14 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES is made and entered into this 24th day of March, 202 6, by and between the CITY OF LANCASTER, a municipal corporation and charter city, (“City”), and Dapeer Rosenblit & Litvak, LLP , a California Limited Liability Partnership (“Consultant”) (collectively, sometimes referred to hereinafter as the “Parties”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, th e Cit y desires t o en gage Consultant t o perfor m certai n technic al an d professional services, as provided herein, identified as:
Community Preservation Legal Services (THE “SERVICES”)
WHEREAS, the principal members of Consultant are qualified and duly registered/licensed under the laws of the State of California, and Consultant desires to accept such engagement; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Parties to the Agreement.
The parties to this Agreement are:
A. CITY: City of Lancaster
B. CONSULTANT: Dapeer Rosenblit & Litvak, LLP
2. Notices. All written notices required by or related to this Agreement shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, postage prepaid and addressed as listed below. Neither party to this Agreement shall refuse to accept such mail; parties to this Agreement shall promptly inform the other party of any changes of address. All notices required by this Agreement are effective on the day of receipt, unless otherwise indicated herein.
CITY City of Lancaster
Attn: Trolis Niebla, City Manager
44933 North Fern Avenue
Lancaster, California 93534
CONSULTANT Dapeer Rosenblit & Litvak, LLP
Attn: William Litvak
11500 W Olympic Blvd Ste 550
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1528
15 3. Successors and Assigns. The terms hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto; provided, however, that no party hereto shall assign any of the benefits and burdens hereunder, whether voluntarily or by operation of law, without prior written consent of the other party, and any such assignments without said consent shall be void.
4. Description of Work . The City hereby engages Consultant, and Consultant accepts such engagement, to perform the technical and professional services set forth in the “Scope of Services and Rates Schedule,” attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall perform and complete, in a manner satisfactory to the City, all work and services set forth in Exhibit “A.” The City Manager or his designee shall have the right to review and inspect the work during the course of its performance at such times as may be specified by the City Manager, or his designee.
5. Obligations of the City.
A. The City shall pay Consultant an amount not to exceed $1,050,000 for all work necessary to complete the Services, as described in the Scope of Services and Rates Schedule. Payments shall be due within thirty (30) days following submittal of an invoice detailing the services performed, at the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit A.
B. No payment made hereunder by the City to Consultant, other than the final payment, shall be construed as an acceptance by the City of any work or materials, nor as evidence of satisfactory performance by Consultant of its obligations under this Agreement.
6. Obligations of the Consultant.
A. Consultant shall perform as required by this Agreement and in accordance with the Scope of Services and Rates Schedule set forth in Exhibit A.
B. Consultant shall be responsible for payment of all employees’ wages and benefits, and shall comply with all requirements pertaining to employer’s liability, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and Social Security.
C. Consultant shall not subcontract any of the work required to perform the Services without the express prior written approval of the City.
7. Hold Harmless and Indemnification . Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers and employees, from and against any and all third -party claims, losses, obligations, or liabilities whatsoever, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred to the extent arising out of or related to Consultant’s negligent or willful wrongful acts, errors or omissions, or those of its employees or agents. Consultant agrees to defend the City, its officers and employees, using counsel of the City’s choosing, from and against any and all claims covered by the indemnity in the preceding sentence.
8. Amendments. Any amendment, modification, or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon mutual written approval by the City and Consultant. 16 9. Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity.
A. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee, subcontractor, or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, ancestry, sex, national origin, physical or mental disability or age. Consultant will take affirmative action to ensure that subcontractors and applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, ancestry, sex, national origin, physical or mental disability or age. Affirmative action relating to employment shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training including apprenticeship.
B. The provisions of subsection A above shall be included in all solicitations or advertisements placed by or on behalf of Consultant for personnel to perform any services under this Agreement. The City shall have access to all documents, data and records of Consultant and its subcontractors for purposes of determining compliance with the equal employment opportunity and non-discrimination provisions of this Section.
10. Term; Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective and shall be in full force and effect upon the execution of the Agreement by the City and the Consultant. This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect for five (5) years, three (3) months plus the option for one (1) additional two-year period , unless the Agreement is sooner terminated in accordance with this Agreement; provided, however, that the City and the Consultant may mutually agree in writing to extend the Term of this Agreement.
11. Termination.
A. For Convenience. The City may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. In the event of termination of this Agreement, Consultant will be paid for work completed through the date of termination within thirty (30) days following submittal of a final invoice.
B. For Cause. If Consultant fails to perform the services called for by this Agreement or so fails to make progress as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, Consultant shall correct such failure within ten (10) days (or such longer period that the City may authorize in writing) after receipt of notice from the City specifying such failure. Should the failure not be corrected within this time period, the City may immediately terminate the Agreement by written notice to Consultant.
C. In the event of termination, whether for convenience or cause, reports, plans, studies and other documents (collectively, “documents”) related to the Services shall become the City’s property.
Consultant shall provide all documents to the City that have no t yet been within ten (10) calendar days after termination of the Agreement.
12. Independent Contractor. Consultant is an independent contractor and shall have no power or authority to incur any debt, obligation or liability on behalf of the City. It is expressly understood between the Parties to this Agreement that no employee/employer relationship is intended. 17 13. Insurance.
A. The Consultant, at its expense, shall maintain in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement the following coverage and limits of insurance, which shall be maintained with insurers listed “A -, VIII” or better in the Best’s Key Rating Guide:
Commercial General Liability
Each Occurrence $1,000,000
Per Project General Aggregate $2,000,000
Including Products/Completed Operations; Contractual Liability/Independent Contractors; Property Damage
(Coverage shall be at least as broad as ISO form CG2010 11/85 or CG2010 07/04 and CG2037 07/04 combined, or an equivalent providing ongoing and completed operations) Commercial Automobile Liability
Combined Single Limit per Accident for
Bodily Injury and Property Damage $1,000,000
(Coverage shall be at least as broad as ISO form CA00 01) Workers Compensation
As Required by the State of California Statutory Limits Employers’ Liability
Each Accident $1,000,000
Bodily Injury by Disease $1,000,000
Each Employee $1,000,000
(A Waiver of Subrogation must be provided on behalf of the Certificate Holder for the Workers Compensation & Employers’ Liability policies)
Professional Liability
Each Occurrence $2,000,000
General Aggregate $2,000,000
B. The Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insured’s liability.
C. Professional liability and/or cyber insurance written on a “claims made” basis must be renewed for a period of three (3) years after this contract expires or is terminated. Such insurance must have the same coverage and limits as the policy that was in ef fect during the term of this contract and will cover Consultant for all claims made by the City insured entities arising out of any acts or omissions of Consultant or its officers, employees, or agents during the time this Agreement was in effect.
D. Any deductibles or self-insurance retentions must be declared and approved by the City.
At the City’s option, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as 18 respects the City insured entities or the insurer shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
E. All insurance shall be primary and non -contributory as respects the City insured entities.
Any insurance or self -insurance maintained by the City insured entities shall be in excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
F. Consultant shall furnish the City with Certificates of Insurance and with endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement. Certificates of Insurance shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Show that the insurance policy has been endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after 30 days’ prior written notice (10 days’ written notice for non-payment) to the City of Lancaster. (2) List in the “Descriptions of Operations/Locations/Vehicles” section:
“[Name of the Project/Services/Title & Date of Event]
The City of Lancaster, its elected officials, officers, employees and volunteers are included as additional covered parties, but only insofar as the operations under this contract are concerned.”
(3) List in the “Certificate Holder” section:
The City of Lancaster, 44933 Fern Avenue, Lancaster, California 93534.
14. Commencement and Completion of Work. The Services to be provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall commence immediately after execution of this Agreement, and shall be completed prior to the expiration of the Agreement ; provided however, that the Parties may agree to extend the time for completion upon mutual written agreement.
15. Ownership of Documents . All plans, specifications, reports, studies, maps and other documents prepared or obtained by Consultant in the course of performing the work and are required by this Agreement to be delivered to the City shall be the property of the City. Basic sketches, charts, computations and similar data prepared or obtained by Consultant under this Agreement shall, upon request, be made available to City without restriction or limitation on their use.
16. Data Provided to Consultant . City shall provide to Consultant, without charge, all data, including reports, records, maps and other information, now in the City’s possession which may facilitate the timely performance of the work described in Exhibit A.
17. Consultant’s Warranties and Representations.
Consultant warrants and represents to City as follows:
A. Consultant has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Consultant, to solicit or obtain this Agreement. 19 B. Consultant has not paid or agreed to pay any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the execution of this Ag reement. Upon any breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement without further liability, or, in the alternative, to deduct from any sums payable hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift.
C. Consultant has no knowledge that any officer or employee of the City has any interest, whether contractual, noncontractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of the Consultant, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Consultant at any time, a complete written disclosure of such interest will be made to City, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited “conflict of interest” under applicable laws.
D. Upon the execution of this Agreement, Consultant has no interest, direct or indirect, in any transaction or business entity which would conflict with or in any manner hinder the performance of services and work required by this Agreement, nor shall any su ch interest be acquired during the term of this Agreement.
18. Resolution of Disputes.
A. Disputes regarding the interpretation or application of any provisions of this Agreement shall, to the extent reasonably feasible, be resolved through good faith negotiations between the parties.
B. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute through good faith negotiations, either party may give Notice of Dispute to the other party. The Notice of Dispute shall state the nature of the dispute and the corrective action necessary to remedy the dispute.
After Notice of Dispute, the parties shall first attempt to resolve any disputes by mediation. The parties shall agree on a single mediator. Mediation shall be conducted in Lancaster, California.
Each party shall pay its own attorneys’ fees and the costs of mediation shall be split equally between the parties.
If the dispute has not been resolved by mediation within 45 days after Notice of Dispute, or the parties are unable to agree to a mediator, within 15 days after Notice of Dispute, then, the dispute may, upon agreement of the parties be resolved by binding arbitration.
C. If any action at law or in equity is brought to enforce or interpret any provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, cost and necessary disbursements, in addition to such other relief as may be sought and awarded.
19. Exhibits.
The following exhibits to which reference is made in this Agreement are deemed incorporated herein in their entirety:
20 Exhibit “A” Scope of Services and Rate Schedule
20. Governing Law.
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.
21. Effective Date.
This Agreement shall become effective as of the date set forth below on which the last of the parties, whether City or Consultant, executes said Agreement. [Signatures begin on next page.]
21 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and attested by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized.
CITY OF LANCASTER
LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA
By:
Trolis Niebla, City Manager
Dated:
_________________________________
By:
William Litvak, Managing Partner
Dated:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Dapeer Rosenblit & Litvak, LLP
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
**COMPLETE & RETURN THIS PAGE**
CALIFORNIA LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
In 2022, California SB1439 extended requirements under Government Code Section 84308, also known as the "Levine Act", to prohibit County "officers" from participating in any action related to a contract if such member receives political contributions totaling more than $250 within the previous twelve months, and for three months following the date a final decision concerning the contract has been made, from the person or company awarded the contract. The Levine Act also requires disclosure of such contribution by a party to be awarded a specific contract.
Section 84308( a)( 4) of the Levine Act defines an "officer" as follows: "Officer" means any elected or appointed officer of an agency, any alternate to an elected or appointed officer of an agency, and any candidate for elective office in an agency. The term "officer" is further defined 2 Cal. Code Regs. Section 18438. l, which states:
An officer of an agency includes only those persons who make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence a decision in the license, permit, or entitlement for use proceeding, or who exercise authority or budgetary control over the agency of officers who may do so, and:
(1) Serve in an elected position, including an official appointed to an elected position due to an interim vacancy or an election otherwise canceled because the official was the sole candidate for the position; (2) Serve as a member of a board or commission;
(3) Serve as the chief executive of a state agency, or county, city or district of any kind; or (4) Have decision making authority with respect to the proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use and is also a candidate for elected office or has been a candidate for elective office in the 12 months prior to the proceeding.
A list of Stanislaus County Board Members can be found online at: Board of Supervisors - Stanislaus Countv (stancount, .com). The party making this certification is responsible for determining whether a recipient of a political contribution is a County officer prior to answering the following questions:
1. Have you, your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any political contributions of more than $250 to any County officer, in the twelve (12) months preceding the date of the submission of your proposals or the anticipated date of any Board action related to this contract?
_Il_YES ...@_NO
If YES, please identify the person(s) or agent(s) making the contribution:
IfYES, please identify the County officer receiving the contribution:
2. Do you, or your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, anticipate or plan to make any political contribution of more than $250 to any County officer in the three (3) months following any Board action related to this contract? ... O..YES _.IZ)_N0
IfYES, please identify the person(s) or agent(s) making the contribution:
IfYES, please identify the County officer receiving the contribution:
Answering YES to either of the questions above does not preclude Stanislaus County from awarding a contract to your firm or taking any subsequent action related to the contract. It does, however, preclude the identified County officer from participating in any actions related to such contract.
Levine Act Disclosure Statement -1-
I HEREBY CERTIFY
THE FOREGOING I~ •
Signature:
,' ·..-.J ..... ...-: ...,. .. ~·-,_,,·-t:i·
PrintName:William Litvak
Title: Managing Partner
7 ,... - ...
ERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT
Date Signed: 1 /27 /26
Company: DAPEER ROSENBLIT LITVAK, LLP
Levine Act Disclosure Statement -2-
11 EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES AND RATE SCHEDULE
The selected firm shall provide full-service municipal legal counsel, including but not limited to the following:
A. Code Enforcement Legal Services
The selected firm shall provide robust support for the City’s enforcement programs, including:
1. Administrative & Civil Enforcement
• Review and advise on notices of violation, administrative citations, abatement orders, warrants, and hearing procedures.
• Prepare and prosecute administrative hearings, nuisance abatement cases, and appeals.
• Pursue cost recovery, liens, special assessments, and legal remedies available under state law and the City Municipal Code.
• Represent the City in civil nuisance actions (injunctions, receiverships, abatement actions).
2. Criminal Enforcement (if applicable)
• File and prosecute misdemeanors or infractions under the Municipal Code. • Coordinate with the City Prosecutor (if separate) or District Attorney. • Assist with settlement negotiations, plea agreements, and court appearances.
3. Specialized Code Enforcement Areas
The firm should demonstrate experience in:
• Property maintenance and nuisance abatement
• Vacant property programs
• Substandard buildings and unsafe structures
• Zoning and land-use violations
12 • Business licensing, illegal operations, and permitting violations • Cannabis regulation enforcement
• Housing code enforcement
• Environmental, solid waste, and public health enforcement B. Litigation & Claims Management
• Represent the City in federal, state, and appellate courts. • Manage defense of tort claims, civil rights actions, land-use challenges, and CEQA lawsuits.
• Coordinate with outside counsel when authorized.
C. Special Projects & Legislative Support
• Draft new ordinances and update existing municipal code provisions. • Provide legal strategy for major City initiatives and intergovernmental relationships. • Advise on federal and state regulatory changes impacting City operations.
REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS
Proposers must demonstrate:
• Minimum 5–10 years practicing municipal law.
• Significant experience representing California cities. • Proven expertise in code enforcement prosecution, nuisance abatement, administrative law, and civil enforcement.
• Experience advising City Councils, Planning Commissions, and other municipal bodies. • Availability to provide timely advice and urgent response as needed. • Ability to attend evening meetings and respond promptly to staff inquiries.
DAPEER ROSENBLIT LITVAK LLP
LAWYERS
WILLIAM LITVAK*
STEVEN H. ROSENBUT
KENNETH B. DAPEER
JAMES C. ECKART
ERIC P. MARKUS
JOCELYN CORBETT
LILY KEENAN
I 1500 W. OLYMPIC BLVD. SUITE 550
LOS ANGELES, CA 90064-1 S24
TELEPHONE (3 I 0) 477-5575
FACSIMILE (310) 477-7090
SARAH EDMISTON
DEEPTA JANARDHAN
DERICK MANOUKIAN
WRrTER'S EMAIL
[email protected]
*MANAGING PARTNER
January 27, 2026
City of Lancaster
Community Development Department - Community Preservation Re: Response to Request for Proposal for Legal Services (No. 873-26) Dear Selection Committee:
Thank you for allowing Dapeer, Rosenblit & Litvak, LLP ("DRL" or the "Firm") to respond to your Request for Proposal RFP NO. 873-26 for Community Preservation Legal Services. ("RFP").
We hereby submit our statement of qualifications and proposal to provide the services requested.
1. Proposal Summary:
Although DRL has represented all departments and divisions in the City as community preservation attorneys and City Prosecutors since 2006, we seek to continue providing legal services to Community Preservation as full-service legal counsel.
While maintaining independent prosecutorial discretion and functions, DRL's operating philosophy is to be a part of the "City team" - and not that of merely an "outside" consultant. Senior Partner James Eckart would be Community Preservation's designated contact and representative from the Firm, and he would be available as needed by Staff (in person, virtually, or via e-mail and telephone) to review new and pending matters, provide direction and advice (as needed) to ensure the most efficient and beneficial result for the City, to oversee all services rendered to the City by the Firm, and to ensure assigned work is completed in a timely manner.
Mr. Eckart is regarded as the finest code compliance and community preservation lawyer in California. His commitment to serving cities throughout California is unsurpassed.
Not only does he have an astounding understanding of municipal law, he also devotes himself to teaching and educating the next generation of Code Enforcement leaders. His classes and seminars are routinely filled to capacity and often are "standing room only".
Mr. Eckart will have access to all of the Firm's lawyers and the full capabilities of the Firm to address the City's concerns.
City of Lancaster
Re: Response to Request for Proposal for Legal Services January 27, 2026
DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP
Since commencing representation of the City of Lancaster in 2006, we have successfully achieved Code compliance in almost 100% of all cases assigned to us - whether by voluntary compliance or through the use of administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement remedies. We have handled some of the most controversial and complicated matters for the City - including, but not limited to, abating "slumlord" properties, narcotics nuisances, "party houses", illicit nightclubs, and illegal adult care facilities, as well as defending the City in a variety of civil lawsuits (including one brought by the Mongols Motorcycle Club).
Since our representation of municipalities in 1979, DRL has handled more prosecutions than arguably any private law firm in this state. Staff also provides education and training to not only our clients, but we also take pride in providing educational seminars to the Code Enforcement and Law Enforcement communities throughout California.
The Firm's lawyers have more experience and expertise in the area of Code Enforcement and community preservation law and remedies than any other law firm in this specialty area oflaw. The Firm's partners collectively have over 180 years of experience in this specialty area. And, the Firm is currently training the next generation of lawyers and providing them the supervised experience to become leaders in the field for years to come.
DRL's expertise is not limited to the use of criminal prosecution, but also extends to reviewing existing ordinances and amending or crafting new ordinances to provide clients with more diverse and efficient regulatory and enforcement tools; obtaining search warrants, inspection warrants, and abatement warrants; representing Staff in a variety of administrative enforcement proceedings (including hearings to suspend or revoke business licenses, regulatory permits, and land-use entitlements); and civil litigation and receivership actions. Perhaps of most importance, the Firm can provide training to Staff that is tailored to the needs and desires of the City in a more economic manner than utilizing outside forums.
Given the long-standing relationship with the City, DRL has extensive institutional knowledge of the City of Lancaster and its Staff, including the City Attorney's Office with whom Firm lawyers enjoy an excellent working relationship. This knowledge and experience also translate into substantial cost savings for the City. Our firm will not have any learning curve, as it is already familiar with the City's municipal code and the various initiatives that have been historically important for the City. Also significant is that the depth of the firm's lawyers' experience in the field of Code Enforcement, and an experienced support staff that allows the Firm to deliver the highest level of services efficiently and without waste.
DRL is extremely proud to already represent all departments and divisions in the City of Lancaster (including Community Preservation) and has undertaken an objective and comprehensive review of the services that it provides the City and the manner in which it City of Lancaster
Re: Response to Request for Proposal for Legal Services January 27, 2026
DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP
provides those services. In doing so, we recognized that our skill set and quality of services continue to be superlative. However, the stresses on the legal community related to recruiting and retaining qualified lawyers has never been more challenging. We have revised our business plan to emphasize quality vs. quantity. Thus, it is the Firm's strategy to emphasize its more prolific clients with whom we believe we can partner to foster and sustain a successful program to improve the quality oflife for its community. To achieve our goals, we have designated a select number of Cities as "primary partners" and the City of Lancaster is included among the cities that we will prioritize when allocating resources. Thus, we intend to insulate the City of Lancaster from the effects of the limit on qualified candidates seeking work in this area of law. We have also instituted a moratorium restricting the onboarding of new municipal clients unless we have qualified staff on board prior to accepting representation.
