HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Executive Session 060795Ell
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
JUNE 7, 1995
EXECUTIVE SESSION
MAYOR JOSEPH RUSSO
VICE —MAYOR LAUREN FURTADO
COUNCILWOMAN LINDA MONROE
COUNCILMAN ERIC JABLIN
COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK
THOMAS J. BAIRD
GREG DUNHAM
i
min
2
1
P R O C E E D I N G S
2
MR. RUSSO: Joseph Russo.
3
MR. JABLIN: Eric Jablin.
4
MR. CLARK: David Clark.
5
MS. FURTADO: Lauren Furtado.
6
MS. MONROE: Linda Monroe.
7
MR. BAIRD: Thomas J. Baird.
8
MR. DUNHAM: Greg Dunham.
9
MR. BAIRD: Greg is the assistant city
10
manager. And I'm the city attorney, mayor,
11
council members, and Vice -Mayor Furtado.
12
Let me explain, where we're at in
13
this litigation is that we were set for
14
trial, the judge recused himself and the case
15
was reassigned to another trial judge, Judge
16
Brunson.
17
Judge Brunson issued an order
18
requesting us to essentially go through the
19
pretrial procedures again, which meant that
20
we had to file exhibit lists, witness lists,
21
and go through mediation.
22
We've not been through mediation
23
yet. We're setting that up. We will need a
24
representative of the city counsel to go to
25
mediation with us.
3
•
1
Two weeks ago I filed on behalf of
2
the city, which is a Defendant, Bobby
3
Hurocovich (phonetic), in her official
4
capacity as city manager, who is a Defendant,
5
and Bobby Hurocovich, in her individual
6
capacity, who is a Defendant, there are three
7
Defendants, I filed what are called offers of
8
judgment.
9
Offers of judgment mean that we are
10
offering to settle the litigation for the
11
amount on that offer of judgment. If the
12
Plaintiff does not accept that offer of
.
13
judgment and we go to trial, or we get a
14
judgment that is less than that offer of
15
judgment, seventy -five percent less --
16
twenty -five percent less than the offer of
17
judgment, we would be entitled to our
18
attorney's fees for the work that we do after
19
having filed that offer of judgment.
20
The reason we filed an offer of
21
judgment is that this is a complaint coming
22
out -- arising under the Civil Rights Act.
23
They will be entitled to attorney's fees if
24
they prevail anyway. So there's no risk to
25
the city by our having offered that judgment.
4
•
1
If it were not an action under the
2
Civil Rights Act and they were not entitled
3
to attorney's fees if they prevailed, then by
4
filing that we could have subjected you
5
potentially to an award of attorney's fees.
6
But since there's no risk there
7
because of the nature of the actions they
8
filed, it actually works to our advantage.
9
The reason it works to our advantage is it
10
puts pressure on the Plaintiffs to consider
11
the strength of their case.
12
If they feel they have a strong
.
13
case, they will move forward and they will
14
not accept the offer of judgment.
15
Following the offer of judgment in
16
the Bullock case, we filed a motion for
17
summary judgment, which is intended to decide
18
all issues in that case. We believe that
19
offer of -- that summary judgment is a strong
20
motion. I think we will prevail on that
21
motion. And apparently so does the
22
Plaintiff, Ms. Bullock.
23
Her attorneys contacted me
24
approximately a week after we filed the offer
.
25
of judgment and summary judgment, and during
5
•
1
a conversation suggested that they believed
2
that she would undoubtedly settle the case
3
for seventy -five hundred dollars, that he
4
believed that five thousand dollars would be
5
sufficient, and I indicated that we were not
6
prepared to offer anything more at that time
7
than what was in the summary -- the offer of
8
judgment.
9
What was in our offer of judgment
10
was a thousand dollars for the city, a
11
hundred dollars for Bobby Hurocovich
12
officially, and a hundred in her individual
13
capacity, for a total of twelve hundred
14
dollars.
15
The twelve hundred dollars, and I
16
would say even five thousand dollars, and
17
perhaps even seventy -five hundred dollars for
18
a case of this nature, is a nuisance value.
19
It is an amount of money that will make
20
something go away.
21
Although for most of us seventy -
22
five hundred dollars is nothing to sneeze at,
23
in terms of the cost of litigation, five
24
thousand or seventy -five hundred dollars is
25
not substantial. It will cost more than five
•
1
thousand dollars to prepare solely for
2
Bullock at trial. That does not include what
3
it would cost to prepare for Byrd or
4
Uhrbacher (phonetic).
5
So from our perspective, what I
6
would ask of you is your consideration to
7
authorize me to settle the case, just the
8
Bullock case, for up to five thousand
9
dollars.
10
In other words, give me the ability
11
to maintain if necessary the position of
12
we'll settle for the offer of judgment,
13
twelve hundred dollars, but that if something
14
between twelve hundred up to five thousand
15
can be negotiated and would be accepted, that
16
you give me the authorization to execute a
17
stipulation for that amount.
18
If an offer was in excess of five
19
thousand, but was a figure that still
20
appeared to be something that was worth your
21
considering again, then I would want to
22
contact each of you individually, not in a
23
private session such as this, and determine
24
whether or not that figure was acceptable.
25
So that -- that summarizes Bullock.
