The Brief

Last May, the landlord of Barrington Plaza, on Los Angeles’ pricy Westside, affixed notices to the doors of 577 apartments, initiating the largest mass eviction from rent control housing in the city in at least four decades.

Following tenant protest, City Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the district, sought guidance from the office of Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto over whether the city had grounds to intervene in the evictions. Feldstein Soto’s office argued that the evictions were legal, suggesting there was little the city could do to prevent them from taking place. But some experts, including the general counsel for the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, say the city of Los Angeles is failing to use the powers it has to challenge the evictions and ought to do so, given the scope of the impact on tenants and the city’s affordable housing stock.

The city could launch an investigation into whether the evictions violate state and local law; it could join an ongoing tenant lawsuit against the landlord, file its own civil action to halt the evictions, or even withhold building permits to ensure the landlord complies with renter protections, according to several lawyers familiar with California tenant law consulted by Capital & Main.

Leah Simon-Weisberg, who is the elected chair of the Berkeley Rent Board and a tenant attorney, is concerned about the precedent that the Barrington Plaza eviction sets. “Can you imagine if the city really doesn’t do anything about this, what is this going to mean? Is every big building just going to go empty?”

Former Councilman Mike Bonin, who represented the 11th Council District, where Barrington Plaza is located, before his retirement in 2022, called Feldstein Soto’s legal determination “bad advice” that threatens the city’s efforts to combat homelessness. “You literally cannot make progress in the fight against homelessness if you lose affordable housing,” he said in an interview last fall.

Los Angeles’ response to the eviction stands in contrast to those of two neighboring cities. Last fall, West Hollywood and Santa Monica, both with high concentrations of renters, passed resolutions supporting the Barrington Plaza Tenants Association lawsuit filed against Douglas Emmett Inc. for violating local renter protection laws.

Douglas Emmett Inc. has said the evictions are needed so that the $2.5 billion publicly traded company can make much-needed safety upgrades, including adding fire sprinklers to the buildings. There have been two fires at the complex within seven years. In 2020, a foreign exchange student died after one of the towers caught fire.

The company has said that the city mandated the $300 million fire safety upgrade, but city building officials told Capital & Main that the fire safety improvements are not, in fact, required. When asked to provide evidence of the requirement, Douglas Emmett declined to do so. Company spokesperson Eric Rose cited pending litigation with the company’s insurance companies as the reason.

In an email to Capital & Main, Rose said, “We stand by all previous comments.” He cited a news release that was part of a Securities and Exchange Commission filing last May, which said the work was required by the city but did not specify why that was the case.

Douglas Emmett has also said that the fire safety upgrade is expansive and requires the buildings to be empty. Fire safety experts said in interviews and in an internal city email obtained by Capital & Main that fire sprinklers can be installed in the complex for a fraction of the cost cited by Douglas Emmett. A fire safety expert also said that the work can be done without emptying the building.

In May, Douglas Emmett invoked the Ellis Act, a 1985 state law that is used by landlords covered by rent control who wish to remove their properties from the rental market. Once Barrington Plaza is removed from the rental market, its owner will be freed from some requirements for rent-controlled buildings. They include offering tenants temporary replacement housing or a per diem when planning a major renovation and allowing tenants to return when the renovation is complete.

Douglas Emmet’s invocation of the Ellis Act drew a lawsuit from tenants, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in June. At issue is whether the property will be permanently removed from the rental market. The tenants argue that this is what the 1985 state law requires. They claim the landlord intends to evict the tenants, renovate the building and, once the renovations are completed, re-rent the property in violation of the law.

In legal filings, Douglas Emmett disputes the tenants’ interpretation of the Ellis Act, and says the law merely prohibits them from “promptly” re-renting the property. The company argues that, considering the anticipated four-year renovation and uncertainty about Barrington Plaza’s future use, Douglas Emmett is in compliance with the law’s requirements.

