Still on the case

So, it’s not really clear from the records on the Domain Web site, but it appears that former Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant’s appeal has finally has made it’s way out of default and may be moving on.   When last we left off, Ann Marie Gallant has appealed the judgment against her in her case against the City of Alameda and that for some reason the appeal was deficient in some way.   On the deadline to cure the default there was a notice to the court report to prepare a transcript, which supposedly is a sign that the appeal is moving forward but there isn’t a record of something happening between the notice of default and the notice to prepare a transcript on the Court of Appeals website, so I’m not sure what it all means.   However I am unwilling to shell out any money to look at the one register of actions on the Alameda County website  that might shed some light on the issue the “Memo to Case Memo to Case File Filed.”

But what did get filed, which is why this is all so confusing is the Motion for Attorney’s fees which was filed by the City, because remember the City gets its money back per the ruling.

The amount they are requesting…

Universal appeal

A few weeks ago former Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant filed an appeal after the adverse judgment she received in her lawsuit against the City of Alameda.  She hired a new attorney and everything because I guess she’s going to fight this judgment to the very end as opposed to taking the former Fire Chief David Kapler route of simply accepting defeat and not possibly making things a whole lot worse.

Disappointingly the Alameda County Superior Court Domain Web (that’s the look up tool) moved from a completely free, albeit super clunky website, to charging to just look at the documents now.

Recoup d’état

Earlier last week I wrote about the proposed judgment that was issues in the case of Ann Marie Gallant v. the City of Alameda.   To recap, Ann Marie Gallant, Interim City Manager, was given noticed at the 90 day mark that her contract as the Interim City Manager would not be renewed.  There was a clause in her contract that said that if notice was not given by the 90 days her contract would auto renew for another 90 days.  Because that 90 days coincided with the installation of a new City Council, Ann Marie Gallant eventually sued the City of Alameda saying that they were not allowed to take that action and/or the action was politically motivated and therefore illegal as well.

The Judge in the lawsuit wrote up a proposed judgment earlier in February and had 90 days to reconsider his decision.  It didn’t even take a month for him to decide that his decision would stand and on Valentine’s Day he made his decision final.  As in Ann Marie Gallant essentially is in the same position that former Fire Chief David Kapler found himself in after he sued the City and lost.

This much is True

It appears that former Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant’s case against the City of Alameda is heading into its final stages.  Last Thursday there was a hearing to consider the City of Alameda’s Motion to Strike the whole of Ann Marie Gallant’s complaint against the City given the ruling from the Appeals Court which said that the Anti-SLAPP statute did apply in this case.

The new judge in this case uploaded a “(Proposed) Order and Judgment On Defendant’s Motion to Strike” on Tuesday of last week. As of today it is still “tentative” meaning that the ruling is not yet final, but if it does become final it is bad news for Ann Marie Gallant.  From what I understand Ann Marie Gallant’s attorney appealed the proposed judgment from the Judge, naturally, so there is another hearing scheduled 90 days out because that’s how long the Judge has to change his mind or not change his mind.

Let’s get to the good stuff though, the proposed ruling, of course this can all be found on the Domain Web website, just type in case RG11590505.  I did, however, create a PDF for your reference because the java viewer is really obnoxious. It’s only 11 pages long (well 10 because the last page is the signature page) and most of it is reciting facts that we all already know.

Anti-SLAPP happy

Ack!  It totally slipped my attention that I was going to eventually dedicate a post to former Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant’s appeals case.   To refresh your memory, former ICM Ann Marie Gallant filed a lawsuit against the City for wrongful termination.  The City filed an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion asking the court to dismiss her case because the action of the City Council was a legislative act which is protected speech.  The lower court judge didn’t understand who anti-SLAPP applied, said it wasn’t an anti-SLAPP case and the City’s lawyers appealed.   By the way, this is the exact same thing that happened in the David Kapler case: suit, anti-SLAPP motion, anti-SLAPP motion ruled against in lower court, City appeals, appeals court says lower court is wrong.

Here’s a snippet of what the City’s appeals case looked like.

So like the David Kapler case the appeals court ruled that in the Ann Marie Gallant case, the action that the City Council took was a protected activity:

Help “me too”

I’m glad JKW brought up the legal opinion from the City Attorney that was made public last week because it explains a lot about the portion of the public safety MOUs that is open to critique by folks, the education incentive portion.

For those not interested in slogging through it — it’s pretty short though — it essentially says that the firefighters filed a grievance in 2009 saying that the “me too” clause that was in their contract made them eligible for certain benefits that were codified within the police contract but not explicit in their contract.   That grievance was denied by the City Manager at the time — Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant — and the Fire Chief at that time, David Kapler.

Can you pay my bills

Yesterday the judge in the David Kapler case against the City of Alameda issued a temporary ruling in the motion filed by the City for Attorney’s fees:

Today there is a hearing that should finalize this temporary ruling unless something huge comes out of the woodwork.

A certain appeal, part 2 of 2

Continued from last week”s post.  Of course David Kapler is not the only one with a lawsuit against the City, former Interim City Manager An Marie Gallant’s case is also in the appeals court over pretty much the same issue of the lower court dismissing the SLAPP motion proposed by the City’s lawyer.

In the City’s brief in Ann Marie Gallant’s case — who of course based her lawsuit on the contention that she was retaliated against for being a whistleblower essentially due to her role in the Lena Tam debacle, but here the City questions the consistency of that contention since AMG’s own statements pin the blame on Michael Colantuono for the whole investigation and sending the letters to the DA, which would make him, in fact the actual “whistleblower”:

A certain appeal, part 1 of 2

Right now both the former Fire Chief David Kapler and former Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant’s cases are tied up in appellate court.   Both are being defended by outside counsel Manuela Albuquerque, or in these cases she has appealed the lower court ruling that threw out the City’s SLAPP motion.

In the appellate briefs there are some interesting tidbits that I wanted to share.

Here are the bits from the City’s brief in the David Kapler case, what is revealed is that even though David Kapler seemed to blame Councilmember Lena Tam for his legal woes, it was in fact then-Mayor Beverly Johnson that the firefighters had approached regarding the issue:

And more revelations into the whole gas thing:

Why must you be mean to me?

Today the judge in the case of Gallant v. City of Alameda will be considering a motion filled by the City of Alameda to strike portions of Ann Marie Gallant’s lawsuit that they deem to be inadmissible,  from the City’s filing:

Most of Gallant’s declaration contains ad hominem attacks on one or more Council members for perceived petty slights. These are all, however, irrelevant to the allegations in the Complaint. Each cause of action solely challenges the Council’s December 28. 2010 action to “terminate” Gallant from her ICM position under four different theories.

The Complaint does not allege any other claimed retaliatory activity, breach of contract or breach of the City Charter. In short there is no support in Gallant’s Complaint for her claim in her Opposition that she is also challenging her placement on paid administrative leave

Gallant’s declaration is also replete with inadmissible, and mostly irrelevant speculation, opinion testimony, legal argument, hearsay, and conclusory vague claims lacking any foundation.