OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) - The City and County of San Francisco argued in front of a federal judge Thursday that remaining plaintiffs accusing it of violating homeless people's constitutional rights by destroying their belongings during encampment sweeps can't prove they have the right to bring such claims against it.

In a hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu, San Francisco argued that the Coalition on Homelessness, a nonprofit advocacy group, lacked standing to bring the suit after some of its members took a settlement deal with the defendants. San Francisco is now asking Ryu to grant it summary judgment in the case.

"The Coalition would still have to identify another individual that gives them standing in this case," San Francisco City Attorney Steven Mills told the judge in a hearing Thursday.

Meanwhile, the Coalition insisted that it had multiple other members who suffered "unjustified property destruction" at the hands of city employees. It also added that even though three of their plaintiffs had settled with the city - Molique Frank, Teresa Sandoval and David Martinez - their agreements didn't preclude them from testifying at trial.

"Their individual claims for injunctive relief are no longer at issue. Their testimony is still relevant, though," Vasudha Talla of Emery Celli, representing the Coalition, said.

Both sides unloaded a flurry of case law in their arguments in hopes of swaying the judge. For the most part, however, Ryu found their efforts lacking.

"Neither side has a case that's governing," Ryu told attorneys.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2022, was brought against San Francisco by a group of current and formerly homeless residents alongside the Coalition on Homelessness. The homeless plaintiffs claim that San Francisco violated their Fourth and 14th Amendment rights by failing to invest in affordable housing and destroying the property of homeless people in an effort to hide evidence of the city's homeless problem.

The Coalition claims that many of its active members have been personally impacted by the sweeps, which have resulted in citations, arrests, law enforcement threats and property destruction while living unsheltered in San Francisco. It further claims that the city and county have illegally seized its members' phones, medication, identification, medical devices, mobility aids, tools, tents and shelters, clothing, vital records and many other personal property items.

The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction preventing San Francisco from seizing and disposing of homeless individuals' property and a court order compelling the county and city to properly train their staff so that any future seizures respect their constitutional rights.

In court, San Francisco called the plaintiffs' standing claims "attenuated" and "speculative," arguing that to claim standing for its members, the Coalition must identify many more than the two individual plaintiffs who remain attached to its complaint.

"This is not a class action. They can't come in and claim to represent any homeless person who's not a member," Mills said.

The defendants further argued that many of the individuals who were deposed didn't even know they were members of the coalition.

San Francisco also argued that a significant number of the Coalition's members are not homeless and thus were not harmed by the sweeps, further casting doubt on standing.

The judge took issue with this last argument by the city and county, pointing out that such an argument could imply that all of an organization would need to be hurt by an action to satisfy associational standing.

"And I'm not sure that I agree it's as clear as that," Ryu said.

The Coalition countered that it already met the threshold for standing, citing multiple eyewitness testimonies of the sweeps' destruction.

The nonprofit also highlighted how many of the sweeps of the encampments occurred suddenly and without warning and argued that many of them constituted warrantless seizures.

"I think it's undisputed now that there are some encampment destructions that happen without any notice at all," Talla said.

The Coalition argued that this was one such example of San Francisco not respecting the constitutional rights of its homeless population.

"As soon as that happened, the government bears the burden of showing that the search falls into an exception for the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement," Talla said.

Representatives for San Francisco responded that the city has previously shown that there is a possible exception, and now it's back to the plaintiffs to find a possible non-exception.

"Lots of disputed facts in that, I gotta say," Ryu said of the city's argument.

The judge when she would rule on the summary judgment motion, but she did instruct both sides to be ready for trial.

"There's enough here that you should be prepared to go to trial," Ryu told attorneys.

The case is scheduled for a bench trial on July 28, 2025.

This case was filed in the Northern District of California and heard at the Ron V. Dellums Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Oakland, California. 

Source: Courthouse News Service