Councilmember Park’s office issued a statement saying that as soon as Douglas Emmett invoked the Ellis Act in May, she “took immediate action to safeguard the rights of tenants, including asking our City Attorney to explore all options to intervene in the eviction.” But Barrington Plaza tenants say she has not acted forcefully enough to oppose the evictions. In 2022, Douglas Emmett donated $566,000 to an independent expenditure campaign that supported Park. In the same election cycle, the company gave $200,000 to an independent expenditure committee targeting Feldstein Soto’s opponent, Faisal Gill.

In an emailed statement to Capital & Main, the City Attorney’s Office said it is “unable to discuss our legal strategy with anyone except our clients.” But in September, Elaine Zhong, a deputy Los Angeles city attorney, told members of the City Council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee, “The Ellis Act allows the owner to do these evictions.”

Alison Regan, general counsel for Santa Monica Rent Control Board, agrees with the tenants’ interpretation of the state law. “If you’re kicking out all of your tenants, you have to actually intend to get out of the residential rental market,” said Regan. “You can’t use it to take those rental units off the market temporarily, and then renovate them and then return them back to the rental market, which seems to be what’s happening here.”

Last May, the planning department quietly approved exterior remodeling plans for Barrington Plaza that include new balconies, glazed windows and a revamped pool area with cabanas. The proposed new name, Landmark Plaza, aligns Barrington Plaza with its upscale neighbor, the Landmark, a Douglas Emmett tower leasing one bedroom apartments for $5,750 per month, according to Apartments.com.

“They want to push everyone out and transform the building into a high-priced luxury building and jack up rent,” said Larry Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival (CES), which is supporting the Barrington Plaza Tenants Association in its lawsuit.

Deepika Sharma, director of the Housing Law & Policy Clinic at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, said that the city is well positioned to scrutinize the mass displacement because it houses the departments with oversight over the renovations and the evictions. “I believe the L.A. city attorney could file a case and, at a minimum, make an inquiry,” said Sharma. Such actions would be “in the city’s interest to preserve the remaining affordable housing that we have.”

The Ellis Act is sometimes invoked by landlords who wish to convert their properties to condominiums. So far, the city’s planning department has not received any requests to subdivide Barrington Plaza to make way for condo units, a process that can take from nine months to more than a year.

In an email to Capital & Main, Douglas Emmett spokesperson Eric Rose said once the units are taken off the rental market the company will “have options as to how those units will change, be rehabilitated through new life safety measures or become something different.”

Douglas Emmett hasn’t “told the city of Los Angeles that they’re actually getting out of the residential rental market, and all the evidence is to the contrary,” Regan said. “What the courts have said when they’ve interpreted the Ellis Act, is that you have to use this act in good faith.”

Most tenants left the complex in September, but tenants who are at least 62 years old or have a disability have until May 8 to depart. Barrington Plaza’s three towers include 712 apartments, including those that have remained empty since the 2020 fire.

The Ellis Act has resulted in the removal of over 29,714 rent-controlled units from the market in the city of Los Angeles since 2001, according to a collaborative research effort by CES and the Eviction Mapping Project. In its application to trigger the Ellis Act, Douglas Emmett checked a box indicating it was undecided as to the property’s future use. Regan said that the law should be amended so that landlords who invoke it must say what they intend to do with their properties.

Under the Ellis Act, if Barrington Plaza re-enters the rental market within two years, the company is obligated to pay damages to former tenants. Up until five years, the company must offer the units to the evicted tenants at the same rate that they were paying when they left their homes. Between five and 10 years, landlords are required to offer a right of return, but they can charge market rent. For some landlords, it might be worth the wait.

“If you wait five years and one day, then there are no consequences for you,” Regan said. She said that the Ellis Act creates incentives “for landlords to do this cost benefit analysis and see if it’s worth it to them to sort of be coy about what they plan to do with the property.” Still, the law is designed for landlords that intend to permanently exit the rental market, she added.

