Blogging Bayport Alameda

November 16, 2015

This time I know it’s for real

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:06 am

A year and eight months ago the City put out this press release celebrating the Appeals court decision in the case of former Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant v. City of Alameda. For all posts on Ann Marie Gallant click here.  As a reminder Ann Marie Gallant has been suing the City of Alameda since 2011 which means that her lawsuit has spanned twice the length of time as her stint as Interim City Manager of Alameda.

On Friday, the City got a bit of good news from the Appeals court that Ann Marie Gallant’s second appeal also failed to be persuasive to the court.  I’m really hoping that we get a press release from the city with a quote from our Mayor and Vice Mayor.  *fingers crossed*

Also according to the decision, the City of Alameda has been awarded their costs on appeal as well.

Which means that Ann Marie Gallant, who had successfully received judgments from other cities she worked for is facing a bill of more than $330K in her battle against the City of Alameda.  At this rate despite the high level of compensation received by Ann Marie Gallant for the two years she served as Interim City Manager, the whole of it will get subsumed by the negative judgment against her.

Now, some of you are saying that City could opt to not collect the lawyers fees against Ann Marie Gallant which would be the most boneheaded thing that they could ever opt to do.  Because, (1) she didn’t have to sue the City in the first place and (2) when she received the judgment against her she could have quit while she was ahead but opted not to.  It will be interesting to see, if there’s a new decision on the attorney fees how much it comes out to.  Naturally this does not take into consideration Ann Marie Gallant’s own attorney fees, one can only hope that they took her case on contingency.  Which would suck for the attorneys, but won’t cost AMG a whole lot extra.

From the new decision:

Gallant then argues that the city council’s action of placing her on paid administrative leave until the expiration of her contract was a “retaliatory step,” that brought its conduct within the purview of section 5 (B)(2), not section 2, of the employment contract, “because forcing [her] out until her contract expired necessarily constituted removing her from her role as Interim City Manager.” We conclude Gallant’s arguments fail.

And:

In sum, we conclude Gallant has failed to meet her burden under the second step of the section 425.16 analysis. Specifically, she has not demonstrated a prima facie showing of a wrongful termination or other breach of her employment contract and a violation of section 2-2 of the city charter, elements necessary to prevail on all her claims against the city as alleged in her complaint. 9 Accordingly, we uphold the trial court’s grant of the city’s “renewed” anti-SLAPP motion and the judgment dismissing the complaint.

Hopefully this is the end of the drama between Ann Marie Gallant and the City of Alameda.

Advertisements

3 Comments

  1. It is wonderful news to see the City of Alameda–and especially the Mayor and members of the City Council who were elected in 2010– vindicated after this frivolous and wasteful lawsuit from a disgraced employee.

    Anne Marie Gallant pursued the same strategy–really a form of extortion–here in Alameda that she had previously pursued with other public agencies that had relented and settled out of court, fattening the former Interim City Manager’s bank account at public expense. That tactic is unconscionable.

    I am very happy that our city officials fought this frivolous case and happy for this resolution after many years. I hope the city pursues reimbursement of its legal fees.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — November 16, 2015 @ 12:29 pm

  2. Anne was NOT smart enough to BUY her Job like Russo…..Everybody knows you make large contributions to Mayor and City Council Members to keep your Job…What was she thinking…..

    Comment by Cobalt Black Keys Johnson — November 16, 2015 @ 6:45 pm

  3. Maybe this could help.

    http://www.apartments.com/pinole-ca/under-1200/

    Comment by jack — November 17, 2015 @ 9:52 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.