Court Reassigns Pretrial Proceedings in Rampart Cases to One Judge

Facing a deluge of Rampart-related civil rights suits, the Los Angeles federal court on Wednesday reassigned all pending cases to a single judge.

U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess was named to preside over all pretrial proceedings, giving him authority to decide crucial legal issues that will affect the ultimate outcome of the Rampart cases.

These are likely to include whether to certify any cases as class action lawsuits, what kind of evidence police must disclose to the plaintiffs and whether to dismiss any or all parts of individual cases.

Feess will also assume responsibility for promoting settlement negotiations.

In all, 68 federal lawsuits have been filed by people who say they were framed or assaulted by Rampart Division anti-gang squad officers. That number could swell to 250 or 275, according to the city attorney’s office.

Consolidating related cases under one judge for pretrial proceedings is common in the courts, designed for efficiency and to avoid conflicting rulings by different judges.

When the pretrial issues are resolved, the cases will be reassigned to other judges for trial.

Feess, who was appointed to the bench last year by President Clinton, is a former Los Angeles Superior Court judge and a former federal prosecutor. He served as deputy general counsel to the Christopher Commission, which investigated abuses by the Police Department after the Rodney G. King beating.

Chief U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. said Feess was selected because he was the first judge to be assigned a Rampart case. It was brought by Javier Ovando, who was allegedly shot by Rampart officers Rafael Perez and Nino Durden, then framed and imprisoned on a trumped-up gun charge.

Feess has made two significant decisions, both favorable to the plaintiffs, in the Ovando lawsuit. He ruled that Ovando’s daughter could sue for being denied access to her father while he was in prison. Previously, courts granted such claims only to parents deprived of contact with their children. Feess also ruled that a one-year statute of limitations did not begin running until Perez’s misdeeds were disclosed.

Both sides in the Rampart litigation praised the move to consolidate cases for pretrial purposes.

“I think it’s great,” said Brian C. Lysaght, who, along with civil rights lawyer Stephen Yagman, represents 19 clients suing the Los Angeles Police Department.

“I think very highly of Gary Feess,” Lysaght said. “He’s not only smart, but he has a strong sense of right or wrong.”

Lysaght said he did not think Feess would “back away” from a recent ruling by U.S. Judge William Rea allowing one of his clients to sue Rampart officers under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The city attorney’s office is attempting to appeal the ruling, which is considered unprecedented by legal experts.

Lysaght also expressed optimism that Feess would eventually certify one of the pending cases as a class action lawsuit.

That would open up the Rampart litigation to more plaintiffs--and probably raise the city’s settlement costs, now estimated at $100 million.

The city’s lawyers have so far resisted any class action certification, contending the issues raised in the various lawsuits are too disparate.

Gregory Yates, a civil lawyer who has filed 24 Rampart lawsuits, also welcomed the court’s order, which was signed by Hatter and U.S. District Judge Lourdes G. Baird, head of the court’s case assignment and management committee.

“I’m very happy that the federal court has taken appropriate steps to avoid the danger of contradictory or inconsistent rulings on virtually identical motions that could wreak havoc before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and could adversely affect not only the federal court but victims’ rights,” Yates said.

Last June, Yates said, he wrote to Hatter to complain about one exhausting day dealing with Rampart cases.

“My office,” he said, “was faced with 24 motions to dismiss on virtually identical grounds filed by the city attorney in 18 different actions filed by my office, including nine motions before six different judges in two different courthouses to be heard on the same day, within one hour of each other.”

Deputy City Atty. Paul Paquette also hailed the court’s action.

“I welcome anything that serves to coordinate and streamline the handling of this litigation, and I think this serves to do that,” he said.

But Paquette said the consolidation “may not go far enough,” adding, “I think there might be a need for someone else to be appointed for mediation purposes.”