The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008/10/14 Item 8 ~~~. ~ '-'. ~~~~ ~~- - CllY OF CHU.A VlSfA OFFICE OFTHE CITY ATTORNEY DATE: October 8,2008 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bart Miesfeld, Interim City Attorney,jtJn SUBJECT: Document released pursuant to a City Council Referral Attached is a redacted memorandum released pursuant to a City Council Referral from the Council meeting of October 7,2008. it is being provided to allow public discussion. BCM/ccm Aitachment , . 276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHUL~ VIST.~' C.~LI~R~lIA 91910' (619) 691.5037' FAX (619) ~09-5823 ~iV_ - ' Jl~~ ~ - -- - - -- ellY OF CHUlA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY UTIGATION DEPARTMENT DATE: October 2, 2008 TO: The Honorable Chelyl Cox, Mayor and City Councilmembers ; j / "Ie, ./ Jill D.S. Maland, Depury City Attomey,\iyf'- .......,:i \ FROM: VIA: Bart C. Mlesfeid, Interim City Attorney RE: Coullcil RefelT3J - Legal Expenses Related [Q Investigations by the District Attorney's Public Integrity Unit r. INTRODUCTION At the City Council meeting or. September 23, 2008, Councilmembers Castaneda ond Ramirez requested infom1ation regarding the amoum of legal fees that have been paid by the City ["elated to prosecutoriaJ activities of the San Diego District Attorney's Publ1c Integrity TJnit. In addition, Council member Ramirez requested that tbe City Attorney agendize an item regarding a request to the District Attorney for reimbursement of those legal fees. Due to the privileged and confidential nature of the information requested, we bave prepared this memorandum in response. The agenda for [he October 7, 2008 meeting has an ilem on it I,vbich notifies the public that our office has responded via a privileged memorandum to Council. IT. LEGAL FEES h'KURRED 'Within the last couple of years, tl1e City bas incuITed legal fees in connection with investigations by the District Attorney's office regarding the follo':,f~ng matters: (i) the C11uia VlSla Redeveiopment Corporation and the Redevelopment A.gency; (ii) Sunbow Villas and Steve Castaneda; (iii) Jason Moore. The amount of fees paid by the City are summarized below: 276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CAliFORNIA 91910. (619) 691-5037. FAX (619) 4.09-5823 .:'}..",c-~_........, 8-2 The: Honorabie Chery! Cox. Mayor and City Council members October 2, 2008 Pnge 2 A. Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation/Redevelopment Agen'cy i Vendor I Amonnt Paid I Baker & McKenzie 1537,666.61 I Beniamin Colerilan 56,810.00 I Cooley Godward $6,105.00 I COli.~hbn, Semmer & Lipman '544,842.02 I K.nut S. Johnson LaBella & McNamara ! Luce Forward I !vlcKer:na Long & Aidricb I MorTison & Foerster i Frank Y~cchione Total I $8,437.50 I $5! ,538.19 $67,457.63 I $53,93085 $44,706.9 [ 529,481.25 5350,975.96 I I l i B. Jason Mllore Vendor I Amonnt Paid KnuI S. Johnson I $2,850.00 LaBel!a & McNamara 1$619.38 lvlcKenna Long & Aldrich 1$11,118.04 Total I 514.587.42 I C. Sun bow Villas/Steve Castaneda I Vendor I Amount Paid Bardsley & Carlos I S 194,314.90 i Beniamtll Coleman I $7,980.00 Courrhlan, Semmer & Linman I $4,940.00 [Rell & Manella I 522, 123 .26 I Knut S. Johnson 152,21550 ' LaBel!a & McNamara 151,238.75 McKenna Long & Aldrich I 56,920.45 , Morrison & Foer:s~er I 54.280.00 I I Total 1$244,012.86 The total amount of legal fees paid by the City in connection witb the above investigations is: '5609_,576.24. CITY 0,::: CHUL~. VISTA 8-3 The Honnrable Chc:ryl Cox, Mayor ana City COllncilmt:J11bers Oclober 2, 2008 Page 3 III. RE1MBURSEMENT FROM DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Council member's have e;{pressed a desire [Q seek reimbursement from the District Aaomey for these legal fees. LiabiJiry for injury arising our of the actions of one acting under color of law can be imposed pursuant to 42 U.S.c. ij 1983, wbich provides: . Every person who, under color or any statute, ordinance, . regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the Unired States or other person within the jurisdiction tbereof to tbe deprivation of any rigbts, privileges, or inununities secured by the Constitution and laws, sball be liable to tbe parry injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except tbat in any action broughr against a judicial officer for iln act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacLty, injunctive relief shall not be !granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. for the purposes of this section For the pUIvoses of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a stanlte of the District of Columbia. Wbile the text of Section 1983 is silent as to immunities, the Supreme Court has found tbat previously existing common law immunities were preserved in Section 1983, Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 484 (1991); Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 123 (1997). The purpose behind prosecutorial immunity bas been eKplained as follows: Specifically, absolute immunity for prosecutors is warranted (1) to allow prosecutors to focus their energies on prosecuting, rather than defending lawsuits; (2) to enabie prosecutors to exercise independent judgment in deciding which suits to bring and conducting them in cauft; (3) to preserve tbe criminal justice . system's function of detennining guilt or innocence by ensuring that triers of fact are not denied relevant (although sometimes conflicting) evidence because of prosecutors' fear of suit; and (4) to ensure f2.irness to def:::ridants by enab!iag judges to 1112k-: I1.dings in their favor withom the subconscious knowledge thm: such rulings could subject the prosecutor to liability. Milstein v. Cooley, 257 FJd 1004 (9'" Cir. 2001). CITY OF CHULA ViSTA 8-4 The Hnnorahlc Cher-yl Cox, l\;[ayor and City CoullCilm.embers October 2, 2008 Page 4 As a result, acts taken by a prosecutor "in preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings or for trial, and which occur in the course of his role as an advocate for the State, are entitled to the protections of absolute inununiry." Milstein v. Cooiey, 257 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9'hCir. 2001) (citing Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993)). "Prosecutoria! immuniry from S 1983 liabiliry is broadly de tined, covering virrually all acts, regardless of motivation, associated with the prosecutor's nmction as an advocate." Hill v. Ci.:v' of New Y%~~k, 45 F.3d 653, 661 (2"" eir. 1995) (citing Dory v. Ryall, 25 F.3d 81, 83 (2"d Cir. 1994)). This immunity extends to "initiating a prosecution and. . . presenring the State's case. . . ." fmbter v. Pachrman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). The intent and motivation of the prosecutor "should play no role in the immunity analysis." Ashe/man v. Pope, 793 F.2d t072, [078 (9lh eif. 1986) (en baDe). California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5 pennieS a hia! court to order a party ;'to pay any reasonable expenses, iricluding attomey1s fees, inculTed by another party as a result of bad-faitb actions or t2.ctics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay." a court could award attorneys' fees to the District Attorney pursuan~ to Section 128.5. IV. CONCLUSION J:\J\lh,,..,,cyIJII.LMIMEMOSlCQUII.d MclllO .l.~g,l p=. OA III~l;l:>li",..1 (cJeoa CC'liaC:.l rc~lillc)_I()'Ul.08.doc CITY OF CHULA '/ISTA 8-5