One day before a hearing to explore whether the city of Los Angeles misled a federal court regarding its plan to clear thousands of homelessness encampments, the city’s outside counsel requested an appeals court to remove the presiding judge from the case.
In a brief filed Monday morning, attorneys for the city told the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter had made numerous errors overseeing the settlement. That agreement committed the city to providing housing or shelter for 12,915 people and clearing 9,800 tents, vehicles, and makeshift shelters. The city asked the court to reverse many of Judge Carter’s rulings but argued that doing so would be insufficient.
“Only the stronger medicine of reassignment will put a stop to the parade of irregular proceedings and rulings,” the brief stated.
Later Monday, the city submitted a second brief asking the appeals court to stay the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, claiming it would not have sufficient time to prepare.
### Background of the Hearing
Judge Carter called the Tuesday hearing to focus on a Superior Court ruling that the City Council violated the state’s open records act by considering the encampment issue in a closed session. The hearing would also examine “potential misrepresentations made to the court regarding the encampment reduction resolution.”
Carter expressed concern about media reports suggesting the Council never actually voted on the plan, despite representations to the court that the plan—a “critical and material issue”—had been approved.
In response, Carter requested the attendance of several senior Los Angeles political and legal officials, including:
– Mayor Karen Bass
– Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson
– Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority interim chief executive Gita O’Neill
– First U.S. Assistant Attorney Bill Essayli
– Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman
### City’s Response
Theane Evangelis, lead attorney for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the law firm representing the city, released a statement criticizing the court’s approach. She said the court had “used this proceeding as an improper roving commission to dictate the city’s budget and its homelessness policy.”
She added that the court “has regularly requested the attendance of elected officials, imposed intrusive surveillance on the city by an expensive special master and consulting firm, and routinely relied on extra-record material and its own fact investigations.” Evangelis also highlighted frequent threats by the district court to hold the city in contempt and impose radical remedies.
### Reactions from Advocates
Matthew Umhofer, attorney for the LA Alliance for Human Rights—a mostly business and property-focused organization that filed the 2020 lawsuit alleging the city had failed to address street homelessness—encouraged the city to “calm down.”
He said, “They seem to think they are entitled to stop a federal court from trying to figure out whether the city lied to the court.”
### Ongoing Proceedings
The Tuesday hearing is part of a longer, ongoing court process that began last November. The LA Alliance contends the city has repeatedly failed to comply with the 2022 settlement agreement.
Last summer, Judge Carter denied the Alliance’s request to place the city’s homeless program in receivership but found that the city had “flouted” its duty to provide “accurate and comprehensive data” to the court. Carter then ordered the appointment of a monitor to review and verify the city’s data—a decision the city’s legal team has appealed.
The LA Alliance’s attorneys requested the new hearing on the grounds that the city was in contempt of the agreement for:
– Violating its obligation to accurately report progress
– Failing to cooperate with the court’s special master and data monitor
### New Developments
A new twist emerged when a Superior Court judge ruled that the city violated the Ralph M. Brown Act by approving the encampment strategy during a closed session on January 31, 2024. Subsequent statements by city officials cast doubt on whether the vote on the plan was actually taken, despite assurances from the city’s attorney that it was.
### Criticism of Judge Carter
In its brief to the 9th Circuit, the city characterized Judge Carter as a judge “out of control” who has used his position as a “bully pulpit” to demand policy changes. The brief claimed Carter threatened aggressive actions that could make elected officials’ “lives miserable” or make them “dead politically.”
According to the city, Judge Carter’s errors have forced it to file three appeals already.
### Plaintiffs’ Counterpoint
The plaintiffs argue that the city has prolonged the proceedings by failing to uphold its commitments and pursuing frivolous appeals, resulting in mounting legal bills.
“It’s no wonder they’ve run up a $7.5 million bill,” said Umhofer. “Whether the city lied or not, they still entered into an agreement to address almost 10,000 encampments across the city, and we’re deeply concerned they’re not going to come anywhere near that number.”
—
As the legal battle continues, the issue of homelessness in Los Angeles remains at the forefront of both political and judicial scrutiny. The forthcoming hearings promise to shed further light on the city’s handling of its commitments and its transparency with the courts.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-02-09/la-city-seeks-to-dump-federal-judge-overseeing-homelessness-settlement