The 2-1 decision of a 3-judge U.S. Court of Appeals panel was filed today, denying the Bus Riders Union's appeal of the U.S. District Court's decision to not extend the MTA Consent Decree (i.e. MTA won, BRU lost). Here's the cover and opinion (from the 33-page filing, emphasis added).
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LABOR/COMMUNITY STRATEGY CENTER; BUS RIDERS UNION; SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE OF GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY; KOREAN IMMIGRANT WORKERS ADVOCATES; MARIA GUARDADO; RICARDO ZELADA; NOEMI ZELADA,Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; ROGER SNOBLE,Defendants-Appellees. | No. 06-56866 D.C. No. CV-94-05936-TJH OPINION |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
May 12, 2008—Pasadena, California
Filed May 5, 2009
Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Barry G. Silverman, and
Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Silverman;
Dissent by Judge Berzon
5205
OPINION
SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge:
This appeal arises after fourteen years of litigation concerning
public transit in Los Angeles County. In 1994, the Labor/
Community Strategy Center and other Los Angeles County
community organizations and local residents, known collec-
ively as the “Bus Riders Union” or “BRU,” brought a civil
rights class action against the County’s Metropolitan Transit
Authority, charging the MTA with unlawfully discriminating
against “inner-city and transit dependent bus riders” in its
allocation of public transportation resources. The case did not
go to trial; rather, in 1996, the parties agreed to, and the district
court approved, a consent decree that committed MTA to
implementing “a detailed plan to improve bus service.” See
Labor/Community Strategy Ctr. v. L.A. County Metro. Trans.
Auth., 263 F.3d 1041, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Labor/
Community”). The district court’s jurisdiction over the decree
was explicitly set to expire in ten years.
Shortly before the tenth anniversary of the decree, BRU
moved to extend the duration of the decree on the grounds
that MTA had allegedly failed to comply with the decree’s
overcrowding provisions. BRU also sought civil contempt
sanctions against MTA for MTA’s alleged failure to comply
with a 2004 remedial order. Ruling that MTA had substantially
complied with the decree, the district court denied
BRU’s motion seeking these remedies and allowed the decree
to expire.
We hold today that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying BRU’s motion to extend the decree and for
contempt sanctions. We therefore affirm the district court’s
decision in all respects.