Contacts for this proposal are as follows:
James Eckart (Designated contact and Prosecutor for the City) Mobile Tel: (323) 3 75-4 731
Email: [email protected]
William Litvak (Managing Partner)
Mobile: (310) 968-5244
Email: [email protected]
2. Firm Profile and Qualifications:
During the past 45 years, our firm has prosecuted more misdemeanors and code enforcement actions throughout southern California than any other private law firm. We have literally prosecuted thousands of criminal and civil cases for numerous cities, including the City of Lancaster. We enjoy excellent relationships with criminal courts throughout southern California. In multiple courts, we have in place arrangements with public defenders and the Courts to have our cases heard on specific days of the week and/or before specially assigned judges in order to facilitate efficient handling of our clients' matters. In the Antelope Valley Superior Court, we are well known by all of the judges adjudicating criminal cases and, most importantly, we enjoy excellent relationships with the clerks of these courts. It should be understood that the clerks of the court are the judges' gate keepers, and their assistance is an integral part of obtaining access to the courts and to make our time there most efficient.
We already have procedures in place to address not only filings, but we are also well versed in dispositions typically approved by the courts, familiar with the unique characteristics of the bench officers and their preferences. We are also knowledgeable in all new legislation affecting the administration of justice.
City of Lancaster
Re: Response to Request for Proposal for Legal Services January 27, 2026
DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP
Our experience is not limited to trial court practice. We have handled hundreds of misdemeanor appeals, leading all the way to the California State Supreme Court. Our attorneys are also admitted before all courts of this state, and our senior lawyers are also admitted to all California Federal Courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.
We estimate that our track record at all levels of criminal proceedings demonstrates a success rate of over 99%. We humbly suggest that this is even more impressive with the current liberal approach taken by the California legislature to the administration of criminal justice in this state. Admittedly, it has become more difficult to secure rulings today that achieve the deterrent effect than earlier times when punishment and deterrence were the central focus of criminal law enforcement - however, we have continued to maintain a success rate that generally avoids repeat violations by defendants. We strive to advocate that the successes of the past should be included in how criminal law is prosecuted and what appropriate punishments should be applied to misdemeanors. We recognize that the "broken window" theory has proven to be an effective tool to forestall lawlessness in communities. By handling misdemeanors seriously, we avoid proliferation of felonies.
The result is an enhanced quality oflife and feeling of safety in our communities. We have proven that this strategy is effective when applied to municipal misdemeanor prosecution and seek to continue applying our knowledge, skills, and experience to benefit the City of Lancaster.
In handling your City's municipal law enforcement, we have advocated "voluntary compliance" as the chief goal of code enforcement programs. This makes them cost effective and gives the community confidence that the programs are fair resulting in overall support by the community at large. While many judges believe that "abatement" is the sole goal of Code Enforcement prosecutions, punishment for wrongdoing (whether through financial sanctions, community service and/or labor, etc.) is also an important aspect of Municipal Code prosecutions - and assists in deterring future unlawful conduct by the defendant and other potential violators within the City. Thus, from the initial filing through the final stage of every court case, we strive to educate the bench and bar of the impacts of these types of crimes and the City's community preservation program and efforts.
Our Firm brochure and profile are available upon request.
3. Services
DRL has been providing code enforcement services throughout Southern California since 1979 - and, more specifically, we have been acting as the City Prosecutor for Lancaster since 2006. During that time, we have assisted the City of Lancaster and other City clients with a variety of legal services designed to facilitate and expedite compliance with a multitude of local and State laws, rules, and regulations.
Our services to your City have historically included the following:
City of Lancaster
Re: Response to Request for Proposal for Legal Services January 27, 2026
DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP
a) Review existing City codes, regulations, rules, resolutions, policies, and practices, and provide recommendations and/or draft amendments, modifications, and/or updates to said codes, regulations, rules, resolutions, policies, and practices. 1 b) Conduct meetings with City Staff to discuss pending investigations or other matters, and to provide guidance and recommendations for enforcement actions - including the use of notices of violation, administrative citations, nuisance abatement orders, and other administrative, civil, and/or criminal enforcement proceedings.
c) When appropriate, draft correspondence to and conduct meetings with violators in an effort to obtain voluntary compliance without the need for formal legal enforcement proceedings.
d) Assist City Staff with the preparation and acquisition of inspection warrants, search warrants, and abatement warrants.
e) Represent the City in all courts and before all regulatory bodies. This would include all state and federal trial courts, appellate courts, including the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.
f) Initiate and prosecute criminal actions. Including probation revocation and diversion programs.
g) Initiate and prosecute civil enforcement actions, including Health and Safety Receiverships.
h) Assist staff in initiating administrative remedies, including administrative abatement, license revocation, CUP and special land-use permit revocations; Prepare City Staff for administrative hearings and, when appropriate, represent City Staff before a hearing officer or other appellate or reviewing authority (including the Permits and Licenses Committee and Administrative Hearing Officer - or any other appropriate committee, commission, and/or the City Council). i) Provide educational trainings to City Staff, as needed and as requested by the City. j) Collaborate and confer with City Staff as needed, including consulting with the City Attorney regarding current and proposed State and Federal legislation and/or judicial cases and decisions that may relate to or impact the City. k) Perform any other duties or functions as requested and/or approved by the City Manager, City Attorney, and/or City Council.
1 Our office strives to ensure that the laws, regulations, and policies the City uses are not only Constitutionally enforceable, but that they are also practical and efficient for enforcement officers. 2 In many instances, our office appears before a reviewing authority and represents Staff in presenting its case in an effort to avoid a potential conflict of interest that could result if a representative of the City Attorney's Office represents Staff and serves as legal counsel to the reviewing authority.
City of Lancaster
Re: Response to Request for Proposal for Legal Services January 27, 2026
DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP
Through the use of these tools, DRL has amassed an overwhelming record of success in helping Cities achieve their goals to improve and maintain the quality of life for their residents and businesses. 3
Although a majority of matters can be resolved through voluntary compliance, some cases require legal action to cause the termination ofillegal activities, uses, and/or conduct. With the approval of the City (and, as appropriate, the City Manager, City Attorney, and/or City Council), such legal actions might include, but would not be limited to, (i) the filing of civil injunctive actions to obtain orders from a Court for a violator either to cease an illegal use or activity or to proactively perform an abatement action; (ii) seeking the appointment of a receiver by the Superior Court to cause the abatement of an illegal condition, use, or activity if a responsible party is unable or unwilling to do so; and/or (iii) the filing of a misdemeanor complaint against responsible parties. 4
DRL prides itself on working collaboratively with City Attorneys to assure that our work integrates seamlessly into the work that they perform for their cities.
4. Primary Professionals:
Although every attorney at DRL would be available to serve your Community Preservation requirements, Senior Partner James Eckart would serve as your designated City Prosecutor.
He would primarily oversee and handle matters and interact with City staff on all matters being handled by the firm for the City. William Litvak will serve as the administrative partner for the City's contract.
James Eckart, Senior Partner, has spent almost 30 years (both as a City Prosecutor and with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office) criminally prosecuting individuals who violate State and local laws. He has assisted our municipal clients on innumerable cases serving in the capacity as legal counsel representing either Staff in administrative proceedings to seek the termination of various public nuisances - including, but not limited to, properties that are used for illegal narcotics, gambling, and prostitution. Mr. Eckart has also served as a hearing officer for administrative proceedings where a conflict of interest exists with a local City Attorney or other legal counsel. He has further been an instructor, guest speaker, and/or lecturer for numerous Police Departments, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Code Enforcement Officer associations, Los Angeles County Health Department, and other governmental personnel on techniques for general and specialized investigations - including those involving short term rentals, transient occupancy taxes, search & seizure issues, report writing, and procedures and testimony for administrative, civil, and criminal proceedings. Mr. Eckart serves as an adjunct faculty member of In addition to the helping Cities achieve the primary goal of compliance with applicable laws, DRL has assisted Cities in obtaining in excess of $5,000,000 in delinquent transient occupancy taxes, business license taxes and fees, and other miscellaneous fees.
City of Lancaster 0APEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP
Re: Response to Request for Proposal for Legal Services January 27, 2026
Santiago Canyon College, teaching courses on public policy and legal aspects of law enforcement. Mr. Eckart has also authored and presented training to over 300 City Attorneys (through the League of California Cities) on how to successfully prosecute municipal code violations. Additionally, Mr. Eckart regularly drafts ordinances and/or revisions to municipal code provisions to ensure clients have the most up-to-date tools available to tackle issues arising within their jurisdiction. Mr. Eckart received his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California and his Juris Doctorate from Loyola School of Law. He also attended the National Institute for Trial Advocacy.
Bar Admissions: Admitted to the California State Bar in 1997. State Bar No. 192078.
Also admitted to the United States Supreme Court, 2012; United States District Court for the Central District of California, 1997.
William Litvak, Managing Partner, has been a trial lawyer for over 40 years, the past thirty of which have included code enforcement and municipal litigation services. He has tried numerous cases, both jury and non-jury, both generally and specifically related to code enforcement services. He has appeared before the California State Supreme Court, the California Courts of Appeal, the United States Districts Courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He is licensed by the California State Bar, the Federal District Courts for all districts in California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. He has been awarded an "AV" rating from the Martindale-Hubbell, a peer reviewed lawyer registry and has been designated a "Super Lawyer" for Southern California. He has additionally served as an arbitrator, settlement officer, and judge pro tern for the Los Angeles Superior Court, and has been an instructor, guest speaker, and/or lecturer on such topics as medical marijuana dispensaries, "red light" (gambling and prosecution) nuisance abatement, narcotics nuisance abatement, injunctions and receiverships, and red-light photo enforcement. Mr. Litvak was selected to represent all of the member cities of the California Contract Cities Association in a contractual dispute with the County of Los Angeles related to a multimillion-dollar contract for sheriff services. Mr. Litvak is a graduate of the University of California where he received a Bachelor of Arts Degree and California Western School of Law where he received his Juris Doctorate degree. He also attended the National Institute for Trial Advocacy. Published appellate decisions include:
City of Sierra Madre v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal App 5th; People v. Gray (2014) 58 Cal 4th 901; D&M Financial v. City of Long Beach (2006) 136 Cal App 4th; City of Norco v. Mugar (2020) 59 Cal App 5th 786; People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal 4th25
II
II
Bar admissions: Admitted to the California State Bar, 1979, State Bar No. 90533; Also admitted to the United States Supreme Court, 2004; United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit; United States District Court for the Northern, Central, Eastern and Southern District of California. Also admitted pro hac vice in various state courts and federal judicial districts.
City of Lancaster
Re: Response to Request for Proposal for Legal Services January 27, 2026
5. Work Plan Proposal:
DAPEER, ROSENBLIT 0c LITVAK LLP
Mr. Eckart and the Firm's lawyers will be available for consultation at any time and will provide guidance on any inquiry made. As to cases that are referred to our Firm, we will provide Staff with a case referral form that would be used by Staff when submitting a matter to DRL for handling. This will provide a method for Staff to request specific action, as well as to facilitate the tracking of case referrals. Furthermore, Staff will also be provided with a checklist of information that should, if available, be transmitted with the referral form to facilitate and expedite case review by DRL.
