September 9, 2025
UPDATE ON SUPPORT SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE FOR
RESIDENTS AND TRACKING OF AT-FAULT EVICTIONS
City Council Meeting
2 Donation Update
• Since the August 5th Council Meeting, staff coordinated with Enough for All and Someone Cares Soup Kitchen.
• Enough for All Fund ($50,000): Assist with rent, utilities, and other necessities. • Someone Cares Soup Kitchen ($50,000): Provide daily meals and food boxes to impacted residents.
• Funding has been disbursed to both non-profits.
3 At-Fault Eviction Tracking & Rental Registry
• At-fault evictions occur for reasons
such as nonpayment of rent, lease
violations, nuisance, or criminal
activity.
• Currently, no system exists to
collect at-fault eviction data.
• Staff identified the cities listed in the
table with an established rental
registry program.
4 Considerations
• A rental registry program requires dedicated resources to be effective. • Administration
• Technology
• Dedicated staffing
• Impacts on other Departments
• Code Enforcement
• Building and Safety
• Finance
• Legal
• Ordinance/Ballot Measure
• Challenges
• Current organizational structure does not have the capacity or resources to support such a program.
Questions?
September 9, 2025
OPTIONS FOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND POTENTIAL
PARTICIPATION IN LAWSUIT CHALLENGING
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT PATROLS
City Council Meeting
2 Background
• At the August 5, 2025, City Council Meeting, the City Council directed staff to explore and identify options to establish a legal defense fund to provide legal assistance to residents impacted by federal immigration enforcement.
• The City Attorney was also asked to identify any limitations on funding such services.
3 Legal Defense Fund Program
Legal restrictions:
o Federal funds, grants, or restricted funds cannot be used. o The City may use General Fund dollars for this purpose.
Program options:
1. Creating a City-run program
o The City Attorney’s Office does not provide immigration-related services. o Existing staff lack the necessary expertise and training.
2. More cost-effective approach: partner with and fund existing organizations that already provide immigration legal assistance.
Complicating factors:
o Recent ruling of Board of Immigration Appeals upheld Executive Order precluding bonded release of detainees; immigrants “who are present in the United States without admission…must be detained for the duration of their removal proceedings.” The order has been appealed.
4 Identified Service Providers
Organization Key Services Offered City Partnership Notes Public Law Center (PLC)
Deportation defense, VAWA, U & T Visas, SIJ, Adjustment of Status, Asylum, DACA, Naturalization, immigration
consequences of criminal charges
Willing to discuss contracting with City
Community Legal Aid SoCal VAWA, U & T Visas, SIJ, Adjustment of Status, Cancellation of Removal, Removal Defense, Asylum, Naturalization
Can partner with City for eligible
residents; limited by federal funding rules
Legal Aid Association of CA (LAAC) Deportation/Removal, Green Cards, Naturalization, Family Petitions, SIJ, Asylum, Domestic Violence, Military Citizenship Refers residents to legal providers; does
not directly provide services
Immigrant Defenders Law Center
(ImmDef)
Deportation defense, children’s representation, asylum, SIJ, ICE representation, post-conviction relief, case management Full-service legal support; potential City
partner
Other OC Providers (CA DSS grants) Immigration-related services, some legal assistance Staff can explore services and potential
partnerships; includes multiple nonprofits
(e.g., BPSOS, CAIR, World Relief)
5 Potential Participation: Perdomo, et al. v. Noem, et al. • Case Background
• Perdomo, et al. v. Noem, et al. challenges the use of “roving patrols” to detain individuals for immigration enforcement.
• Plaintiffs allege detentions occurred without reasonable suspicion, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
• Multiple U.S. citizens and lawful residents have been detained, taken into custody, or arrested during these patrols in Southern California.
• Case Overview
• District Court: Issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), finding that an individual's race, ethnicity, language, location, and/or type of work, alone or in combination, does not constitute reasonable suspicion to allow detaining that individual. • Ninth Circuit: On August 1, 2025, upheld the TRO, prohibiting federal agents from relying solely on these factors for detentions.
• Supreme Court: The Trump Administration requested an emergency stay of the TRO, which was granted on September 8, 2025.
• What’s next?: District Court holding hearing on September 24, 2025. 6 Alternatives
• The City Council may:
1. Direct staff to explore funding agreement(s) with one or more of the identified entities or alternative providers and identify the amount of any such funding.
2. Direct staff to explore creating an in-house legal assistance team, but this alternative is not recommended.
3. Take action to participate in the Perdomo litigation and direct staff as to whether to seek intervention, join with an amicus brief effort and/or otherwise support restrictions on roaming patrols/detentions of individuals without reasonable suspicion.
4. Receive and file the report.
7 Recommendations
• Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Receive and file this update on options to provide legal defense funding to assist to assist residents in connection with federal immigration enforcement and direct staff accordingly.
2. Consider whether and how to participate in Perdomo, et al. v. Noem, et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP.
Questions?