Judge orders LA to pay $1.8M in fees for homeless reporting failures

A federal judge has ordered the city of Los Angeles to pay $1.8 million in attorney fees and some $5,000 in costs for failing to meet its obligations to address homelessness under a landmark settlement agreement with advocates.

"This case is about far more than the reporting of metrics," U.S. District Judge David O. Carter wrote in his order on Tuesday. "Quite simply, it is about providing housing and shelter to unhoused people and getting them off the street."

Carter stated further that "there have been numerous instances of fraud and corruption proliferating unabated within the homelessness-industrial complex. Without accurate data and reporting, the court must take the city at its word. The court declines to do so."

The city is ordered to pay $1,600,633 in fees and $5,067.21 to plaintiff LA Alliance for Human Rights, as well as $201,183.50 in fees and $160 in costs to intervenors Los Angeles Community Action Network and LA Catholic Worker.

Matthew D. Umhofer of Umhofer, Mitchell and King LLP in Los Angeles, who represents the Alliance, celebrated the ruling in an email on Wednesday.

"The court's order and the fee award prove once again that the city cannot get its act together on homelessness," Umhofer said. "We've proved violation after violation of the settlement agreement, and we've shown that the system is broken. And while we're happy the court sanctioned the city, we'd rather see the city making real progress on getting people off the streets.

"We're now in the midst of new hearings where we've shown the city is still breaching the settlement agreement, and we're going to be asking for additional sanctions soon," he continued. "Sadly, this seems to be the only way to hold the city accountable for its failures on homelessness."

In an August opposition to the Alliance's motion, the city called it an "attempt to line its counsel's pockets with taxpayer money" that "has nothing to do with helping address pressing matters, including providing resources to the city's vulnerable unhoused population.

"The Alliance's request defies every limit on this court's inherent sanctions power, ignores every burden that the law places on a party seeking sanctions, and would divert funds at the expense of vital city programs. The court should deny the motion in full," stated the opposition prepared by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP partner Theane D. Evangelis in Los Angeles.

"The court's order awarding the Alliance and intervenors' fees after their failed bid to place the city's homelessness policy in the hands of an unelected receiver is the latest in a long series of rulings that violate the law and divert taxpayer resources from those who need them most," Evangelis said in an email on Wednesday. "Over the last three years, the city has successfully moved thousands of Angelenos off the streets, into housing and services, bringing down homelessness in Los Angeles for the first time in years. The city looks forward to continuing the hard work of developing lasting solutions to homelessness."

The city has since moved to amend the settlement agreement, arguing in a December motion that certain obligations be paused in the wake of last January's wildfires, civil unrest throughout the year and the fiscal emergency declared by the city in June in response to a $1 billion budget deficit.

Evidentiary hearings on contempt are set to continue on Monday.

Shayla R. Myers of the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, representing intervenors on the side of the plaintiffs, said in a phone call on Wednesday that her clients never sought fees prior to evidentiary hearings over the city's compliance with the settlement.

Myers said counsel for the intervenors "have worked without compensation for the duration of the case because we think it's incredibly important that unhoused folks have a voice in these proceedings."

"The fee award is related to the intervenor's necessary participation in an evidentiary hearing that occurred as a result of the city's misconduct in this case, and it's appropriate that the city pay for the attorneys' fees that were incurred as a result of the city's misconduct," she continued.

The settlement requires the city to provide detailed quarterly reports on homelessness reduction efforts, including the number of housing and shelter opportunities created, offered, accepted, or rejected, along with underlying data verified in coordination with the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA). LA Alliance for Human Rights et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al., 2:20-cv-02291 (C.D. Cal., filed March 10, 2020).

However, the plaintiffs allege that for more than three years the city has repeatedly failed to provide timely, accurate data or grant needed access to source materials, instead imposing obstacles such as routing all communications through outside counsel.

Carter's order on Tuesday comes as he continues to weigh a contempt ruling against the city for failing to abide by the terms of the settlement.

In hearings, the city has argued that contempt is improper because the plaintiffs cannot definitively prove bad faith or willful violation of a specific or definitive order.

In its July motion for attorney fees, LA Alliance argued that it had successfully proven the city's violation of the settlement agreement when Carter granted motions for settlement compliance the plaintiffs filed in 2024 and early 2025.

"As this sentence is written and read, the city remains in violation of its settlement agreement obligations. For this, fees are a modest but necessary consequence of the city's ongoing misconduct," read the Alliance's July motion for fees.

The intervenors echoed these sentiments in their own joint motion for attorney fees filed in August.

"In light of the city's violation of the prior courts' orders, the extraordinary and unanticipated drain on resources caused by the seven-day evidentiary hearing in which intervenors were an active and necessary participant, and the court's reliance on intervenors' evidence and arguments to issue sanctions, intervenors now seek approximately $200,000 in fees and costs," the intervenors said.