HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 6 LEGAL FEES 02-20-90AG E N D A
a-a.o-?o
DATE: FEBRUARY 209 1990
/NEW-IBUSINESS N0. 6
2-20-90
Inter - Com
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: LEGAL FEES (JOHN KELLY AND EARL PRESCOTT
VS. RONALD HOESTEREY )
Councilman Kelly requested that this matter be placed on the agenda.
Attached is a memorandom from the City Attorney regarding the City's
obligation for payment of the fees.
WAH : jcs
Attachment
r
DATE: V Inter -Com
February 14, 1990
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY ATTORNEY
.SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF PARKER & COVERT
The City has received the statement of the law firm of Parker
Covert for its services in representing Ronald Hoesterey in
defense of the lawsuit brought against him challenging his
qualifications and, entitlement to hold the office of Councilman of
the City of Tustfn-; -We have reviewed the statement the file and
have discussed the matter with Mr. Covert and it is our opinion
that the -..statement is reasonable, in order and that the City is
legally obligated to :pay it.
The City is obligated to pay for these legal services despite
any idea that Mr.,'Hoesterey was not legally entitled to serve as
a councilman during the last week or ten days prior to his
resignation. The subject lawsuit was decided against the
petitioners and, as far as we are aware, there is no other legal
action which challenges Mr. Hoesterey's position as a City Council
member during that period. Accordingly, unless and until a court
of law would determine otherwise, it must be presumed that Mr.
-Hoesterey was a duly elected, qualified and acting member of the
City Council of the City of Tustin at the time the subject action
was brought against him.
The Government Code of the State of California prescribes that
upon request of an employee or former employee, "(which includes
a Councilmember) "a public entity" (which includes a city) "shall
provide for the defense of any civil action or proceeding brought
against him, in his official or individual capacity or both on
account of an act or omission in the scope of his employment as an
employee of the public entity."
Mr. Hoesterey at the outset requested the City Attorney's
Office to defend him in the subject lawsuit and was advised that
it would create a conflict of interest for the City Attorney's
Office to defend him, but that he was legally entitled to be
provided a defense at the expense of the City. Mr. Hoesterey
retained the firm of Parker & Covert to defend him. The Government
Code provides that if after request a public entity fails or
refuses to provide an employee or former employee with a defense
he is entitled to recover from the public entity the reasonable
fees, costs and expenses necessarily incurred by him in de-fend-ing------
' r ,
i
the action or proceeding.
Accordingly, it appears beyond question that the City is
obligated to pay for the attorneys' fees d costs of defense of
Mr. Hoesterey in the subject lawsuive;;)1
, I
J G: ROTJRK
CIT ATTORNEY
CITY OF TUSTIN
JGR:tw:R:2/14/90:al24.tw(4-5)
LAW OFFICES
PARKER AND COVERT
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROMSIONAL CORPORATIONS
1901 EAST FOURTH STREET • SUITE 312
SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92705
February 9, 1990-..
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92680
Attention: James.G. Rourke, Esq.
.*City* Attorney
RECEIVED
FEB 1 51990
A JAM %cif i A
REF. OUR FILE
298
Invoice No. 10524
Professional services rendered from November 20, 1989,
through January, 1090, re Earl J. Prescott and John Kelly v.
Ronald B. Hoesterey, et al.:
GENERAL:
Contact by Nor. Hoesterey; preparation of documents; court
appearance on November,20, 1989, re temporary restraining
order whd.reifi temporary restraining order was denied;
preparation of status letter; research and preparation re
motion to quash deposition notice or for protective order;
discussion with -Mr. Hile re objection to deposition; cor-
respondence to Mr. Hile; preparation of general demurrer to
petition for writ of mandate; discussion with Mr. Hoesterey
re case status and correspondence re same;.discussion with
Mr. Hile re Rule 504 statement; discussion with Mr. Hile on
hearing on writ and demurrer; preparation of Rule 504 state-
ment; discussion- with Mr. Hoesterey re status of motion;
court appearance on January 17, 1990, wherein general
demurrer was sustained without leave to amend; preparation
of ruling and judgment dismissing action.
SEC 12.8 Hrs. at $150/Hr. $1,920.00
MLO 16.6 Hrs. at $100/Hr. 11660.00
COSTS ADVANCED:
Photocopy (255 copies @ $.15 ea.) $ 38.25
Filing Fee 14.00
TOTAL DUE:
4sc/cg/tustin:invoice.922
52.25
$3,632.25