Solana Beach School District loses after using more tax money for yet another appeal in the Ka. D. v. Solana Beach case

See all Solana Beach School District posts.
See all Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz posts.

Irony alert: One of the partners of the Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm, Leslie Devaney, has been a board member of CALA, Californians Against Lawsuit Abuse, an organization that criticizes unnecessary litigation!

The only good thing that Solana Beach School District did for the taxpayers with its excessive spending on the Ka. D. v. Solana Beach case was to cause trustee Art Palkowitz to decide not to run for reelection. The District didn't intend to do this, of course. It probably thought no one would notice what it was up to.

After a justice on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal expressed astonishment that Solana Beach had already wasted so much taxpayer money on the case, Solana Beach School District paid even more public money to the firm to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Ninth Circuit seemed to be wondering what the school board members were thinking when they decided to pursue the case.

Here's what the justice said on Feb. 17, 2012 in Pasadena:

"I am curious.

"This whole dispute is about counsel [attorney] fees, I assume.

"Nobody in their right economic mind would be carrying this case to the Ninth Circuit that seems to me to involve something like $67,000 [in attorney fees]....

"What's really at stake here in terms of the lawsuit itself is whether you should reimburse somewhere between 6 and 7 thousand dollars [to the parents].

"For this amount of money you've gone through a hearing before a hearing officer, a proceeding in the District Court, and now you're appealing to the Ninth Circuit.

"It seems to me, and I don't blame you necessarily, I just want to be clear. This whole dispute is about counsel fees, isn't it?"

On Nov. 26, 2012 the Supreme Court denied the appeal.

CALA admits that many lawsuits against government agencies have merit

San Diego would save many millions if our district attorneys would quit prosecuting obviously innocent people like Dale Akiki and Jim Wade, and if our city attorneys would discourage wrongful actions like secret pension deals.


San Jose keeps lid on litigation costs
By John Woolfolk
jwoolfolk@mercurynews.com
11/07/2009

San Jose has forked over a lot of taxpayer cash to resolve lawsuits and claims from people who felt the city owed them for a host of wrongs — from errant golf balls to sexual harassment.

But the city seems downright frugal in what it has paid out for verdicts, settlements and outside lawyers compared to other major California cities, according to a new report by a citizen watchdog group.

The report this week by California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, or CALA, found that San Jose's annual litigation costs in the last couple years were a fraction of those for similarly-sized San Francisco and San Diego, as well as smaller cities such as Oakland and Sacramento.

"Some communities are more effective at avoiding lawsuits than others, and that's good management practice," said Marko Mlikotin, Northern California regional director for CALA, a non-partisan group opposed to abuses of the legal system. "It's very important for governments to have good management practices so that they don't expose taxpayers to these types of litigation."

The group's report compared costs incurred by the most populous California cities and counties for paying legal claims, verdicts and settlements, as well as hiring outside lawyers for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 budget years.

San Jose's litigation costs were $1.9 million in 2006-2007 and $1.7 million in 2007-2008. The report argued the $1.9 million could have paid for more than two dozen firefighters
Advertisement
Quantcast
that year.

But the city's costs paled in comparison to some of its peers. For 2007-2008, San Diego spent $17 million on litigation, Oakland $7.9 million and Sacramento $3.3 million. Los Angeles spent a staggering $72 million.

San Jose records also show a decline in annual litigation costs from $4.9 million in 2005-2006 to $1.5 million in 2008-2009.

"We try hard to keep those numbers down," City Attorney Rick Doyle said.

Santa Clara County did not fare quite to well in comparison to its peers. The county spent $4.7 million in 2007-2008, less than the $5.2 million cost in 2005-2006. Smaller Alameda County spent $4.4 million on litigation in 2007-2008, while San Diego County spent just $1.2 million.

San Francisco, which is both a city and a county, spent $18.3 million on litigation in 2007-2008.

The report noted that while many of the lawsuits brought against government agencies have merit, some seem absurd...

Court says schools have no duty of care when first-grader molested by substitute teacher

EDUCATION LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW
P.S. v. San Bernardino City Unified Sch. Dist.
California Fourth Appellate

In a negligence action brought by first-grade student victims of molestation by a substitute teacher, trial court action sustaining defendant's demurrer as to all causes of action against it is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not have a duty of care toward the plaintiff, as plaintiffs were not in the class of persons protected by the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act; and 2) the amendment to the Act did not extend a duty or to create liability to all future children who might be harmed by a suspected abuser.

This case is part of a steady flow of cases that protect school districts from responsibility for just about everything; in this case, the molestation of a first grader by a substitute teacher.

The molestation, of course, was not an intentional act by the school, but the court also protects schools from responsibility for intentional wrongdoing, such as the Coach James "Ted" Carter case. Carter was fired because he reported another coach for recommending that a student take a substance that caused the student's kidney to fail. See Daniel Shinoff cases.

Who on earth would support such a policy? Public entity lawyers!

Daniel Shinoff's partner and former city attorney candidate Leslie Devaney, for one. She is past president of San Diego CALA (Californians Against Lawsuit Abuse), which works to change public opinion so that jurors won't demand that public entities pay their victims. Of course, CALA thinks its fine to give lots of tax money to the the lawyers who help public entities avoid responsibility for harming citizens.

Ms. Devaney used to give radio talks to convince the public that public entities shouldn't have to pay people they harm.

At least she's not a hypocrite, right? She truly believes public entities should not pay people whom they've harmed?

I'm afraid not. It seems that Ms. Devaney has taken on a nice little side line in addition to her public entity work. Lately she's been using her legal skills to force cities and hospitals to pay through the nose for such things as:

(1) The City of Chula Vista's firing of developer's wife Laurie Madigan for taking extended sick leave BECAUSE SHE WAS AFRAID SHE MIGHT GET SICK. Why was Madigan afraid she might get sick? BECAUSE SHE WAS BEING INVESTIGATED!

(2) Tri-City Healthcare's placing CEO Art Gonzalez on administrative leave while a forensic audit was conducted. Ms. Devaney thought he should have one more million-dollar bonus before he went away.

But if you are an ordinary employee or student who has been illegally damaged, I'm not sure she'd take your case. But she might. You could always ask.

So who's responsible when your kid is at school? They're on their own, basically.

I think CALA can declare victory in this case. Is there a celebration going on at Leslie Devaney's law firm, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz?