The city of Los Angeles is seeking more than $50,000 in attorneys’ fees in the wake of a judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by open-air swap meet operators who alleged that the city and Councilman Hugo Soto-Martinez had failed to control nearby sidewalk vendors.
LACC Swap Meet Inc. contended that the outside vendors had undercut business from those operating within the Saturday swap meets held in a Los Angeles City College parking lot. The plaintiffs said the lawsuit was filed in order to protect the small businesses and street vendors who sell inside the swap meet, some of whom have operated there for decades and had to reduce selling or shut down.
But in May, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gary D. Roberts granted the city’s anti-SLAPP motion on free-speech grounds and the city is entitled to attorneys’ fees as the “prevailing” party. On Tuesday, the City Attorney’s Office filed court papers seeking just under $52,450, representing nearly 60 hours of legal work on the anti-SLAPP motion.
In her court papers, an LACC Swap Meet attorney contends that the defense attorneys’ time entries are vague, excessive and include matters not directly related to the anti-SLAPP motion.
The city had contended that Soto-Martinez’s advocacy in support of street vending and communications with local street vendors and his constituents fell squarely within the anti-SLAPP statute.
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.
According to the lawsuit, the city’s had failed to enforce restrictions on sidewalk vending near swap meets or safety-related parking measures requested by the Los Angeles Fire Department. As a result, swap meet was hampered in its ability to operate lawfully and safely, the plaintiff’s attorneys further stated in their court papers..
“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 lawsuit filed Dec. 26 alleged five causes of action against the city alleging violation of the federal takings clause under the constitution, violation of the state takings clause of the state constitution, interference with prospective economic advantage, interference with contractual relations and private nuisance.
The suit contended 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.