Mayor Karen Bass, who has made the construction and preservation of affordable housing a priority, told Spectrum News in a statement in June that the evictions would “worsen the housing crisis” and “make it more difficult for people to find housing that’s available and affordable to them.” Her office said in an email that the mayor’s office has and “will continue to receive legal advice from the City Attorney on the site.”

“It would be hard, I think, for her to have a legal position that’s different than the city attorney’s legal position,” said Jim Newton, a former Los Angeles Times columnist and a veteran observer of Los Angeles City Hall. “But there’s nothing that prevents her from having a public or political position that’s different.”

When asked whether the city was contemplating any legal actions against Douglas Emmett, Ivor Pine, Feldstein Soto’s deputy communications director, said in an email that the City Attorney’s Office “will advise the city’s decision makers if we become aware of any issues that involve violations of the Ellis Act or any other legal issues that fall within the City Attorney’s jurisdiction.”

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chalfant denied the Barrington Plaza Tenants Association’s request for a preliminary injunction to block the evictions in August, writing in his opinion that the tenants would have to move out anyway to allow for the renovations. The case could be decided as early as mid-April, according to Frances Campbell of Campbell & Farahani, LLP, an Agoura Hills-based law firm that is representing the tenants.

Robert Lawrence, a tenant who faces a May 8 move-out date, said city leaders’ response to the eviction has been “completely disappointing and underwhelming in terms of what they’ve done for us.”

This story is no longer being actively updated. For the most up-to-date information about the fire you can check:

• LAFD incident page
• Latest evacuation map

Firefighters appeared to make quick progress against a brush fire the broke out Wednesday near the Getty Center.

As of 5 p.m., evacuation warnings had been issued for zones LFD-0895 and LF-0967, although the LAFD said no structures were immediately threatened as the water-dropping helicopters attacked the fire from above. Forward progress of the fire was reported stopped shortly after 6 p.m. at a little over 20 acres.

The fire broke out as Southern California endures high heat and record-breaking humidity.

The basics

• Acreage: 20+ acres as of Wednesday evening
• Containment: Forward progress stopped
• Structures destroyed: None reported
• Deaths: None
• Injuries: Unknown
• Personnel working on fire: Unknown

Listen to our Big Burn podcast

Fire resources and tips

Check out LAist's wildfire recovery guide

If you have to evacuate:

• Why fire officials don't want you to stay and defend your home
• How to get packed up
• How to leave your house
• What evacuation terms mean and how to sign up for alerts

Navigating fire conditions:

• How to drive in high winds and fire danger
• How to prep for power outages
• How to navigate poor air quality

How to help yourself and others:

• Resources for fire victims, evacuees and first responders
• If you want to help fire victims, resist the urge to volunteer
• How to help find lost pets

How to start the recovery process:

• What to do — and not do — when you get home after a wildfire
• How to make an insurance claim
• How to safely clean up wildfire ash

What to do for your kids:

• How to talk to children about wildfires and losing a home
• What parents should know about wildfire air quality

Prepare for the next disaster:

• Fire season is here. Make sure you're signed up for these alerts
• Every day is now fire season. Let's get you ready for the next wildfire
• Yes, wildfires are getting worse. The history that got us to this moment

A prominent attorney working on a low-level criminal case in Long Beach is alleging the Police Department there concealed an officer’s assault conviction for years — potentially calling into question the legitimacy of hundreds of cases.

Scott Sanders, who exposed the Orange County jailhouse snitch scandal, made the allegations in a series of motions filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court to force disclosure of police records and dismiss charges against Lonnie Jacobs, 47, his court-appointed client.

Jacobs is facing felony charges after Long Beach police said they found a small bag of cocaine tucked inside his sock while he was held at a jail following an arrest in March 2025. Jacobs has pleaded not guilty to the charge of bringing a controlled substance into a jail, which could carry a sentence of up to four years in prison.

