Loading...
In a sharply worded order during a recent hearing, a federal judge in Los Angeles compelled the city to promptly pay the court-appointed monitor who has been overseeing compliance with a landmark homelessness settlement. The ruling underscores ongoing tensions between the city and the federal court over Los Angeles’s progress and transparency in meeting its obligations to provide shelter for its homeless population.
Background: The Homelessness Settlement and Its Oversight
The case at the center of this dispute, LA Alliance for Human Rights v. City of Los Angeles, stems from a 2020 class action lawsuit filed by advocacy groups representing homeless individuals. The suit challenged Los Angeles’s failure to provide adequate shelter and services, resulting in a court-ordered settlement agreement aimed at addressing the city’s chronic homelessness crisis.
Under the settlement, Los Angeles agreed to create enough shelter beds to house 60% of its homeless residents by 2027. This goal is part of a broader effort to combat a homelessness epidemic that has made Los Angeles one of the hardest-hit cities in the nation, with tens of thousands living unsheltered on the streets.
To ensure compliance, the court appointed Michele Martinez in 2022 as an independent monitor. Martinez’s role is to review the city’s progress, audit data submitted by Los Angeles, and report to the court on whether the city is meeting its milestones under the settlement. The monitor acts as a critical check to hold the city accountable and to ensure transparency in an issue that deeply impacts vulnerable populations.
Payment Dispute Sparks Judicial Intervention
Despite the monitor’s vital role, she had reportedly gone unpaid for 83 days, a delay that prompted Judge David O. Carter to intervene personally during a hearing on November 6, 2025. The judge expressed frustration with city officials and their legal counsel for failing to ensure prompt payment.
At the hearing, Judge Carter was unambiguous: “Go cut the check.” He insisted that the city must immediately pay Martinez to fulfill its financial obligations, emphasizing that the court would not adjourn until payment was confirmed. The judge’s directive came as part of broader concerns about the city’s responsiveness and adherence to the settlement’s terms.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
Judge Carter also warned that if the city continues to delay or obstruct compliance, he might consider holding it in civil contempt. Such a move could result in penalties or other court-imposed sanctions, signaling the seriousness with which the court views these ongoing compliance issues.
Broader Compliance Challenges
The payment issue is emblematic of wider compliance challenges faced by Los Angeles in this case. Since the monitor’s appointment, there have been repeated concerns about the city’s ability to provide timely and accurate data, meet reporting deadlines, and demonstrate genuine progress toward the shelter bed targets.
Court filings and monitor reports have noted deficiencies in the city’s documentation and responsiveness. These shortcomings raise questions about whether the city is fully committed to meeting its legal obligations or is merely responding reactively under court pressure.
The monitor and other court-appointed reviewers have repeatedly flagged “missing data” and “inadequate documentation,” hindering the court’s ability to assess true progress. These issues not only delay accountability but risk prolonging the suffering of thousands of unhoused residents who depend on these interventions.
Judge Carter’s Message: Accountability and Urgency
Judge Carter’s remarks at the hearing made clear the human stakes behind the legal wrangling. “The human cost of delay is real,” he stated, underscoring that the court’s priority is to ensure that the settlement’s promises translate into actual shelter and services on the ground — not just future commitments or paperwork.
The judge criticized the city for adopting a reactive stance, suggesting that its legal team only takes action when forced by court threats, rather than proactively fulfilling settlement requirements. This critique highlights the friction between judicial oversight and municipal governance, especially when public resources and vulnerable populations are involved.
City’s Legal Counsel Under Scrutiny
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, the city’s external legal counsel, also came under scrutiny during the hearing. Judge Carter questioned whether the delays in payment and compliance might inadvertently enable the city to evade full accountability under the settlement.
Though the monitor’s overdue payment reportedly was processed shortly after the judge’s order, the city’s broader compliance issues remain unresolved. The court continues to closely monitor data submissions, milestone achievements, and the city’s overall strategy for homelessness reduction.
Looking Ahead: Next Court Dates and Possible Sanctions
The court has scheduled a follow-up hearing for November 13, 2025, where it will consider further motions related to sanctions, potential contempt proceedings, and the city’s efforts to stay or appeal certain aspects of the monitor’s appointment and authority.
These forthcoming hearings will be crucial in determining whether Los Angeles takes a more cooperative and transparent approach, or if additional judicial measures will be necessary to enforce compliance.
Broader Implications for Urban Homelessness Management
This case exemplifies the legal and operational challenges many U.S. cities face in addressing homelessness through court mandates and negotiated settlements. While judicial oversight can compel governments to act, the complexities of funding, data management, and service delivery often complicate implementation.
The Los Angeles case also reflects a growing trend where courts increasingly play a role in shaping urban social policy, especially when municipal failures create public health and safety crises. The involvement of court-appointed monitors can provide independent oversight but depends heavily on cooperation from city governments and adequate resourcing.
As homelessness continues to rise nationwide, the pressure on cities like Los Angeles to deliver measurable progress intensifies. This settlement, and the court’s insistence on financial and operational compliance, underscores the necessity of accountability mechanisms to ensure vulnerable populations receive timely help.
Looking for the latest legal job opportunities and career insights related to public interest law and social justice? Visit LawCrossing today to explore thousands of legal positions nationwide and stay ahead in your legal career. Don’t miss out on opportunities to make a real impact—start your search now!
