The Fresno homeless person property destruction case has been certified as a class action. The differences in damage claims was not enough to defeat Kincaid v. City of Fresno, 244 F.R.D. 597 (E.D. Cal. 2007):<\/p>\n
This case concerns a number of clean-up operations (sweeps) conducted by Defendants. For more than a year, Defendants implemented a policy of seizing and immediately destroying personal property of homeless individuals in an effort to clean up the City of Fresno. (Doc. 113, SAC, 1 38.) A number of these clean up efforts occurred on property belonging to Caltrans, including the raids on May 3, 2006, May 25, 2006, June 22, 2006, and August 26, 2006.<\/p>\n
In bringing this action Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction and declaration of illegality of Defendants’ conduct. Secondarily, Plaintiffs seek damages for the losses suffered from seizure and destruction of their property, much of which is common. According to Plaintiffs, the overarching issue of Defendants’ liability will involve elements of common proof. The common issues include:<\/p>\n
1. whether Defendants’ policies and practices in conducting the sweeps at issue are unlawful, in that they result in immediate destruction of property of the homeless;<\/p>\n
2. whether Defendants’ policies and practices in conducting the sweeps at issue are unlawful in that they fail to provide adequate pre- or post-seizure notice and fail to provide any opportunity to recover seized property;<\/p>\n
3. the nature of injunctive relief that should be ordered, including notice requirements, the amount of time allowed to move property, and what must be done with property that is removed; and<\/p>\n
4. whether Defendants are liable for statutory and\/or punitive damages and if so, how much. (Doc. 131, Motion to Certify Class, Filed June 15, 2007.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Plaintiffs now seek certification of class members.<\/p>\n
. . .<\/p>\n
Based on the totality of all factors considered. Plaintiffs have established the requisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. \u00a7\u00a7 23(a)(1)-(4), 23(b) (2) and (b)(3) and shown that certification of the class is superior to all other methods of adjudication.<\/p>\n
Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class is GRANTED. The following class definition shall apply:<\/p>\n
“All persons in the City of Fresno who were or are homeless, without residence, after October 17, 2003, and whose [*31] personal belongings have been unlawfully taken and destroyed in a sweep, raid, or clean up by any of the Defendants.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Comment:<\/em> I remember a prior post about this case, but it predates the current blog format, and I cannot find it. It likely was deleted in an semi-annual clean up of the old website.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading