San Francisco attorney Waukeen McCoy’s long and winding feud with Angela Alioto over $2 million in fees may have come to a whimpering conclusion.
After losing most every step of the way through the courts, McCoy’s last-ditch appeal to the California Supreme Court was met Wednesday with a blunt “petition for review denied.”
About that civil jury verdict yesterday, saying that two of the three off-duty cops in the notorious fajitagate fight of 2002 should have to pay damages worth a combined $46,000: A couple of the defense attorneys in the case pointed out to callaw.com today that, as far as their clients were concerned, it could have been worse.
“From our standpoint, the verdict was priceless,” said Issa Michael, whose client, David Lee, was the only one of the trio of officers not found liable for anything by the jury.
“I saw in the Chronicle this morning how it appears to be portrayed as kind of a defeat. … In fact, we considered the verdict pretty much a vindication of our beliefs,” said defendant Matthew Tonsing’s attorney, Brian Seibel, of Seibel, Finta & Edwards in Walnut Creek. He claims the plaintiffs were asking for much more to settle the case before trial.
And both he and Michael, a San Francisco solo, pointed out that the jury verdict specifically rejected a civil rights claim against all three defendants, which could have allowed plaintiffs Adam Snyder and Jade Santoro to seek attorney’s fees, civil penalties and even more punitive damages than they already got.
As for the civil rights thing, Gordon Kaupp, a lawyer for Santoro, said the judge presiding over the trial had not let the plaintiffs broach the strongest theory for their civil rights argument, a particular statute that refers to a right to be protected from bodily harm. That left them to rest their civil rights claim solely on an accusation that the defendants had been motivated by their perception of the plaintiffs’ sexual orientation, Kaupp said. The jury found that was not the case with any of the three defendants.
Kaupp also added that his client wanted a jury to find the defendants liable and “wasn’t thinking about settlement.” And, Kaupp added, Santoro felt vindicated by the jury’s finding that Tonsing and co-defendant Alex Fagan Jr. had engaged in the battery against him “with malice or oppression.” Before this, he added, “We have not gotten any kind of official statement that this was wrong.”
— Pam Smith
Their testimony couldn’t secure convictions, and their efforts to make the city of San Francisco pay have been stymied. But more than three years after San Francisco’s notorious fajitagate incident, it looks like the two civilians involved in the early morning fisticuffs that started it all can finally celebrate a victory.
According to a lawyer aligned with one of the plaintiffs, a jury delivered a civil verdict in favor of Jade Santoro and Adam Snyder on Monday, finding two of the three defendant cops responsible and awarding a combined $41,500 in compensatory damages and $4,500 in punitive damages. The jury decided the third officer, David Lee, was not liable, according to attorney Ben Rosenfeld. (Rosenfeld works for the Law Office of Dennis Cunningham, which represented Santoro at the trial.)
Lee and the other two officers, Alex Fagan Jr. and Matthew Tonsing, have all long since beat criminal charges related to the November 2002 fight. And the related indictments of seven police brass, which initially elevated the incident to a national news story, had evaporated much earlier with dismissals.
Santoro and Snyder had also filed a federal suit to collect damages from the city that employed the cops. But a U.S. district court judge rebuffed that effort in April, finding the city couldn’t be held liable for the cops’ off-duty behavior. The officers had private counsel in the San Francisco Superior Court jury trial.
— Pam Smith
Remember the plaintiff in San Francisco Superior Court — the one with a most unusual name — who claimed she kept getting falsely arrested because someone legitimately arrested back in 1999 had impersonated her?
Well, the city of San Francisco escaped liability for Stancy Nesby’s problems last week, and the defense didn’t even need to question her false arrest claims.
According to a ruling granting summary judgment for the city, Nesby’s saga can be traced back to the imposter’s failure to show up for court, a no-show that resulted in two bench warrants in Nesby’s name. And, though the real Nesby went to court in 2002 and established she was not the one that authorities wanted, the warrants remained outstanding for years, leading to “seven different incidents with law enforcement officers” outside San Francisco.
Nesby’s lawyers tried arguing San Francisco employees had a special duty to protect Nesby, given promises they’d allegedly made once the mix-up was established. But Judge Ronald Quidachay concluded differently, finding that no city employee owed her anything in this situation, legally speaking. And even if Nesby had been able to establish that a special duty had been broken, Quidachay added, city employees would be protected by quasi-judicial immunity.
Matt Gonzalez, who represented Nesby at a recent hearing alongside his law partner, Bryan Vereschagin, said they will probably appeal the decision.
“The court is saying that as a matter of law, you can’t sue a municipality under these conditions,” said Gonzalez, of San Francisco’s Gonzalez & Leigh. “As a former legislator and a former president of the Board of Supervisors, what I see is that bureaucracies don’t correct problems when they aren’t responsible for their actions.” Their client’s false imprisonment suits related to all this, against jurisdictions outside San Francisco, are still pending, he added.
Spokesman Matt Dorsey said the city attorney’s office felt sympathetic, adding that Nesby “faced the ultimate nightmare scenario in terms of apparent identity theft.
“At the same time,” he added, “it’s been our position that the city can’t be held liable for a bench warrant that’s issued by a court or the actions of another police department in another jurisdiction.”
— Pam Smith
It took a couple of decades to mull over, but at the end of May, partners at San Francisco corporate services boutique Greene Radovsky Maloney & Share made Mark Hennigh the firm’s new name partner.
“They finally saw the light,” Hennigh said Thursday, with a laugh.
Partner Ronald W. Garrity said the honor recognizes the work Hennigh has done both for the 30-lawyer firm as a whole and for his bustling real estate practice.
“It’s something that recognizes a person’s contribution over a very long period of time,” Garrity said. “”He’s made an extraordinary contribution over many years.”
