Los Angeles — 2025-08-19

(1)\n08-3292-S1\nCD 6\nMotion (Padilla - Yaroslavsky) relative to initiating and effectuating the\nescheatment and transfer process for idle funds associated with the\nPanorama City Business Improvement District for the purpose of\nimplementing traffic safety measures on Lanark Street in Panorama\nCity.

(10)\n25-0783\nCD 4\nThe Committee may recess to Closed Session, pursuant to\nGovernment Code Section No. 54956.9(d)(1), to confer with its legal\ncounsel relative to the case entitled Griffith J. Griffith Charitable Trust\net al. v. City of Los Angeles et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case\nNo. 23STCP03390. (This litigation consists of a Petition for Writ of\nMandate asserting California Environmental Quality Act claims\nchallenging the City Council’s August 2, 2023, approval of the Los\nAngeles Zoo Vision Plan and certification of its revised\nfinal environmental impact report.)\n(This matter is referred to the Arts, Parks, Libraries, and\nCommunity Enrichment and Budget and Finance Committees.\nThe Arts, Parks, Libraries, and Community Enrichment Committee\nwaived consideration of the above matter.)

(11)\n25-0903\nThe Committee may recess to Closed Session, pursuant to\nGovernment Code Section No. 54956.9(d)(1), to confer with its legal\ncounsel relative to the case entitled Arman Burmayan v. City of Los\nAngeles, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STCV29583.\n(This matter arises from an automobile versus motorcycle accident,\nwhich took place on August 4, 2020, at the intersection of Amestoy\nAvenue and Rinaldi Street, in Granada Hills.)

(12)\n25-0854\nThe Committee may recess to Closed Session, pursuant to\nGovernment Code Section No. 54956.9(d)(1), to confer with its legal\ncounsel relative to the case entitled Robert Danbom v. LAFD, et al.,\nLos Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV28056.

(13)\n25-0855\nThe Committee may recess to Closed Session, pursuant to\nGovernment Code Section No. 54956.9(d)(1), to confer with its legal\ncounsel relative to the case entitled Arturo Aceves Jimenez v. County\nof Los Angeles, et al., United States District Court Case No. 2:21-cv07117.

(2)\n20-1524-S8\nCity Administrative Officer report relative to the Homeless Housing,\nAssistance and Prevention Program Round Six grant application.\n(This item is referred to the Housing and Homelessness and the\nBudget and Finance Committees.)\nFiscal Impact Statement: Yes\nFinancial Policies Statement: Yes

(3)\n25-0720\nMotion (Padilla – Yaroslavsky) relative to the impacts of Cannabis\ntaxation.\n(At its meeting held on August 5, 2025, the Governmnent\nOperations Committee approved the Motion.)\nFiscal Impact Statement: No

(4)\n25-0192\nCity Attorney report relative to an analysis of the expenditures and\noutcomes of legal cases managed by outside counsel as compared to\nthose managed by the City Attorney Staff.

(5)\n25-0897\nThe Committee may recess to Closed Session, pursuant to\nGovernment Code Section No. 54956.9(d)(1), to confer with its legal\ncounsel relative to the case entitled Sabrina Neely v. City of Los\nAngeles, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCV08865.\n(This matter arises from a trip and fall incident which occurred on\nMarch 29, 2022, on the sidewalk near 321 Wall Street, in the city of\nLos Angeles.)

(6)\n25-0899\nThe Committee may recess to Closed Session, pursuant to\nGovernment Code Section No. 54956.9(d)(1), to confer with its legal\ncounsel relative to the case entitled Julio Martinez v. City of Los\nAngeles, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STCV41937.\n(This matter arises from a vehicle versus vehicle accident at 7th Street\nand Bixel Street, in the city of Los Angeles.)

(7)\n25-0901\nThe Committee may recess to Closed Session, pursuant to\nGovernment Code Section No. 54956.9(d)(1), to confer with its legal\ncounsel relative to the case entitled Sara Marin v. City of Los Angeles,\nLos Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCV14185. [This matter\narises from claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act,\nthe California Labor Code, and the California Family Rights Act for: (1)\ngender discrimination; (2) disability discrimination; (3) retaliation; (4)\nretaliation under the California Family Rights Act; (5) retaliation under\nLabor Code §1102.5; (6) failure to prevent discrimination; and (7)\nfailure to prevent retaliation.]

(8)\n25-0902\nThe Committee may recess to Closed Session, pursuant to\nGovernment Code Section No. 54956.9(d)(1), to confer with its legal\ncounsel relative to the case entitled Bladimir Rivera, et al. v. City of Los\nAngeles, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV31888.\n(This matter arises from automobile vs. pedestrian accident that\noccurred on September 11, 2021, on Vista Del Mar, in the City of Los\nAngeles.)

(9)\n25-0789\nCD 11\nThe Committee may recess to Closed Session, pursuant to\nGovernment Code Section No. 54956.9(d)(1), to confer with its legal\ncounsel relative to the case entitled Joseph Roesler v. City of Los\nAngeles, et al, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCV27185.\n[This case consists of a Complaint asserting declaratory and injunctive\nrelief arising as a taxpayer and for violation of the California Coastal\nAct, (Division 20 of the Public Resources Code, commencing with\nsection 30000), related to the City’s removal of street parking on Vista\nDel Mar next to Dockweiler Beach in August 2017.]