The city of Los Angeles has filed a second challenge to a lawsuit brought by an open-air swap meet alleging that the city and Councilman Hugo Soto-Martinez have failed to control sidewalk vendors who have undercut business from those operating within the Saturday swap meets held in a Los Angeles City College parking lot.
LACC Swap Meet Inc. contends that the Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit is intended to protect the small businesses and street vendors who sell inside the swap meet, some of whom have operated there for decades, some of whom have had to reduce selling or stop altogether.
According to the lawsuit, the alleged conduct includes the City’s failure to enforce restrictions on sidewalk vending near swap meets, denial of safety-related parking measures requested by the Los Angeles Fire Department, and other actions that LACC Swap Meet contends contributed to unsafe and unmanageable conditions impairing the Swap Meet’s ability to operate lawfully and safely.
“Despite repeated efforts to work with the council member’s office to find a reasonable solution, we reached a point where legal action was our only option to protect the small businesses that operate within the swap meet,” Phillip Dane, CEO and co-founder of LACC Swap Meet, said previously. “When outside vending is allowed to take over the surrounding blocks, our vendors get undercut, families lose income and the community suffers.”
The city previously responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, contending that Soto-Martinez’s advocacy in support of street vending and communications with local street vendors and his constituents fall squarely within the anti-SLAPP statute.
“Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims must be stricken and the city awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion,” the city states in its court papers.
The state’s anti-SLAPP — Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — law is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights.
On Feb. 11, the city brought a second dismissal motion, contending that the City is immune from liability and that the swap meet’s claims are also barred under the for failing to file a timely government claim before bringing the suit.
The lawsuit filed Dec. 26 alleges five causes of action against the city alleging violation of the federal takings clause under constitution, violation of the state takings clause of the state constitution, interference with prospective economic advantage, interference with contractual relations and private nuisance.
“I want to be clear: I’m not anti-street vendor, it’s the exact opposite,” Dane said. “Our vendors are street vendors. They’re small businesses who have sold here for decades, following the rules and obeying the law. This is about protecting lawful vendors and restoring basic safety and fairness for the community.”
The suit contends that Soto-Martinez supports local sidewalk vending and encouraged those sellers to operate near the swap meet in order to “curate political favor in the local community and to lead the street vendors in commandeering the leased property for themselves.”
The lawsuit also notes alleged broader community impacts, including public safety concerns in the surrounding neighborhood by nearby residents who have reported feeling unsafe and that some of their vehicles have been vandalized.
The city’s anti-SLAPP and second dismissal motions are scheduled to be heard May 26 and June 16, respectively.