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
Just to let you know, the other offers of
judgment, the other two cases are -- the Byrd
case is a little bit stronger than Bullock,
but not much, and the Uhrbacher case is a
little bit stronger than that one, but
neither of those two cases, in my judgment,
would the Plaintiffs prevail unless we do go
to a jury, they are jury trials, and the jury
feels some sympathy for those individuals.
Juries are difficult to predict.
We will be filing summary judgments in both
of those cases. We do believe we have a good
chance of prevailing in the summary judgment
in those cases. But if we do not prevail in
all of the issues in the summary judgment,
then there would be a jury trial.
The offer of judgment in Byrd was
three thousand dollars, one hundred and one
hundred. And in Uhrbacher, five thousand
dollars, one hundred and one hundred.
In each of those cases, we view
those amounts again as nuisance values, we
view these cases as nuisance cases, but
nevertheless they have to be taken into
consideration, as does any litigation, in
8
.
1
terms of the economic value of disposing of
2
those cases.
3
And in this case, frankly, those
4
are small prices to pay as compared with a
5
week -long jury trial.
6
MR. CLARK: I'd have to agree with Tom's
7
assessment. I think that philosophically,
8
whenever you can get rid of a piece of
9
litigation for this low an amount, it doesn't
10
send the wrong message to other litigants out
11
there because this cannot have been an
12
economic proposition from the Plaintiff's
•
13
standpoint, or her attorneys. They're not
14
making money on this.
15
we're eliminating a risk, however
16
slim, but we're certainly at least saving
17
attorney's fees going forward. Even if we
18
prevail on summary judgment, that can be
19
appealed. So you're looking at some fairly
20
substantial costs if you proceed.
21
I think that makes a great deal of
22
sense from the city's standpoint.
23
MR. RUSSO: I guess my only issue is, I
24
guess, the signal that it does send them.
•
25
You know, I don't want -- I guess the concern
9
.
1
I have is that anybody in the future would
2
say, well, let's sue the city and we can wind
3
up with something.
4
And that's, I guess, the fear that
5
I have in this, settling these things out.
6
And I guess the dollar amount that we settle
7
it for is really the signal that we're
8
sending.
9
The offer that we made, a thousand
10
dollars, the three thousand and whatever they
11
were, I guess I feel comfortable that that's
12
a nuisance value and that in effect the
13
Plaintiff probably didn't get that
14
personally, their attorneys got it. So, in
15
effect, it showed that, you know, maybe they
16
didn't wind up with anything.
17
I guess the concern I have is I
18
don't want to send that wrong signal out.
19
And on the other side of it, I guess, you
20
know, we have to be businessmen and we have
21
to decide, just like we're running a
22
business, of what we would do if it were a
23
business and which is best for the taxpayers.
24
And I guess for the taxpayers, it's
25
better to settle it and cost less money for
10
•
1
the taxpayers as opposed to be emotional
2
about it and say, well, you know, let's just
3
let the chips fall where they may because
4
that wouldn't be, again, right for the
5
taxpayers.
6
MR. CLARK: You're -- I agree. It's the
7
same assessment I think any business would go
8
through; what signal does it send, am I going
9
to buy myself more trouble down the road.
10
And I think in this case your
11
assessment is correct, they -- the monies are
12
split between the Plaintiff and the attorney,
13
and I don't think either one of them comes
14
out ahead on this one.
15
So from that standpoint, I don't
16
think we're sending the wrong signal with the
17
amount, and we're certainly not sending the
18
wrong signal with the approach, the offer,
19
what you think the case is worth, which is
20
next to nothing, and you settle for next to
21
nothing.
22
MR. JABLIN: Then I guess my feelings on
23
Bullock, that I'd feel a lot more comfortable
24
with twenty -five hundred as opposed to five
25 thousand, or thirty -five hundred.
11
1
I just think once they get up to
2
five thousand, it's --
3
We are -- yeah, I know.
4
We're authorizing up to five
5
thousand but he's not going to offer five
6
thousand immediately, so whatever amount
7
under, that is found money.
8
MS. FURTADO: I agree. I mean, at least
9
Tom has the flexibility. But I too would
10
like to see it on the low end of the
11
spectrum.
12
MR. JABLIN: That makes more sense on
13
the low end.
14
MS. FURTADO: Considering --
15
MR. JABLIN: The message is really
16
important.
17
MS. MONROE: I agree. I think Tom has
18
better things he can do for us than proceed
19
with the litigation.
20
MR. CLARK: Okay, that's it.
21
Do you have enough direction?
22
MR. BAIRD: Thank you, I appreciate it.
23
(Whereupon, the proceedings were
24
concluded.)
'1- 25
a� CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
at Large,
12
I, Mary Lesson, Notary Public, State of Florida
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing
proceedings was taken before me at the time and place
stated herein; that the Court Reporter administered unto
the witnesses their oath to testify the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth; that they were there and
then orally- examined and testified as herein set forth; and
that this transcript of said proceedings, numbered 2 -11,
inclusive, constitutes a true and correct transcription of
said proceedings.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither related to
nor employed by any counsel or party to the cause pending,
nor interested in the event thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I`'have hereunto affixed my
hand and official seal this 5 Tkday of September, 1995.
y�
���: •• t��c; MARY E. LESSON
+; +_ MY COMMISSION N CC474678 EXPIRES
June 20, 1999
'tom pF Fl°� BONDED THRU TROY FAIN INSURANCE, INC.
Mary Lesion, Notary Public
State of Florida at Large.
•