Once received by the Firm, the referral will be acknowledged. Unless another time frame is requested, the referral will typically be reviewed by Mr. Eckart or his designee within 10 days. This review will consider all of the facets and all legal remedies that may apply.
Thus, despite the nature of the referral, our attorneys will re-evaluate the matter to determine if there is a more beneficial and efficient mode of enforcement. Thus, a matter initially referred for criminal prosecution may ultimately be recommended for receivership or civil enforcement depending upon the specific facts and circumstances applicable to that matter. In some instances, additional information may be necessary to complete the analysis - and, in such instances, we will make the necessary request of the designated Community Preservation Officer.
Once a recommendation for the manner of enforcement has been relayed to the City, Staff will be provided an opportunity to discuss the recommendation with Mr. Eckart and to provide additional input prior to the Firm taking any additional action. Provided, however, if criminal prosecution is the chosen remedy, the Firm is legally required to and will exercise its independent judgment and discretion with regard to the prosecution and its scope.
Once an enforcement method is confirmed, the Firm will work with City Staff to ensure that all necessary information (including an investigation report and supporting evidence) is prepared, and DRL will prepare any necessary legal documents (including any necessary notices, civil or criminal complaints, and/or other legal pleadings).
For cases where there is an imminent hazard to the public, or where Staff requires more immediate action, timetables for the Firm will be shortened - and DRL will also consider the availability of temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions will depending upon the circumstances and the information available.
If such preliminary civil relief is appropriate, all moving papers will be prepared at the same time as the pleading and will be filed simultaneously. Additionally, where a receivership is being sought, we will coordinate with the receiver to determine the plan for remediation and consult with Staff regarding that plan and adjust as they deem appropriate.
City of Lancaster
Re: Response to Request for Proposal for Legal Services January 27, 2026
DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP
Please keep in mind that the Firm must adhere to all timeframes mandated by law, as well as the filing procedures set by the Los Angeles County Superior Court - which may cause some delays beyond the control the Firm.
During the pendency of an action, Firm lawyers will continue to monitor the progress of remediation by a receiver or the responsible party. They will also interact with Staff to make certain that they are fully apprised of progress and to confirm that the City's goals are being met with respect to the subject property or activity. This review will occur on a weekly basis during the first two months of the action and thereafter adjusted as appropriate but in no event less than monthly.
Once the action has been commenced it is our practice to provide updates on developments as they occur. We will upon request provide a monthly or quarterly summary of all cases being handled by the firm.
The Firm is presently working on a client portal. Once established Staff will be able to access the Firm's case files. At present the Firm is functionally "paperless" and all case files are stored in the cloud. We estimate that the client portal will be operational in April 2026.
The Firm will also provide additional services as approved by the City. These would include, among other things, the following:
Regular office hours (virtual and/or in-person)
"All-hands" meetings for all lawyers and Staff
Ordinance review and preparation.
"Pitchess" motion defense.
Public Record Request review and consultation.
Work-Flow consulting and analysis.
Training and instruction.
Written resources and manuals.
Emergency Services available "24/7", including holidays.
Notwithstanding the commencement of legal enforcement proceedings, DRL will seek a voluntary settlement that preserves City resources while still achieving the City's goals of Code compliance, deterrence, and punishment, where such a resolution is not possible, DRL will take all necessary action to increase the likelihood of the enforcement action's success. Moreover, while not available in criminal proceedings, DRL will typically seek restitution for the City's enforcement costs and legal fees in administrative and civil enforcement proceedings.
II
II
II
City of Lancaster DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP
Re: Response to Request for Proposal for Legal Services January 27, 2026
6. Staffing:
In addition to James Eckart (Responsible Partner and Primary Contact) and William Litvak (Managing Partner), the following team members will be assigned to serve the City of Lancaster:
Kenneth Dapeer, admitted to California State Bar, 1976 [SBN 70575] Steven Rosenblit, admitted to California State Bar, 1976 [SBN 72435] Eric Markus, admitted to California State Bar, 2012 [SBN 281971] Lily Keenan, admitted to California State Bar, 2005 [SBN 240362] Sarah Edmiston, admitted to California Bar, 2024 [SBN 356745] Derick Manoukian, Associate, admitted to California Bar, 2025 [SBN 363906] Deepta Janardhan, admitted in New Jersey Bar, 2020 [SBN 309022020], and California Bar, 2025 [SBN 363213]
Jocelyn Corbett, Hearing officer designee [SBN 234086]
Wendy Kim, Paralegal
Sarah Chi, Administrative Assistant
Linda Hernandez, Administrative Assistant
Maria L. Martinez, Finance
State Bar License status for all team members serving the City are attached as Exhibit A.
7. Cost Proposal:
In order to allow the City to better allocate its resources, DRL does not require a monthly retainer. Rather, we would propose providing legal services to the Community Preservation Department on an hourly fee basis at the same rate as set forth in the current contract we have with the Cilv o(Lancaster (renewed in January 2025) - specifically, $245 per hour for all legal services. Paralegals, supervised by staff attorneys, are utilized when appropriate to reduce litigation expense to the city and are charged at the rate of $195.00 per hour.
Additionally, we would be reimbursed for any out-of-pocket expenses associated with our assignments as follows:
Attornev Service Charges: As incurred by DRL for the personal service of notices upon defendants or other parties to litigation matters, the filing of pleadings in court and the procurement of public records from governmental agencies or court reporters, when needed, for a particular case.
