The city of Los Angeles has been awarded just over $33,000 in attorneys’ fees in the wake of a judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by open-air swap meet operators who alleged the city and Councilman Hugo Soto-Martinez had failed to control nearby sidewalk vendors.
LACC Swap Meet Inc. contended 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. 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, but on Friday the judge awarded the reduced amount of $33,075. The judge heard arguments Thursday and took the issues under submission.
In her court papers, an LACC Swap Meet attorney contended the defense attorneys’ time entries were vague, excessive and included 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 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, the swap meet was hampered in its ability to operate lawfully and safely, the plaintiff’s attorneys further stated in their court papers..
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.”