Very long indeed.
This is the first time Greene Radovsky has made a change to its name. Hennigh said the partners had been kicking around the idea to add Hennigh to the masthead since the 1980s. It was Joseph Radovsky who proposed it and a unanimous vote from the firm’s 12 partners a few months ago made it a done deal.
Seems that way for the Bar Association of San Francisco. It wasn't until Friday night that BASF finally got around to evaluating the judicial candidates for tomorrow's election in San Francisco.
The group's judiciary committee deemed Lillian Sing "exceptionally well-qualified" (.pdf). It would have been a surprise, frankly, had she gotten any less, since she spent more than 20 years on the S.F. bench before retiring from it two years ago. BASF took "no action" on local attorney Eric Safire (.pdf), explaining in its brief report on him that "through no fault of the candidate, a majority of the committee concluded that it lacked sufficient time to conduct the evaluation required to assign one of the categories." Safire entered the race in mid-March, and is running against Sing for an open seat on the superior court bench.
Under BASF's system, the committee can choose from five labels for each candidate: no action, well-qualified, exceptionally well-qualified, not qualified, or not recommended for appointment/election at this time.
For San Francisco’s judicial candidates, this spring is proving to be one heck of an expensive job interview.
Both have spent in the neighborhood of $100,000 — or more — so far. And both have reached into their own pockets for substantial money to finance their campaigns; local attorney Eric Safire has loaned his campaign $75,000, while retired judge Lillian Sing has loaned herself $45,000.
She’s done the best when it comes to raising hard, cold cash — from other people — bringing in $76,249 to Safire’s $47,932 between March 18 and May 20, according to recently filed campaign finance reports. (Safire may have made up for some of that discrepancy in spending power, though, with $40,057 in other kinds of contributions, like donated party space and food, compared to $1,420 for Sing.)
Sing got more cash, though, by bringing in more four-figure checks, from generous givers that include local retirees and business people, as well as attorneys such as local lawyer Leanna Dawydiak ($1,320), and Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy partners Joseph Cotchett ($2,500) and Bruce Simon ($1,000). As expected, Sing also got some help from several of her fellow colleagues on the bench, though none of them even matched the generosity of Judge A. James Robertson II ($560), or the two court clerks who ponied up at least $1,000 apiece.
Safire, who entered the race later than Sing and has never run for office before, managed to score occasional contributions in the thousands, including from U.A. Local 38 ($1,000). But the bulk of his cash fundraising came from small-firm or solo attorneys, buttressed by checks from Public Defender Jeff Adachi ($500), a smattering of other lawyers in the PD’s and district attorney’s offices, and various retirees, professors, bail bondsmen and the like. He also managed to get a bigger check than Sing from Deputy Public Defender Daro Inouye, who appears to be the only contributor so far to donate to both races, giving $120 to Sing on April 5, and $200 to Safire on April 11.
— Pam Smith
Less than a month ago, San Francisco deputy city attorneys were asking — unsuccessfully — for a new jury panel in an excessive force case against former local cop Alex Fagan Jr. and another officer. On Wednesday, the federal jurors they wound up with from that panel came back with a unanimous defense verdict.
So in hindsight, isn’t Deputy City Attorney Sean Connolly pretty much thanking his lucky stars right now that the judge turned down his motion back in April? “Depends,” Connolly said, with what sounded over the phone like a mischievous glint. “Another jury may have come back quicker.” In a more serious tone, he added, “I’m just really happy for Alex, who’s been vilified so long.”
For those keeping tabs on the smattering of civil cases that have accused Fagan Jr. of doing something bad, fajitagate-oriented or not, this week’s victory by Connolly and Deputy City Attorney David Newdorf in Washburn v. Fagan, 03-0869, was at least the fourth time the city has escaped damage. (Another trial ended with a defense verdict, a case against police bosses was recently thrown out on a summary judgment motion, and another suit was, according to Connolly, dismissed by the plaintiffs without a settlement.)
Even with all that, though, Fagan Jr. and the city still aren’t out of the woods. The city attorney is still defending another federal case set for trial next month that involves the former cop. And Fagan Jr.’s got private counsel to defend him in a superior court trial set for later this month, the last suit tied directly to the 2002 fajitagate fight between three off-duty cops and two civilians.
— Pam Smith
As Pam Smith's item below points out, there should be no shortage of qualified candidates for executive director of the Bar Association of San Francisco. Let's indulge some speculation about who should be on the short list. Here's one suggestion: Maya Harris.
Harris has the resume — she is associate director of the ACLU of Northern California and has served as dean of Lincoln Law School in San Jose. And she has the family and political connections — her sister, Kamala Harris, is San Francisco district attorney and a recent BASF board member, and her husband, Tony West, is a partner at Morrison & Foerster and executive committee member of BASF's litigation section.
In short, Harris offers experience running large legal concerns, the necessary lefty cred and access to a large fundraising network. But who knows, maybe she's perfectly happy in her current gig.
Anybody else have ideas about who would make a good candidate? Click the comment link below and offer up some suggestions.
– Scott Graham
Leaders at the Bar Association of San Francisco aren’t the only ones anticipating a lot of applications for the executive director’s spot opened by Martha Whetstone’s recent resignation.
The president of the National Association of Bar Executives is likewise predicting that BASF will elicit strong interest in the job market. “I think the San Francisco bar association is one that’s known around the country,” and people have a good impression of it, Thomas Edmonds said today.
If the searchers at BASF are soliciting any ideas, by the way, he notes that his group represents about 600 members drawn from executive bar staffs around the country. A quick call to them might be an easy way to get some names of well-thought-of folk at other bar groups — who may be interested in being poached, or at least in making recommendations.
— Pam Smith