At issue is the arrest that landed Jacobs in that cell in the first place — which Sanders argues in court filings was based on misrepresentations of now-former Long Beach police Officer Erik Suarez.

According to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, Suarez resigned from the Long Beach Police Department in June.

In a filing made Sept. 8, the defense attorney said an investigator discovered that Suarez had been convicted of a misdemeanor in the beating of a man outside a Waffle House in Marietta, Georgia in 2019. He had initially been charged with felony assault.

At that time, Suarez had served on the Long Beach force for two years.

LAist attempted to contact Suarez by calling a phone number connected to him in public records. A man who answered said he was not Suarez, but asked what the story was about and said he would check with Suarez about contacting LAist.

In a recent court filing seeking more information about Suarez’s conduct, Jacobs’ defense asserts that the Long Beach Police Department knew about the conviction, but never disclosed this information to defendants or the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.

That’s information Jacobs’ attorney argues was potentially exculpatory, and that withholding it amounts to a major violation of criminal defense laws. In the landmark 1963 case Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court established that law enforcement has a legal responsibility to disclose such information to defendants. In Jacobs’ case, for example, the Sept. 8 filing said information about Suarez’s arrest and subsequent conviction could have been used to impeach him as a witness, as well as in other cases Suarez touched as a police officer.

The Long Beach Police Department has not yet responded to LAist’s emailed questions.

“The actions of the LBPD demonstrate a complete disregard to the danger Officer Suarez presented to the community and to the due process rights of defendants,” according to the motion to force disclosure. “The concealment of Officer Suarez's arrest and prosecution enabled [LBPD] to hide mandated discovery related to Officer Suarez’s conduct from what have likely been hundreds of defendants during the nearly seven-year period between the time of Officer Suarez’s August 2019 arrest and June 2026.”

Jacobs’ attorney alleges in the filing that Long Beach has an “unwritten policy” to keep information that could be used to impeach its officers in personnel files protected from public disclosure.

“The potential systemic consequences are enormous,” the filing argues.

Summer Lacey, the criminal justice and police practices director at the ACLU of Southern California, called the circumstances outlined in the case “very problematic.”

“Not just to the individual,” she said, “but to the entire community.”

Lacey said the information about Suarez’s conviction should have been known to the prosecutors, so they could vet the reliability of the evidence presented by law enforcement, and turned over to the defense at the outset of the case.

A spokesperson for L.A. County District Attorney Nathan Hochman said in an emailed response to questions that they could not comment on what information they disclosed to Jacobs’ defense.

The District Attorney’s Office said it has a “collaborative relationship with the Long Beach Police Department,” and that the department does disclose material to prosecutors that is allowed under California law.

“Generally speaking, if our office had any such Brady material regarding an officer, we would have been legally obligated to turn that over to the defense.”

Lacey said if prosecutors did not have access to Suarez’s criminal record, the scope of people affected could be wide.

“We don't know how many cases are impacted by the potential unreliability of statements from the arresting law enforcement officer,” Lacey said. “This could impact people who have already pled guilty, who maybe are currently incarcerated, who are awaiting sentencing, or who are, like I said, incarcerated pretrial on other cases.”

In an interview with LAist, Sanders said the case raises three troubling issues: There’s the concealment of evidence leading to Jacobs' initial arrest, Suarez’s 2019 assault that was never disclosed, and the question of whether the Long Beach Police Department has concealed Brady material in other cases.

“If that's your modus operandi, we've got an enormous problem here,” Sanders said.

The underlying arrest that led to allegations about concealing an assault 

Long Beach police responded to the intersection of 52nd Street and Atlantic Boulevard after a man reported being held at gunpoint, with the robber driving away in the van he was repossessing.

(

Megan Garvey

/

LAist

)

Just after 7:45 p.m. on March 18, 2025, Suarez and his partner Dylan Kelley responded to a call reporting a person with a gun at the intersection of 52nd Street and Atlantic Boulevard in Long Beach.

