such issues can be presented to the Court; 9 Whether or when the case should be scheduled with a settlement officer, what discovery or court ruling on legal issues is reasonably required to make settlement discussions meaningful, and whether the parties wish to use a sitting judge or a private mediator or other options as TAGIY 220 (Rev O26) LASCAgprovesoat’ §~—- STIPULATION — EARLY ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING For Optonal Use Page t of2discussed in the “Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Package” served with the ‘complaint; Computation of damages, including documents, not privileged or protected from disclosure, on which such computation is based; Whether the case is suitable for the Expedited Jury Trial procedures (see information at www lacourt.org under *Civil’ and then under “General Information’). The time for a defending party to respond to a complaint or cross-complaint will be extended to for the complaint, and for the cross- THSERT DATE ___________ complaint, which is comprised of the 30.days-to-respond under Government C and the 30 days permitted by Code of Civil Procedure section 1054(a), good cause having been found by the Civil Supervising Judge due to the case management benofits provided by this Stipulation. A copy of the General Order can be found at wwww.lacourt.org under "Civil, lick on *General Information’, then click on “Voluntary Efficient fc 3. ‘The parties will prepare a joint report titled “Joint Status Report Pursuant to Initial Conference and Early Organizational Meeting Stipulation, and if desired, a Proposed order summarizing results of their meet and confer and advising the Court of any way it may assist the parties’ efficient conduct or resolution of the case, The parties shall attach the Joint Status Report to the Case Management Conference ‘statement, and file the documents when the cMc statement is due, 4. References to “days” mean calendar days, unless otherwise noted. Ifthe date for performing any act pursuant to this stipulation falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Court holiday, then the time for performing that act shall be extended to the next Court day ‘The following parties stipulate: Date: > (PE OR PRINT NAME} (ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF) Date: > TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT) Date: > (YPE OR PRINT NAME} (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT) Date: - (YPE OR PRINT NAME (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT > (YEE OR PRINT NAMED (ATTORNEY FOR. Date: > CYPE OR PRINT NAME (ATTORNEY FOR, y Date: > CYPE OR PRINT NAME) (ATTORNEY FOR. Tasca) STIPULATION —EARLY ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING Page 2 of2TELEPHONE NO: FAKNO. (Opto, ENAILADDRESS (Optoma ‘ATTORNEY FON sre a ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ‘COURTHOUSE ADURESS (pursuant to the Discovery Resolution Stipulation of the parties) —INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE} Sess 4. This document relates to: [J Request for informal Discovery Conference (]__ Answer to Request for Informal Discovery Conference 2. Deadiine for Court to decide on Request: Ginsrt date 10 calendar days folonng fing of the Request : 3. Deadiine for Court to hold informal Discovery Conference: {insert date 20 calendar ays folowing ing of the Request 4, For a Request for informal Discovery Conference, briefly describe the nature of the discovery dispute, including the facts and legal arguments at issue. For an Answer to Request for Informal Discovery Conference, briefly describe why the Court should deny the requested discovery, including the facts and legal arguments at issue. erent INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE ForOptoratce "(pursuant to the Discovery Resolution Stipulation of the parties)eervoneno FRLNO (Opera EMATORNEY FON ra) ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNI/ SOURTHOUSE ADORESS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES: POAT ‘DEFENDANT: | STIPULATION AND ORDER = MOTIONS IN LIMINE ~~ This stipulation Is Intended to provide fast and informal resolution of evidentiary issues through diligent efforts to define and discuss such issues and limit paperwork. The parties agree that: 1. At least days before the final status conference, each party will provide all other parties with a list containing a one paragraph explanation of each proposed motion in limine. Each one paragraph explanation must identify the substance of a single proposed motion in limine and the grounds for the proposed motion, 2. The parties thereafter will meet and confer, either in person or via teleconference or videoconference, concerning all proposed motions in limine. In that meet and confer, the parties will determine: a. Whether the parties can stipulate to any of the proposed motions. If the parties so stipulate, they may file a stipulation and proposed order with the Court. b. Whether any of the proposed motions can be briefed and submitted by means of a short joint statement of issues. For each motion which can be addressed by a short joint statement of issues, a short joint statement of issues must be filed with the Court 10 days prior to the final status conference. Each side's portion of the short joint ‘statement of issues may not exceed three pages. The parties will meet and confer to agree on a date and manner for exchanging the parties’ respective portions of the short joint statement of issues and the process for filing the short joint statement of issues. 3. All proposed motions in limine that are not either the subject of a stipulation or briefed via a short joint statement of issues will be briefed and filed in accordance with the California Rules of Court and the Los Angeles Superior Court Rules. TAC O75 a ea UScrrmredoatt STIPULATION AND ORDER — MOTIONS IN LIMINE For Optenal Use Paget of2The following parties stipulate: Date: > ‘(YPE OR PRINT RANE) (ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF) Date: > (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT) Date: > AYRE GR PRINT NE (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT) Date: 7 CFYPE OR PRINT NAME) (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT) Date: > TYPE OR PRINT NAME} TRTTORNEY FOR, Date: i > (HVPE OR PRINT NAME) (ATTORNEY FOR, Date: > TPE OR PRINT NAME (ATTORNEY FOR ‘THE COURT SO ORDERS. Date: TUDIGAL OFFICER Asc Apraedpait STIPULATION AND ORDER — MOTIONS IN LIMINE Pagezot2Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) "INFORMATION PACKET The person who files a civil lawsuit (plaintiff) must include the ADR information Packet with the complaint when serving the defendant. Cross-complainants