Pursuant to your assignment this morning, attached are the following press articles regarding the McClure v. City of Long Beach
case, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. CV 92-2776-E (Jury verdict: 8/4/04; Judgment: 8/5/04): 1. Case Summary (prepared by FAI);
2. More Law.Com (8/5/04);
3. The Recorder In Brief ("Jury awards $22.5M in building case")(8/6/04);
4. Knowledgeplex ("Long Beach Lawsuit") (8/4/04);
5. LBReport.com In Depth ("$22.5 Million Jury verdict Against LB City Hall in McClure v. City of LB; Next Moves Pending");
6. Long Beach Press-Telegram Special Report: The McClure Trial
("Judging the Jury").
Shortly after reading about the
jury's verdict in the McClure case in early August, I contacted attorney, Genie Harrison, formerly with Litt and Associates, attorneys for the McClures. Ms. Harrison stated that the case was very unusual for many reasons, including
the length of the civil jury deliberations (4 1/2 months) and the large verdict ($22.5 million) against the City of Long Beach. Obviously, Ms. Harrison (Santa Clara Law School, Class of '92) was extremely pleased with the outcome
of the McClure case.
I also contacted Dick Terzian, the lead outside counsel for the City of Long Beach. (I knew Dick from the days I served on the State Bar's Board of Governors. Dick is considered one of the premier legal
experts in local government law and is often retained by cities and counties in complex litigation cases. It is reported that his firm, while under contract to represent the City of Long Beach in the McClure case, received
compensation for legal services in the range of $4 million according to City public records.) Needless to say, Dick expressed shock in learning about the jury's verdict against the City of Long Beach. Dick commented that he and the
City were in the process of reviewing post-trial options in the case. (It is my understanding that the City's insurance covers the first $12 million of the verdict, with the City responsible for any amount above the policy limits.)
According to U.S. District Court records, as reported in the Long Beach Press-Telegram, the
length of the civil jury's deliberation (4 1/2 months) is considered to be the longest period a civil jury has ever deliberated in
California. (See, Long Beach Press–Telegram Special Report: The McClure Trial). Other interesting information about the McClure case (by the numbers):
· Days in trial: 209
· Days of testimony: 112
· Number of witnesses: 90
· Number of exhibits: 4,000
· Hours spent deliberating: 371
In response to an editorial ("The costliest verdict") in the Long Beach Press–Telegram, Long Beach resident George T. Kelly made the following comments: "The Los
Angeles Times reported in their Aug. 6 article on the case that plaintiffs discovered a memo from a city councilman's office that said the homes proposed by McClure do not violate the law, so we will have to cite them to stop them.
This is prejudice at the highest level. This memo is like so many corporate memos that are evidence, precursing huge verdicts for the obvious indifference to the little guys and their rights." "Why does Barry Litt, plaintiffs'
attorney, say an offer to settle was made and City Attorney Bob Shannon says none was made? Why wasn't this case settled? I will suppose that no change will be made in the building department." "I don't think the city learns even
when the costs are enormous."
Earlier this morning, I spoke with the administrative assistant (Karen) for Belinda Mayes, Principal Deputy City Attorney for Litigation, City of Long Beach. Karen informed me that post-trial motions
in the McClure case are scheduled in February 2005 in the U.S. District Court. The pending motions include request for mediation and plaintiffs' counsel request for award of fees and costs in the amount of $20 million. Karen
commented that the City is closely scrutinizing the plaintiffs' billing statements submitted to support the request for award of fees and costs.
The following are some interesting observations about the McClure case as reported
in the Long Beach Press–Telegram Special Report:
· "Shirley McClure claimed in her lawsuit that then-Councilmen Jeff Kellogg and Ray Grabinski and former Planning Director Eugene Zeller caved under pressure from residents and set
out to prevent the business from opening (homes for Alzheimer's patients). As a result, she claimed, the city cited her for numerous building and safety code violations."
· "McClure acknowledged that she had not obtained the
proper permits for much of the construction work at the sites, but argued that the city's efforts far surpassed the normal levels of code enforcement. For six days in the summer of 1990, for instance, two inspectors were assigned
to monitor McClure's homes virtually full-time, she alleged. Fire and police officials also dedicated resources to the case, and criminal charges were filed and then dropped against McClure and her son, a participant in the
venture."
· "'If you're trying to get a problem solved, you approach it one way,' attorney Litt said. 'If you're trying to shut someone down, you approach it another way.'"
· "In addition, she claimed, the city did not hold the
subsequent owners of her properties to the same code standards – a clear indication that she was singled out."
· Kristen Pelletier, counsel for the City: "McClure 'was treated differently because we had to.'"
Please understand
that the McClure case is unique from the prospective of most civil rights cases for the reasons noted above. Thus, the facts, evidence and circumstances of the McClure case are not automatically applicable to the Braun's case.
Nonetheless, it is important to remember that the basic principle involved remains the same: violations of constitutionally protected civil rights, based on government conduct under color of law, are actionable and constitutes
grounds for damages under Section 1983 (civil action for deprivation of rights).
Please contact me if you have any questions. Best regards.
Frank Iwama, Government Affairs Director
