CLASS ACTION SUIT TARGETS RAMPART CASES

*Scandal: Attorneys file federal lawsuit on behalf of all victims of police
abuse and meet with city about possible settlement. An expert thinks
litigation may be too broad.

Police misconduct specialist Stephen Yagman has formed an unusual alliance
with a law firm composed of highly regarded civil litigators, and Thursday
the new partners filed a federal class action suit on behalf of all people
whose civil rights allegedly were violated by the LAPD in the course of the
Rampart scandal.

All three of the name partners in Yagman's new ally--O'Neill, Lysaght &
Sun--are former federal prosecutors and their 15-year-old Santa Monica firm
has a reputation for success in complex, high-stakes civil litigation.

Four of the firm's partners served as counsels to the Christopher and
Webster commissions, which investigated the LAPD after the 1991 beating of
motorist Rodney G. King and after the 1992 riots, respectively.

Yagman now represents eight individuals, who allege in federal lawsuits that
their rights were violated by LAPD officers involved in the Rampart
corruption scandal.

The Venice-based lawyer and his new partners are attempting to establish a
so-called "settlement class" in which the city of Los Angeles would agree to
fund a pool of money to be divided by plaintiffs who allege Rampart-related
violations of their civil rights, according to attorney Brian C. Lysaght.

Lysaght said he has met several times with ranking officials in the city
attorney's office. "The conversations were detailed and substantive," though
nothing has been agreed to, the lawyer said.

"Discussions have been had with and continue to be underway with the city
attorney's office about agreeing to have one federal judge act as a
settlement judge for all Rampart-related litigation to assist in resolving
the great majority of cases," he said.

Plaintiffs who do not want to participate in a class action would be
permitted to opt out of the settlement and pursue their cases individually.

As an incentive for other potential claimants to join a so-called "global
settlement," Lysaght said he has urged the city attorney to forgo procedural
defenses--such as those involving the statute of limitations--against any
plaintiff who enlists in the proposed class.

Yagman argued that both plaintiffs and the city would benefit from a mass
settlement. "This would be potentially beneficial to plaintiffs because it
will allow them to receive fair and prompt compensation for their injuries
and avoid going through a long, hard-fought legal process whose prospects
are always uncertain for all parties." He said the city would gain some
certainty over how much it would have to pay out over a period of time and
avoid "going into perpetual debt."

It is difficult to assess the prospects of the initiative at this point.
Several other lawyers have filed federal civil suits as well and might
advise their clients not to participate.

Mike Qualls, a spokesman for the city attorney's office, said that although
the office had not yet seen the suit, attorneys in the office's police
division have reached a preliminary conclusion that "Rampart cases are not
appropriate for class relief because they involve such varied fact
situations."

In that regard, the U.S. Supreme Court in the past three years has thrown
out two massive class action settlements of asbestos litigation on the
grounds that the interests of the class members diverged too much for the
class to be valid.

Columbia University law professor John C. Coffee Jr., an expert on class
actions, said the Rampart initiative might be looked at skeptically by a
federal judge because of those decisions.

"The principal problem is [a lack of] factual homogeneity," Coffee said. "To
the extent that there is not a centrally coordinated conspiracy of
high-ranking police officers, rather than a loose network of officers who
have an understanding that they can break the law, class certification seems
inappropriate," Coffee said.

Nonetheless, Lysaght said he thought that hurdle could be overcome.

Thursday's suit contends that cases seeking damages for Rampart-related
violations are appropriate for a class action because they involve common
questions of law and fact as to patterns and practices of defendants from
the Police Department and the City Council.

The suit alleges that individuals victimized by Rampart officers were
subjected to excessive force, the planting of false evidence, fabrication of
evidence, filing of false police reports by officers and perjured testimony
by the same officers.

The suit also alleges that the wrongful conduct of the officers "could not
have occurred without the participation or deliberate indifference and/or
willful blindness of the non-police defendants."

The named plaintiff in the case is Darryl Fitzpatrick, 34, who according to
the suit was arrested on Aug. 14, 1999, and vastly overcharged. The suit
states that although Fitzpatrick had less than half an ounce of marijuana in
his car, a group of Rampart officers claimed that they found four small bags
of marijuana and 22 empty plastic bags in his car.

Fitzpatrick, who was on parole at the time, was charged with a felony count
of transporting illegal substances and a felony possession count.

Those charges could have resulted in a sentence of 25 years to life because
Fitzpatrick had prior convictions, according to the suit. Consequently, the
suit alleges that Fitzpatrick decided to plead guilty--though to the
significantly lower charge of driving a vehicle without the owners' consent.
He served three months in jail, according to Yagman, who said his client is
still on parole.