Linderman v. City of Los Angeles
City of Los Angeles Alarm Permit Settlement

Frequently Asked Questions


Expand/Collapse All
  • You received a notice because a Settlement has been reached in this Action.  According to the City’s records you are a member of the Settlement Class and eligible for the relief detailed below.

    The Notice explains the nature of the Action, the general terms of the proposed Settlement, and your legal rights and obligations.  To obtain more information about the Settlement, including information about how you can see a copy of the Settlement Agreement, please see Question 18 below.

  • Plaintiffs Sheila Linderman and Charles Mayrsohn (“Representative Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit against the City on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The lawsuit alleges the City overcharged individuals for the initiation and renewals of alarm permit fees in violation of various statutes and the California Constitution.

    The City denies each and every one of the allegations of unlawful conduct, any wrongdoing, and any liability whatsoever, and no court or other entity has made any judgment or other determination of any liability. The City further denies that any Class Member is entitled to any relief and, other than for settlement purposes, that this Action is appropriate for certification as a class action.

    The issuance of this Notice is not an expression of the Court’s opinion on the merits or the lack of merits of the Representative Plaintiffs’ claims in the Action.

    For information about how to learn about what has happened in the Action to date, please see Question 18 below.

  • In a class action lawsuit, one or more people called “Representative Plaintiffs” (in this Action, Sheila Linderman and Charles Mayrsohn) sue on behalf of other people who allegedly have similar claims.  For purposes of this proposed Settlement, one court will resolve the issues for all Class Members.  The company sued in this case, the City, is called the Defendant.

  • The Representative Plaintiffs have made claims against the City.  The City denies that it has done anything wrong or illegal and admits no liability.  The Court has not decided that the Representative Plaintiffs or the City should win this Action.  Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement.  That way, they avoid the cost of a trial, and the Class Members will receive relief now rather than years from now, if at all.

  • The Court has decided that everyone who fits this description is a Class Member for purposes of the proposed Settlement: all persons and entities who, between the period of August 15, 2015 and October 1, 2019, paid an Alarm Permit Fee under LAMC Section 103.12 to the City.  Specifically excluded from the Class are: (a) council members of the City, the mayor of the City, and Commissioners of the City’s Police Commission; (b) any judge assigned to hear this Action; (c) and persons or entities who properly exclude themselves from the Class as provided in this Agreement and are not Class Members.

    If you received notice of this Settlement via a postcard in the mail, the City’s records show that you are a member of the Class.

  • If you are still not sure whether you are included, you can write the Settlement Administrator for free help. The email address of the Settlement Administrator is and the U.S. postal (mailing) address is:

    Linderman v. City of Los Angeles
    c/o JND Legal Administration
    PO Box 91341
    Seattle, WA 98111

  • Under the Agreement, the City has agreed to provide Class Members with a one-time, non-transferable, Fee Adjustment Credit toward the Annual Renewal Fee for an Alarm System permit issued for the 2021 calendar year. It is estimated that the Fee Adjustment Credit will be approximately $12.00 per Class Member; however, this amount may increase or decrease, on a pro rata basis, based on a number of factors that have yet to be determined; mainly, the Court’s award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards to Plaintiffs and Class Counsel and the administration expenses of the Settlement Administrator. The Agreement also provides prospective relief to the Class in the form of a prospective Reduced Alarm Permit Fee for Alarm System permits issued for the 2020, 2021, and 2022 calendar years. The Reduced Alarm Permit Fee would be Five Dollars ($5.00) less than the existing Alarm Permit Fee charged by the City for an Alarm System permit.

  • The Court has ordered that the law firms of Kearney Littlefield, LLP and Stonebarger Law, APC (“Class Counsel”) will represent the interests of all Class Members. You will not be separately charged for these lawyers. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.

  • Class Counsel will seek for the Court to award of up to $991,667.00 in attorney’s fees and no more than $40,000.00 in costs. You will not be required to pay any attorneys’ fees or costs. Please see Section XIV of the Settlement Agreement, available at Important Documents, for additional details.

  • Representative Plaintiffs will request a service award of up to $5,000 each for their services as class representatives and their efforts in bringing the Action.  The Court will make the final decision as to the amount to be paid to the class representatives.

  • If the Court approves the proposed Settlement, unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will be releasing any claims you might have against the City. Specifically, you will be bound by the release and waiver in Section XI of the Settlement Agreement and will release, and be precluded from instituting a new action against Defendant relating to, the following Released Claims: all claims, demands, actions, and/or causes of actions of whatever kind or nature, in law or in equity, including damages, costs, expenses, penalties, expert fees, and attorneys’ fees that were asserted in the Action or that could have reasonably been alleged or asserted in the Action by the Releasing Parties against the Released Parties arising out of or related to the Action, including without limitation any allegations, events, transactions, acts, omissions, matters, or occurrences related to the Alarm Permit Fee or payments of the Alarm Permit Fee or Reduced Alarm Permit Fee during the period from August 15, 2015 to October 1, 2019.

  • The deadline to submit a request for exclusion was December 20, 2019.

  • The deadline to submit an objection  was December 20, 2019.

    At the date, time, and location stated in Question 16 below, the Court held a Fairness Hearing to determine if the Settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to also consider Class Counsel’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs and service awards to the Representative Plaintiffs.

    You may, but need not, submit your objection through counsel of your choice. If you do make your objection through an attorney, you will be responsible for your personal attorney’s fees and costs.

    Class Members had the option to appear at the Fairness Hearing, either in person or through personal counsel hired at the Class Member’s expense.

  • Objecting is simply telling the Court that you disagree with something about the Settlement.  You can object only if you stay in the Settlement Class.  Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you don’t want to be part of the Settlement Class.  If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the Settlement no longer affects you.

  • The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement and held a hearing to decide whether to give final approval to the Settlement.  At the Fairness Hearing, the Court approved the Settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class.  It also considered the award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to Class Counsel and the request for service awards to the Representative Plaintiffs.

  • On February 26, 2020 at 11:00 AM, a hearing was held on the fairness of the proposed Settlement.  At the hearing, the Court was available to hear any objections and arguments concerning the proposed Settlement’s fairness.  The hearing took place before the Honorable Amy D. Hogue in Department 7 of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, and the Settlement was approved.

  • At that hearing, the Court was available to hear any objections and arguments concerning the fairness of the Settlement.

  • To see a copy of the Settlement Agreement, the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and costs, and the operative complaint filed in the Action, please visit the Important Documents page. Alternatively, you may contact the Settlement Administrator by phone at 844-908-0536, fax at 877-553-0586, email at or U.S. postal (mailing) address at Linderman v. City of Los Angeles, c/o JND Legal Administration, PO Box 91341, Seattle, WA 98111.

    This description of this Action is general and does not cover all of the issues and proceedings that have occurred. In order to see the complete file, you should visit the Clerk of the Court at Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. The Clerk will tell you how to obtain the file for inspection and copying at your own expense.

  • It is your responsibility to inform the Settlement Administrator of your updated information. You may do so at the address below:

    Linderman v. City of Los Angeles
    c/o JND Legal Administration
    PO Box 91341
    Seattle, WA 98111


For More Information

Visit this website often to get the most up-to-date information.


Linderman v. City of Los Angeles
c/o JND Legal Administration
PO Box 91341
Seattle, WA 98111