Dictionary definition

When last we left off in the great saga of Ann Marie Gallant and her many lawsuits against the City of Alameda.   She had just lost her first appeals case and the lower court that the appeal was kicked back to essentially ruled that Ann Marie Gallant had no case against the City of Alameda.  They also awarded the City lawyers fees for the whole debacle to the tune of $330K.  Naturally, Ann Marie Gallant did not go quietly into the night and turned around, hired new counsel and filed another appeal.  That appeal was riddled with procedural problems from the start but eventually corrected itself just in time for briefs to be filed, answered to be filed and probably another cool $50K in legal fees expended between both parties.

Essentially from my quickie read of Ann Marie Gallant’s briefs, her lawyers are hinging on her case being kicked back to the lower court because the judge didn’t use the correct definition of the word “terminated.”   Ann Marie Gallant’s lawyers say that the dictionary definition is the right one and the City says, nuh uh, we’re going to use the terms of the actual contract itself.  You know, four corners, contracts 101, that sort of thing.

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…

Are you being served?

I wrote a follow up comment about the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society’s case against the City of Alameda, School District and Housing Authority yesterday, but wanted to make sure that everyone saw it.   So I did ask both the City of Alameda and School District for a copy of the complaint, but no one had it.  Weird right given that the agenda item was clearly there on the School District’s closed session agenda.

Turns out as of Tuesday night the case had been filed with the court, but not yet served to the parties.

But here it is on the (now crappy pay site) Domain Web:

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.

In Decision

On Monday afternoon you might have heard a great popping sound, that was the sound of a number of heads around Alameda exploding once the ruling in the Raymond Zack case came through.   While those that wanted to see Alameda’s public safety units and, I supposed, the City of Alameda by extension pay for the events on that Memorial Day are now decrying the “activist judge” in the case or musing on moral duty or suggesting that some new precedence was created on Monday, honestly there should have been nothing truly shocking about the decision made on Monday.

First, the courts really aren’t in the business of making ruling based on “morality” since it’s a pretty vague philosophy that I would image differs from person to person and culturally as well.   To make the assumption that courts should follow one arbitrary set of “moral” values sort of flies in the face of what the judicial system is supposed to be about.   But that’s a different topic for a different day.

Also, given that the judge in the Zack case simply applied the existing precedence set by an existing decision, it’s a bit of a stretch to call him an “activist” as though he crafted new law.  I wrote about one of the existing decisions here.

Here’s the really relevant part of the decision:

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:

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.

You make me wanna say, oh (x 17) my gosh

I almost dug up an old post about the first set of lawsuits against the Measure H parcel tax, reposted it, and wrote “just replace Measure H with Measure A and bam, that is essentially what is going on right now.”   That’s right, according to the Alameda Journal opponents to Measure A are suing the school district, again, saying that the parcel tax is “unfair.”    Because the black hole that they threw their money down the first time in the form of the lawsuit against Measure H was just not satisfying enough that they want to do it all over again.   And even though they were summarily shut down by the judge, they want to do it all over again, with the same lawyer.

From the Alameda Journal:

Along with Hirshberg, the plaintiffs in this latest lawsuit are local property owner George Borikas, Nelco Inc. and Santa Clara Investors II, a general California partnership. Their attorney is David Brillant of Pleasanton.

Nelco Inc is owned by members of the Hirshberg Family and others:

Jerilyn Hirshberg, Wilson Hirshberg, Nicholas Wiebe, Susan Wiebe,Dennis Patheal and Joanne Patheal have a relevant ownership interest inPlaintiff-Appellant Nelco Inc