A Superior Court judge on March 23 dismissed a Brown Act lawsuit brought by a group of Culver City homeowners who claimed that city officials violated the state’s open laws statute at a city council meeting last year.
Farragut Drive homeowners Paula Cruz, Ronald Davis, John Heyl, James Province and Nadine F. Province sued the city’s governing body in Cruz vs. Culver City over what they claim where violations of the Brown Act related to the city’s proposed examination of a preferential parking zone in their neighborhood.
Representatives from Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church asked the council during the Aug. 11, 2014 meeting to reconsider lifting preferential parking restrictions on 10700 Farragut Drive, which Farragut homeowners have had since 1982. Even though the council only requested that the city staff research whether an analysis of traffic patterns would be needed for the area, the plaintiffs claimed they had breached the Brown Act, a 1953 statute named after a California assemblyman that prohibits secret government meetings. The act applies only to county and municipal governing bodies and commissions.
The lawsuit named Mayor Meghan Sahli-Wells, Vice Mayor Micheál O’Leary and Councilmen Andrew Weismann, Jim Clark, and Jeffrey Cooper as the defendants. City officials countered the lawsuit with what is known as an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) action. SLAPPs are lawsuits that seek to censor or silence critics from speaking out on or participating in government affairs.
“Defendants have met their burden to establish protected activity and the plaintiffs have not met their burden to establish and anti–SLAPP exemption of prima facia case of their favor. Therefore, the anti-SLAPP motion is denied,” wrote Judge Michael Johnson in a three-page ruling.
In his ruling, Johnson wrote that the plaintiffs were seeking a “declaratory judgment concerning the City Council’s proceedings relating to parking restrictions on Farragut Drive. The complaint makes it clear that Farragut Drive is where plaintiffs reside, and the City Council’s challenged actions would have had a particular effect upon plaintiffs and other Farragut residents. Under these circumstances, plaintiffs’ action has been brought in part for their personal advantage as residents of Farragut Drive and it has not been brought solely in the public interest,” the judge ruled.
The plaintiffs plan to appeal Johnson’s ruling, said Farragut resident Les Greenberg.
“This is just one judge’s opinion,” said Greenberg, an attorney who has been the most outspoken critic of what he says is the council’s plan to revoke the preferential parking restrictions. “I’ve always said that this would be decided in the Court of Appeal.”
Greenberg called the ruling “totally wrong” and said he would take legal action to reconsider some of the arguments made by the plaintiffs but declined to say which ones.
Michael Martello, senior counsel of the Institute of Local Government, stated in a prior interview that he did not think the council’s actions violated the Brown Act.
“Based on what I have heard, nothing was done that would have generated a conflict of interest,” said Martello, who is also the former chair of League of California Cities Fair Political Practices Commission Committee.
Greenberg said he expects to file his appeal later this year. Prior to the Brown Act lawsuit, Greenberg had previously filed a cease and desist letter against the council and his wife Paulette lodged a public nuisance complaint against the church.
Gary Walker contributed to this story.