must serve the ADR Information Packet on any new parties named to the action together with the cross-complaint. There are a number of ways to resolve civil disputes without having to sue someone. These alternatives to a lawsuit are known as alternative dispute resolution (ADR). IADR, trained, impartial persons decide disputes or help parties decide disputes themselves. These persons are called neutrals. For example, in mediations, the neutral is the mediator. Neutrals normally are chosen by the disputing parties or by the court, Neutrals can help resolve disputes without having to go to court. LAAOR 005 (Rev. 03/17) LASC Adopted 10-03 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.221Advantages of ADR © Often faster than going to trial # Often less expensive, saving the litigants court costs, attorney's fees and expert fees. May permit more participation, allowing parties to have more control over the outcome, Allows for flexibility in choice of ADR processes and resolution of the dispute. Fosters cooperation by allowing parties to work together with the neutral to resolve the dispute and mutually agree to remedy. There are fewer, if any, court appearances. Because ADR can be faster and save money, it can reduce stress. ‘Disacivantages of ADR - ADR may not be Suitable for every dispute. ‘+ IFADRis binding, the parties normally give up most court protections, including a decision by a judge or jury under formal rules of evidence and procedure, and review for legal error by an appellate court. ‘* ADR may not be effective if it takes place before the parties have sufficient information to resolve the dispute. The neutral may charge a fee for his or her services. IF the dispute is not resolved through ADR, the parties may then have to face the usual and traditional costs of trial, such as attorney's fees and expert fees. ‘The Most Common Types of ADR * Mediation In mediation, a neutral (the mediator) assists the parties in reaching a mutually acceptable resolution of their dispute. Unlike lawsuits or some other types of ADR, the parties, rather than the mediator, decide how the dispute is to be resolved. ‘Mediation is particularly effective when the parties have a continuing relations! neighbors or business people. Mediation is also very effective where personal feelings are getting in the way of a resolution. This is because mediation normally gives the parties a chance to express their feelings and find out how the other sees things. i Mediation may not be effective when one party is unwilling to cooperate or compromise or when one of the parties has a significant advantage in power over the other. Therefore, it may not be a good choice if the parties have a history of abuse or victimization. LAADR 005 (Rev. 03/17) LASC Adopted 10-03 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.221 Page 2014= Arbitration In arbitration, a neutral person called an “arbitrator” hears arguments and evidence from each side and then decides the outcome of the dispute. Arbitration is typically less formal than a trial, and the rules of evidence may be relaxed. Arbitration may be either “binding” or “non- binding.” Binding arbitration means the parties waive their right to a trial and agree to accept the arbitrator's decision as final. Non-binding arbitration means that the parties are free to request a trial if they reject the arbitrator's decision. Arbitration is best for cases where the parties want another person to decide the outcome of their dispute for them but would like to avoid the formality, time, and expense of a trial. It may also_be appropriate for. complex matters where the parties want-a- decision-maker whe-has———— training or experience in the subject matter of the dispute. «Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) Settlement Conferences are appropriate in any case where settlement is an option. Mandatory Settlement Conferences are ordered by the Court and are often held near the date a case is set for trial. The parties and their attorneys meet with a judge who devotes his or her time exclusively to preside over the MSC. The judge does not make a decision in the case but assists the parties in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the case and in negotiating a settlement. ‘The Los Angeles Superior Court Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) program is free of charge and staffed by experienced sitting civil judges who devote their time exclusively to presiding over MSCs. The judges participating in the judicial MSC program and their locations are identified in the List of Settlement Officers found on the Los Angeles Superior Court website at http://www.lacourt.org/. This program is available in general jurisdiction cases with Fepresented parties from independent calendar (IC) and Central Civil West (CCW) courtrooms. In addition, on an ad hoc basis, personal injury cases may be referred to the program on the eve of trial by the personal injury master calendar courts in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse or the asbestos calendar court in CCW. In order to access the Los Angeles Superior Court MSC Program the judge in the IC courtroom, the CCW Courtroom or the personal injury master calendar courtroom must refer the parties to the program. Further, all parties must complete the information requested in the Settlement Conference intake Form and email the completed form to [email protected]. LAADR 005 (Rev. 03/17) LASC Adopted 10-03 al. Rules of Court, rule 3.221 Page 30t4Additional Information To locate a dispute resolution program or neutral in your community: «Contact the California Department of Consumer Affairs (www.dca.ca.gov) Consumer Information Center toll free at 800-952-5210, or; Contact the local bar association (http://www.lacba.org/) or; Look in a telephone directory or search online for “mediators; or “arbitrators.” ‘There may be a charge for services provided by private arbitrators and mediators. A\list of approved State Bar Approved Mandatory Fee Arbitration programs is available at httn://calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/MemberServices/FeeArbitration/ApprovedPrograms.aspx#39 To request information about, or assistance with, dispute resolution, call the number listed below. Or you may call a Contract Provider agency directly. A list of current Contract Provider agencies in Los Angeles County is available at the link below. /ess.acount rograms/di County of Los Angeles Dispute Resolution Program 3175 West 6th Street, Room 406 Los Angeles, CA 90020-1798 TEL; (213) 738-2621 FAX: (213) 386-3995, LAADR 005 (Rev. 03/17) LASC Adopted 10-03, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.221 - Page 4of4