LACC Swap Meet Sues Los Angeles for $30M Over Vending 'Chaos'

LOS ANGELES, CA – January 02, 2026 – The long-running LACC Swap Meet has filed a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles seeking damages exceeding $30 million, alleging that the city’s failure to enforce its own sidewalk vending ordinances has created an environment of "unsafe and unmanageable conditions" that has decimated its business and threatened a vital funding stream for thousands of college students.

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, names the City of Los Angeles as the defendant and centers on the open-air market located at Los Angeles City College (LACC) in Council District 13. The suit contends that inaction by the city, including conduct attributed to Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez's office, allowed a proliferation of unregulated vendors to surround the swap meet, undercutting its lawful businesses and leading to a catastrophic decline in revenue.

A Market on the Brink

For decades, the LACC Swap Meet has been a weekend institution, a sprawling marketplace where hundreds of small businesses sold everything from apparel to antiques. Today, its operators say it is a shadow of its former self. According to the swap meet, vendor participation has plummeted from approximately 200 to just 30, and overall attendance has fallen by 80%.

The lawsuit alleges this decline is a direct result of the city's failure to enforce a municipal code that prohibits sidewalk vending within 500 feet of a permitted swap meet. This has allowed a secondary, unregulated market to flourish on the surrounding sidewalks, creating what the swap meet's management describes as an unfair and unsafe competitive environment.

“This lawsuit is about protecting the vendors who have built their livelihoods here for years and deserve a safe, lawful place to work,” said Phillip Dane, CEO and Co-Founder of LACC Swap Meet, in a statement. “When outside vending is allowed to take over the surrounding blocks, our vendors get undercut, families lose income, and the community suffers.”

Dane emphasized that the legal action is meant to protect the very type of entrepreneur the city claims to support. “I want to be clear: I’m not anti–street vendor—it’s the exact opposite,” he stated. “Our vendors are street vendors. They’re small businesses who have sold here for decades, following the rules and obeying the law. This is about protecting lawful vendors and restoring basic safety and fairness for the community.”

Beyond the economic impact on its internal vendors, the lawsuit also cites broader public safety concerns. The complaint alleges that the city denied safety-related parking measures requested by the Los Angeles Fire Department. Furthermore, the organization states that nearby residents have reported feeling unsafe amid increased congestion and litter, with some vehicles in the area being vandalized.

Student Futures at Risk

The financial fallout extends far beyond the swap meet's gates, directly impacting the Los Angeles City College Foundation. Historically, the swap meet generated over $500,000 annually in rent and fees paid directly to the foundation, which supports the college's 17,000 students. According to the lawsuit, that revenue stream has declined by more than 85%.

The LACC Foundation, a non-profit with net assets exceeding $45 million, relies on such support to provide scholarships, fund academic programs, and run critical student support services. The dramatic drop in funding from its primary revenue generator jeopardizes initiatives like Guardian Scholars, a program specifically designed to support current and former foster youth attending LACC. The lawsuit contends this disruption "drastically threatens and undermines funding and support for students," creating a direct link between sidewalk policy and educational opportunity.

The swap meet's management argues that the city's alleged inaction is not just a business dispute but a direct blow to one of the largest community college foundations in the country and the vulnerable student populations it serves.

A Tale of Two Vendors

The conflict highlights the complex and often fraught relationship between established businesses and the informal economy in Los Angeles. For many of the vendors operating on the sidewalks outside the LACC Swap Meet, the choice is a matter of economic survival. Some turned to street vending during the COVID-19 pandemic when the swap meet itself was temporarily closed, and they have since found it to be their primary source of income.

These vendors describe facing their own set of challenges, from the high cost of booth fees inside the formal market, which can be prohibitive for a small-scale entrepreneur, to what they describe as harassment. Some have alleged that swap meet management has attempted to deter them by turning on sprinklers or emptying portable bathrooms nearby during their peak business hours. For them, the sidewalk represents a necessary, if precarious, place of business.

This dynamic places the city in a difficult position, caught between its mandate to enforce municipal codes and its desire to support the estimated 50,000 microbusinesses that make up the city's $504 million street vending industry. These vendors are a vital part of the city's economic and cultural fabric, often representing immigrant communities with few other avenues for income.

A Legal and Political Maze

At the heart of the lawsuit is a web of state and local regulations. California's Safe Sidewalk Vending Act (SB 946), passed in 2018, decriminalized street vending but explicitly allowed cities to establish regulatory frameworks, including "no-vending zones." The Los Angeles municipal code specifically prohibits vending within the "immediate vicinity" of a swap meet, legally defined as 500 feet from its boundary line.

The lawsuit's claims are bolstered by a recent legal development. A July 2024 settlement between the City of Los Angeles and street vendor advocacy groups—a settlement reportedly supported by Councilmember Soto-Martinez—reaffirmed that state law prohibits vending directly next to swap meets and farmers' markets. The LACC Swap Meet contends that the city has failed to enforce even the terms of this recent agreement.

The lawsuit asserts several legal claims, including violations of the Federal Takings Clause, which protects private property from being taken for public use without just compensation, as well as interference with economic advantage and private nuisance. While proving a constitutional "taking" based on a government's failure to act is a high legal bar, the swap meet's allegations go further, claiming active interference. The complaint alleges that Councilmember Soto-Martinez used his influence to block enforcement and pursued a "personal vendetta" against the swap meet's co-owner, Phillip Dane.

In a statement, Councilmember Soto-Martinez's office, which was reportedly unaware of the suit until contacted by media, did not address the specific allegations but emphasized the councilmember's background as the son of street vendors and his commitment to developing a system that supports safe vending while respecting the needs of the community and the swap meet. The Los Angeles City Attorney's Office has not yet issued a public comment on the litigation.

After the city failed to respond to a government claim filed earlier, the LACC Swap Meet proceeded with the lawsuit and has demanded a jury trial, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal battle over the future of small business, public space, and municipal responsibility in Los Angeles.