News from Oakland City Attorney
Barbara J. Parker
|
|
This month:
- Looking Back, Looking Forward: The City Attorney’s Amicus (“Friend of the Court”) Practice Advocates for Oaklanders’ Rights
- City Attorney Wins Lawsuit Requiring Golden State Warriors to Honor Their Agreement to Pay Millions to Oakland, Alameda County, and Joint Powers Authority for Renovations to Oakland Arena
- City Attorney Files Lawsuit to Protect Elderly and Disabled Tenants Against Predatory Operators of an Independent Living Facility
- Federal Appellate Court Upholds City Attorney’s Right to Continue to Prosecute Lawsuit Against Wells Fargo for Mortgage Discrimination Against Black and Latinx Borrowers
Dear Friends and Fellow Oaklanders:
I hope you are staying healthy and safe during these unsettling times.
As always, I invite your comments and thoughts about the newsletter and our Office’s work.
|
|
Looking Back, Looking Forward: The City Attorney’s Amicus (“Friend of the Court”) Practice Advocates for Oaklanders’ Rights
The City Attorney’s core work is to provide legal counsel to the City of Oakland, its employees, officers, agencies, boards, and commissions through drafting ordinances, resolutions, contracts and other legal documents requested by city officials and departments; reviewing city contracts; and representing the city and its employees in litigation matters. But legal advocacy comes in many forms, and one of the ways the City Attorney’s Office has been advocating for the people of Oakland recently is through a growing and vibrant amicus brief practice.
Amicus, or “friend of the court,” briefs, are opportunities for individuals and entities not directly involved in litigation to nonetheless present their positions and perspectives to a court. Amicus briefs can be extremely important: they can help a court understand the gravity of the issue before them, point out the possibility of perverse or unanticipated consequences of a court’s decision, and/or help educate a court on an unusual or tricky issue. And amicus briefs can be extremely influential: courts sometimes adopt their reasoning rather than the reasoning of any party before them, or use what they learn from amici to frame their decision.
In the past few years, the City Attorney’s Office has used amicus briefs to weigh in on some of the most significant issues facing Oakland and our country. We have filed briefs to:
Through these briefs and more—dozens each year—we have raised your voices in courts across the country, including the highest court in the land. These briefs also are opportunities to partner with and support our sister cities, counties, and states, in California and across the nation. We have led or joined briefs by governments from Minneapolis to Houston, and have formed deep relationships of shared values with our local government families in places such as San Francisco and Santa Clara County, and with our home state’s government.
I look forward to keeping you informed about this robust, ongoing practice.
A sample of recent amicus briefs:
This year, we joined 20 states and 10 cities and counties to argue against the Trump Administration’s efforts to limit access to employment authorization for asylum seekers. Under two new rules, individuals seeking asylum in the United States would be indefinitely delayed and barred in some cases from obtaining authorization to work.
We also joined briefs to:
|
|
City Attorney Wins Lawsuit Requiring Golden State Warriors to Honor Their Agreement to Pay Millions to Oakland, Alameda County, and Joint Powers Authority for Renovations to Oakland Arena
Decades ago, the City of Oakland, Alameda County, and the Joint Powers Authority (JPA), consisting of the city and county, entered into an agreement with the Golden State Warriors for a new sports arena. Pursuant to that agreement, the city and county issued $140M in bonds and the Warriors agreed to pay a portion of the bond debt over time. In fact, the agreement required the Warriors to pay their portion of the bond debt whether or not they decided to leave Oakland before the bond debt was paid. Having received the benefit of the bargain—the renovated sports arena—the parties struck, the Warriors spent years claiming they had no obligation to pay their share of the bond debt after they left Oakland.
After years of arbitration and litigation, the California First Appellate District Court of Appeal upheld both the initial arbitration decision and the lower court’s decision, agreeing that the Warriors cannot escape the debt they owe. Unconvinced by the Warriors’ contorted interpretation of their agreements, the Court’s ruling requires that the Warriors honor their agreement. They are also required to pay more than a million dollars in attorneys’ fees and costs that Oakland, Alameda County, and the Joint Powers Authority incurred in fighting the Warriors’ specious claims.
|
|
City Attorney Files Lawsuit to Protect Elderly and Disabled Tenants Against Predatory Operators of an Independent Living Facility
Earlier this month, I filed an emergency tenant protection lawsuit and request for a restraining order against the owners and operators of an Independent Living Facility (ILF), Oakside Independent Living, for exploiting and threatening their elderly and disabled tenants during the COVID-19 pandemic. ILFs are virtually unregulated lodging for adults who need help with daily responsibilities like meal preparation and housekeeping. Although these types of facilities have been the subject of troubling Alameda County Grand Jury reports, they continue to operate without adequate oversight, and can become opportunities for unscrupulous actors to take advantage of people in need of care.
Oakside Independent Living has subjected its elderly and disabled tenants to unsafe and unhealthy conditions at the facility, including severe infestations of bed bugs, cockroaches, and rats. The owner and operators also rented out $900-a-month converted storage spaces too small to stand up straight in as “units,” as if they are fit for human habitation. If tenants complain of poor treatment or conditions, some have been threatened with transfer to Christopher’s Care Home, another ILF managed by one of the defendants. And this summer, tenants have been evicted in violation of the local moratorium. One tenant illegally evicted from his unit described his time at Oakside Independent Living as “the worst experience of my entire life.”
My lawsuit asks for a court order prohibiting these defendants from further retaliating against the tenants, forcing them to relocate to another facility, or relying on illegal “self-help” measures to evict their tenants such as locking out them out. We also asked for a “receiver,” a court-appointed third-party custodian, to take over day-to-day control of the property, remedy the unsafe conditions, and protect the rights of the tenants during the lawsuit. The lawsuit further seeks civil penalties, punitive damages, restitution, and attorney’s fees.
I am especially proud to be able to file this lawsuit to address these egregious actions, and we were able to do so because the City Council adopted the tenant protection amendments that I co-sponsored last month. I described the new legislation in last month’s newsletter. That legislation expanded my office’s powers to defend tenants who are illegally harassed, evicted, denied services, or otherwise mistreated by abusive landlords. As this case demonstrates, I am committed to using those powers to protect the people of Oakland.
This case was filed by the Neighborhood Law Corps and Community Lawyering and Civil Rights Unit as part of my Housing Justice Initiative. Read more here.
|
|
Federal Appellate Court Upholds City Attorney’s Right to Continue to Prosecute Lawsuit Against Wells Fargo for Mortgage Discrimination Against Black and Latinx Borrowers
This month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the City of Oakland’s right to sue Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., for its racially discriminatory lending practices that preyed upon Black and Latinx residents and contributed to widespread foreclosures, harming City residents and the City itself. The Ninth Circuit rejected Wells Fargo’s contentions, agreeing that Oakland can move forward with its claims that the lender’s actions are responsible for lost property-tax revenue.
I brought this lawsuit years ago under the federal Fair Housing Act, the nation’s preeminent civil rights law that prohibits discrimination and predation in housing and lending on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, color, and familial status. To bring a successful claim under the Act, Oakland has to show that Wells Fargo’s discriminatory lending practices caused decreases in city property taxes. Wells Fargo vociferously denied that causal relationship, but the appellate court ruled that we may continue to pursue that claim.
This decision means that we will get to have our day in court to prove that Wells Fargo’s predatory, discriminatory actions harmed Oakland and its residents. We know their actions harmed our residents directly, by systematically mistreating Black and Latinx residents on the basis of their race. And we know Wells Fargo harmed our city, by deflating property values and depriving the city of tax revenues that fund essential city services. Our next step is to return to the trial court to make those arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