Commercial Data Base Providers: $25.00 per request/search, plus actual charges of the service provider.
City of Lancaster
Re: Response to Request for Proposal for Legal Services January 27, 2026
On-Line Legal Research Charges:
Postage and Courier Charges:
Copier Charges:
DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP
As incurred.
As incurred.
B& W $0.05/page; color $0.10/page.
Third Partv Expert Witness or Consulting Fee: As incurred.
As incurred.
As incurred.
Court Reporter or Transcript Fees:
Exhibit Preparation or Photograph Expense:
We do not add a surcharge to costs incurred with third parties. Advance approval is sought for all charges for experts, court reports, transcripts and other trial related expenses. A surcharge may be incurred in unique cases in the amount of $45.00 per hour upon request and with the approval of the City Manager/City Attorney.
8. Exceptions to Professional Services Agreement: The Firm has no exceptions.
9. Conflict oflnterest. DRL has no reportable conflict of interest with the City of Lancaster.
10. Insurance
DRL maintains and will maintain at all times insurance coverage required under the Request for Proposals with coverage limits as required by the City.
Levine Act Statement We have nothing to report under the California Levine Act. The California Levine Act Statement is attached as Exhibit B.
11. Firm Claims Experience:
We have no claims, past or present, to report.
12. Sample Relevant Clientele:
The following is a sample of the Firm's current client roster:
City of Agoura Hills, 1992 to the present
City of Bell Gardens, 2003 to the present
City of Beverly Hills, 1994 to the present
City of Big Bear Lake, 1997 to the present
City of Calabasas, 2002 to the present
City of Covina, 2008 to the present
City of Culver City, 2001 to the present
City of Lancaster
Re: Response to Request for Proposal for Legal Services January 27, 2026
City of Diamond Bar, 2003 to the present
City of Downey, 2005 to the present
City of Huntington Park, 1979 to the present
City of Inglewood, 2024 to the present
City of Montclair, 2006 to the present
City of Norwalk, 2004 to the present
City of Pomona, 1995 to the present
City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2021 to the present
City of Redlands, 2024 to the present
City of South Gate, 1991 to the present
City of West Hollywood, 1986 to the present
City of Westlake Village, 2004 to the present
List of References:
DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP
In accordance with the City's Request for Proposal, we hereby submit a partial list of references, including contact information.
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
Nestor Otazu
Code Enforcement Manager
Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
(310) 285-1173
[email protected]
Larry Wiener, Esq.
City Attorney
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
(213) 626 8484
[email protected]
CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE
Erik Sund
City Manager
39707 Big Bear Blvd.
Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
(909) 866-5832
[email protected]
CITY OF CALABASAS
Sparky Cohen
Building Official
City of Lancaster
Re: Response to Request for Proposal for Legal Services January 27, 2026
Building and Safety - Code Enforcement
100 Civic Center Way
Calabasas, CA 91302
(818) 224-1708
[email protected]
CITY OF COVINA
Brian Lee
Community Development Director
125 E. College Street
Covina, CA 91 723
(626) 384-5400
[email protected]
CITY OF CULVER CITY
Heather Baker, Esq.
City Attorney
9770 Culver Boulevard
Culver City, CA 90232
(310) 253-6000
heather. [email protected]
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
GregGubman
Community Development Director
21810 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
(909) 839-7030
GGubman@DiamondBarCA. Gov
CITY OF DOWNEY
Irma Huitron, Director of Community Development
11111 Brookshire A venue
Downey, CA 90241
(562) 904-7151
[email protected]
Vince Rosario,
Lieutenant (Downey Police Department)
10911 Brookshire A venue
Post office Box 7016
Downey, CA 90241
(562) 904-2321
[email protected]
DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP
City of Lancaster
Re: Response to Request for Proposal for Legal Services January 27, 2026
CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK
Ricardo Reyes
City Manager
6550 Miles A venue
Huntington Park, CA 90255
(323) 582-6161
[email protected]
CITY OF MONTCLAIR
Edward Starr, City Manager
5111 Benito Street
Montclair, CA 91763
(909) 625-9474
[email protected]
Brandon Kumanski, Lieutenant
Montclair Police Department
4870 Arrow Highway
Montclair, CA 91763
(909) 448-3605
[email protected]
CITY OF NORWALK
Ozzie Ramos
Deputy City Manager/Public Safety Director (Norwalk)
112700 Norwalk Blvd.
Norwalk, CA 90650
(562) 929-5732
[email protected]
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Lori Price,
Community Improvement Supervisor
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 774-4259
[email protected]
Zack Neighbors,
Director of Building and Safety Services Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 774-4214
[email protected]
DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP
City of Lancaster
Re: Response to Request for Proposal for Legal Services January 27, 2026
Additional references are available upon request.
DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP
We thank you for your consideration and sincerely hope that we may remain as the dedicated community preservation attorneys and City Prosecutor for Community Preservation for years to come, and we look forward to an expanding role in the City's efforts to improve the quality of life in its community. We welcome any questions you may have.
Respectfully Submitted,
By: ___ ~-----
Wi. iam Litvak
Managing Partner
Acceptance of Designation as Responsible Partner:
The undersigned agrees to act as the responsible attorney for all code enforcement services for the City of Lancaster an ccept management of all matters referred to the Firm.
A
J~, Senior Partner