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.

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.

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:

A case of you and you

A few updates in the employee lawsuit against the City of Alameda.   In the case of former Fire Chief David Kapler (HG11570933) if you will remember the case against the individually named defendants (Councilmember Lena Tam, former Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant, and former City Manager Debra Kurita) was dismissed by the judge in July.   Right now the case is in a kind of holding pattern because the City’s attorneys have elected to file an appeal to have the judge rule on the anti-SLAPP portion of the initial part of their filing for the dismissed defendants.

Basically until that portion is complete, the remainder of the case — against the City — will be on hold.

On Monday the City also filed a response to Ann Marie Gallant’s lawsuit against the City.  Ironically enough, the lawyer who successfully managed to dismiss Ann Marie Gallant from the Kapler case is also defending the City of Alameda against Ann Marie Gallant’s case.

I’m on a boat

Big props to Peter Hegarty over at the Alameda Journal for a really precise Request for Information query, yesterday the Alameda Journal ran this story, highlights:

Alameda city officials were put on notice that a water rescue program was necessary for public safety more than two years before a despondent man drowned himself off Crown Beach while firefighters watched because they said department policy prevented a rescue attempt, public records show.

The warning came in a Feb. 4, 2009 grievance letter filed by a leader of the firefighters union who said the department’s fire boat and water rescue programs were first implemented “due to the inherent risk that comes with providing service for an island community” and that an estimated 2,000 private boats are docked in Alameda.

Sweet and demurrer

Last week, John Knox White broke the news that the City of Alameda has a fairly significant ruling in the Kapler v. City of Alameda and everyone else case.

As a reminder, former Fire Chief David Kapler filed a lawsuit against the City (and various current and former public officials) for a variety of assorted reasons which simply boils down to him being pissed off because he was let go after a very public scuffle over his gas usage.    In addition to suing the City of Alameda as a whole, David Kapler has gone after former City Manager Debra Kurita, Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant, and City Councilmember Lena Tam as individuals.

Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose

As part of Alameda Citizens Task Force’s letter to the City Council urging the City Council to not reimburse Councilmember Lena Tam for her legal expenses incurred during the whole “investigation” at the very end they threw in a zinger, pointing out that:

…it should be emphasized that while the District Attorney’s  Office failed to prosecute Ms. Tam, it did not fully exonerate her of any wrongdoing either.

In light of the recent lawsuit threats and lawsuits brought on by City Attorney Teresa (Terri) Highsmith and Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant.   I find the rhetoric that surrounds these two cases rather contradictory.   On one hand, those that believe that Terri Highsmith and Ann Marie Gallant have a legal case are content to let the courts “sort out” who is right and who is wrong.  (I’m going to go with the assumption that folks that are supportive of both women will paint any settlement as a “win”.)  On the other hand, those that are convinced of Lena Tam’s guilt in the whole “was she leaking confidential information” are not placated by the District Attorney dismissing the case because the evidence was lacking and the legal theory unsound.

Kapler caper

As I mentioned yesterday in the on-going saga of “Who’s suing Alameda now?” former Fire Chief David Kapler has now joined the ranks of disgruntled people filing lawsuit against the City of Alameda.    But here is what makes his filing completely novel, it’s clear that despite being in Alameda for three-ish years David Kapler was completely out of the loop on the happenings in Alameda and despite being around for most of the investigation of Councilmember Lena Tam by former Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant, the filing alleges that Lena Tam and Ann Marie Gallant worked in concert to get him out of his job as fire chief.

What is amazing about this filing is that while it takes on the City of Alameda it also charges Councilmember Lena Tam, former Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant, and former City Manager Debra Kurita as individuals and holds them liable for any number of kitchen sink allegations designed to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks.   In addition to all the legal mumbo jumbo he’s also suing for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against the City as well as Kurita, Gallant and Tam.   He’s suing for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress against the City and the three women as well.   And he’s suing for Defamation against the City and only Kurita and Tam.