The alleged victim, identified in the filing by his last name, Ochoa, told the officers that he was attempting to repossess a black Dodge Sprinter van when someone threatened him with a gun, took the keys and drove off with the van.

Police later tracked down the van and detained Lonnie Jacobs and his brother, Lamar Jacobs.

According to court records, at the scene officers only presented Lonnie Jacobs to Ochoa.

Before seeing him, Ochoa stated that the suspect had braids, and body camera footage detailed in the court filing shows him gesturing to show long hair around his shoulders.

While looking at photos of the suspects in the van, Ochoa identified Lamar Jacobs. “That’s him! With the dreads!,” Ochoa is recorded saying on body camera footage.

Body camera footage shows Suarez confirming this description. “You said he had dreads? Can you remember if he has dreads?,” Suarez asks. The footage shows Ochoa nodding to confirm.

But Ochoa then identified Lonnie Jacobs in person, telling officers he recognized Lonnie Jacobs’ chain and ripped jeans as matching the person who pulled a gun on him earlier that night.

Jacobs’ court filings state that body camera footage shows both he and his brother wore the exact same chain, and they both wore ripped jeans that night.

In an interview with a detective for the District Attorney’s Office in August 2026 that is included in court filings, Ochoa said he was positive he identified a man with braids during the show-up.

Lonnie Jacobs is bald.

Lonnie Jacobs in a still from a police body cam on the night of his arrest.

(

Long Beach Police Department

/

L.A. County Superior Court filing

)

Lamar Jacobs in a still from the night his brother was arrested. An officer is handing him a chain identical to one around his neck.

(

Long Beach Police Department

/

L.A. County Superior Court filing

)

His attorney argued this fact is inconsistent with the description and should have disqualified Jacobs as a suspect, or at least warranted more questioning. Furthermore, he alleges Suarez failed to correct another officer at the scene who questioned why Ochoa didn’t see the hairstyle of the man who allegedly pulled a gun on him.

By this point, Ochoa had already described the suspect as having braids to Suarez and Kelley, according to the body cam footage, but Suarez did not correct the other officer.

“He couldn’t tell by the haircut,” Suarez said, adding he said “everything happened too fast.”

Jacobs’ defense alleges Suarez’s response was “actively misleading his fellow officers.”

Furthermore, body camera footage also shows Suarez agreeing with another officer who expressed doubts that Lonnie Jacobs was the one who brandished the firearm.

A still of officers discussing the potential suspects on the night of Lonnie Jacobs' arrest. A court filing by his defense said officers, including Erik Suarez, expressed doubts that he was the correct person.

(

Long Beach Police Department

/

L.A. County Superior Court

)

“Yeah I think it was him, too,” Suarez said, referring to Lonnie’s brother Lamar. Lamar Jacobs was never charged in connection with the case.

In filings to the court, the District Attorney’s Office said the officers had probable cause to arrest Jacobs because he was in the van described by the witness and matched at least some of the characteristics of the suspect.

How that led to the Georgia case coming to light

Once Jacobs’ defense reviewed the body cam footage, they began attempting to depose Suarez in the case. Although Lonnie Jacobs was never charged with threatening Ochoa, the arrest led to the charges of bringing drugs into a jail. If the initial arrest was illegitimate, the drug case would go away.

The court scheduled a hearing earlier this year to discuss the evidence, but the Long Beach Police Department told Jacobs’ defense that Suarez was out of the country.

The defense subpoenaed Suarez through the Police Department again and on June 15, the department told the team that Suarez had resigned.

An investigator for Jacobs’ defense searched for his address to subpoena him at home. That search, according to the court filing, uncovered the assault charges in Georgia in 2019, two years after he joined the police force in Long Beach.

In the motion to dismiss the charges against Jacobs, his defense argues it is “plausible” that Suarez resigned from the police force out of concern he may have been questioned about his alleged misconduct that led to Jacobs’ arrest.

“However, it is also now apparent that Officer Suarez has been living with another secret that may also have propelled a decision to abandon his police officer position,” the defense wrote.

Through discovery, Jacobs’ attorney said in court filings they learned that Suarez had traveled to Georgia where he watched the Atlanta Braves beat the Los Angeles Dodgers 4-3 on Aug. 17, 2019.

According to an incident report attached to court filings, a witness saw Suarez wearing a Dodgers jersey in a Waffle House, “talking shit” and arguing with the victim.

“Suarez then walked up to the table where the victim was seated and began punching him in the face until the victim was left unconscious on the ground,” the filing describes. According to the incident report and other filings from that case, Suarez continued to punch the victim while he was unconscious.

The most recent filing from Jacobs’ defense says Suarez was arrested walking away from the restaurant.

According to a description of the crime by Barry Morgan, a Cobb County assistant solicitor general, Suarez “caused the victim significant injuries, including orbital fracture, fracture of the maxillary sinus, traumatic orbital hematoma, and concussion.”

A memo details injuries caused by Erik Suarez in a 2019 assault. A grand jury indicted him on two felony counts. He later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and served a year of probation.

(

Cobb County Superior Court

/

via L.A. County Superior Court filing

)

“Defendant beat the victim while the victim was on the ground, apparently unconscious,” the description explains. “This should be aggravated battery.”

On April 1, 2021, a grand jury indicted Suarez on two felony counts of aggravated battery, accusing him of “seriously disfiguring” the victim and rendering his right eye useless.

Right before trial, Suarez pleaded guilty in November 2022 to reduced misdemeanor charges of battery, was ordered to stay away from the victim and Cobb County, and was ordered to take anger management classes. He was sentenced to 12 months, which he was allowed to serve on probation.

According to Jacobs’ defense, “Suarez’s actions in Georgia triggered immediate reporting responsibilities related to his employment” with the Long Beach Police Department.

The court filing explains that the Long Beach police manual requires officers to inform their watch commander when they are arrested by another department or under a criminal investigation.

It’s not yet clear when the department learned about Suarez’s arrest. But Jacobs' defense argues that if the department learned of the arrest between 2019 and 2026, “this would have clearly triggered Brady responsibilities in this case and numerous others.”

That information is relevant to the case against Jacobs, the filing argues, because “it is entirely logical that the same officer who beat a victim into unconsciousness and then cavalierly walked from the scene would just as thoughtlessly arrest a man for whom no probable cause existed — concealing that the victim previously identified another suspect who possessed features irreconcilable with the defendant’s culpability.”

When does law enforcement need to disclose misconduct? 

While law enforcement has a legal requirement to proactively disclose Brady material that could help defendants build their case, California law exempts most police personnel records from disclosure, except under certain circumstances including findings of unnecessary use of force and misconduct while on the job.

Jacobs’ defense attorney, in the Sept. 8 filing, alleges Long Beach police purposefully placed evidence related to Suarez’s conviction in his personnel file, where it could be protected from disclosure.

He wrote this “enabled the agency to hide mandated discovery related to Officer Suarez’s conduct from what have likely been hundreds of defendants during the nearly seven-year period between the time of Officer Suarez’s August 2019 arrest and June 2026.”

Furthermore, the filing argues “there is every reason to believe that the hiding of Brady evidence extends far beyond Officer Suarez’s conduct and is the product of a long-established undisclosed policy designed to conceal Brady evidence.”

The filing points to a June 2021 news article wherein a spokesperson for the LBPD told reporters that it does not maintain a formal list of officers whose case involvement triggers Brady disclosures, but that it “continues to comply with its obligations to share such information.”

By that time, Suarez’s assault case was nearly two years old and, according to Jacobs’ defense, had never been disclosed.