CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/8/2022
1 SUBJECT:
Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Approving Execution of Settlement Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Plaintiffs, Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode, and Stephen Sanders Pertaining to Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Relating to Litigation in Geary, et al. v. City of Pacifica, Case No. 3:21-cv-01780.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to adopt the resolution approving execution of Settlement Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Plaintiffs, Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode, and Stephen Sanders through their undersigned counsel of record pertaining to attorneys’ fees and costs relating to litigation in Geary, et al. v. City of Pacifica, Case No. 3:21-cv-01780.
STAFF CONTACT:
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
(510) 273-8780
[email protected]
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The Lawsuit
On March 15, 2021 the ACLU, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and Disability Rights Advocates filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Pacifica on behalf of the Plaintiffs challenging the City’s Oversized Vehicle (OSV) Ordinance and its Vehicular Habitation Ordinance. The lawsuit alleges that the OSV Ordinance (Pacifica Municipal Code Sections 4-
7.1204 and 4-7.1205) and the Vehicular Habitation Ordinance (Pacifica Municipal Code 4-
7.1114) are unconstitutional. It further alleges that the OSV Ordinance violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and California Government Code §11135. Through the lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the OSV Ordinance and the Vehicular Habitation Ordinance are unconstitutional, a preliminary and permanent injunction directing the City to cease all efforts to enforce the Ordinances, restitution for fines and penalties collected under the Ordinances, and attorney’s fees and costs.
Shortly after the Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit, they filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“PI Motion”). Through the PI Motion, Plaintiffs sought an injunction to block the City from enforcing the OSV Ordinance. The PI Motion was heard on May 17, 2021. While the Court did not issue a ruling, it expressed concerns about the City’s enforcement efforts and about the City’s decision to not make a map of locations where OSV’s could park available to the public. On July 14, 2021, the Court entered a preliminary injunction (“Preliminary Injunction”) based on the stipulation of the parties. The Preliminary Injunction required the City to make available on its website, at City Hall and at Pacifica libraries a list and map of the already existing places where OSVs can safely park.
Pacifica City Council 2
August 08, 2022
The November 2021 Settlement
Plaintiffs and the City reached a Settlement Agreement (Agreement Date of November 23, 2021), filed with the Court, that provides for entry of a stipulated injunction (the “Injunction”), subject to the approval of the Court, on the terms set forth in the Injunction. On April 6, 2022, the Court entered its order approving the Injunction on the stipulation of the Parties, including among other things, the following terms:
• Plaintiffs will dismiss their lawsuit.
• The City will refund certain fines paid resulting from citations received under the Oversized Vehicles Ordinance up to the date the settlement agreement is signed. • The City will develop and staff will recommend to the Council a Safe Parking Permit Program to be implemented by the Pacifica Resource Center. • The City will be able to resume enforcement of its Oversized Vehicle Ordinance and will have the option of towing oversized vehicles not participating in the Safe Parking Permit Program that park on City streets for longer than 72 hours or that or that have more than five unpaid parking citations.
• The City and the Plaintiffs will attempt to agree on an amount of attorneys’ fees due to Plaintiff. If those efforts are not successful, the Court will resolve whether and what amount of attorneys’ fees the Plaintiff is entitled to.
The Proposed Settlement of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
The Parties, through their counsel, conferred in good faith and have now reached a proposed settlement for resolution of Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with the litigation. The negotiated proposed settlement provides, among other things, that the Plaintiffs will dismiss their lawsuit with prejudice and the City will pay the sum of $550,000 within 10 business days of the date the Agreement is fully executed to Plaintiffs’ attorneys. This settlement amount is significantly lower than the initial demand. The proposed settlement also provides that Plaintiffs will support the City’s submissions in response to any Coastal Commission appeals with a “friend of the court” or interested-party submission.
The Council is being asked to approve the terms of the proposed settlement as set forth in the settlement agreement included as Attachment 1 (“Settlement Agreement”). The agreed-upon settlement amount avoids further litigation and is less than what a Court may order if the settlement is not agreed upon and Plaintiffs file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs for the Court’s determination.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Council could reject the Settlement Agreement which would result in Plaintiffs filing a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs which could expose the City to payment of additional attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“A Healthy and Compassionate Community” includes addressing affordable housing and mental health services, investigating strategies related to homelessness, and supporting youth services.
Pacifica City Council 3
August 08, 2022
FISCAL IMPACT:
The monetary settlement amount is $550,000, which is significantly lower than the initial demand. If the settlement is not approved, the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs awarded by the Court may significantly surpass this amount. The City’s legal defense costs in opposing a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs will also be incurred.
ORIGINATED BY:
City Manager's Office
City Attorney's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Exhibit A: Settlement Agreement (PDF)
Pacifica City Council 4
August 08, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING
EXECUTION OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFICA AND
PLAINTIFFS, SEAN GEARY, LINDA MILES, JARED CARR, HARRY BODE AND STEPHEN SANDERS PERTAINING TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS RELATING TO LITIGATION IN GEARY, ET AL. V. CITY OF PACIFICA, CASE NO. 3:21-CV-01780 WHEREAS, On March 15, 2021 the ACLU, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and Disability Rights Advocates filed a class action lawsuit (Geary, et al. v. City of Pacifica, Case No. 3:21-cv-01780) against the City of Pacifica on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode and Stephen Sanders, challenging the City’s Oversized Vehicle (OSV) Ordinance and its Vehicular Habitation Ordinance in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; and
WHEREAS, the lawsuit alleges that the OSV Ordinance (Pacifica Municipal Code Sections 4-7.1204 and 4-7.1205) and the Vehicular Habitation Ordinance (Pacifica Municipal Code 4-7.1114) are unconstitutional and further alleges that the OSV Ordinance violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and California Government Code §11135; and
WHEREAS, through the lawsuit, Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the OSV Ordinance and the Vehicular Habitation Ordinance are unconstitutional, a preliminary and permanent injunction directing the City to cease all efforts to enforce the Ordinances, restitution for fines and penalties collected under the Ordinances, and attorneys’ fees and costs; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2021, the Court issued a limited injunction that required the City to make available on its website, at City Hall and at Pacifica libraries a list and map of the already existing places where OSVs can safely park; and WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and the City reached a Settlement Agreement (Agreement Date of November 23, 2021) which has been filed with the Court [ECF 68], that provides for entry of a stipulated injunction (the “Injunction”), subject to the approval of the Court, on the terms set forth in the Injunction, including but not limited to staff’s recommendation that the Council approve a Safe Parking Permit Program to be implemented by the Pacifica Resource Center; and the City’s refund of certain fines paid resulting from citations received under the OSV Ordinance.
The Settlement Agreement provides that the Parties will attempt to negotiate Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with the prosecution and settlement of the Action, which Defendant contests; and
WHEREAS, the Parties, through their counsel, conferred in good faith in negotiations for resolution of Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with the litigation.
WHEREAS, the City and the Plaintiffs, through their attorneys, have negotiated a proposed settlement agreement pertaining to Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Pacifica City Council 5
August 08, 2022
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into the settlement agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A to completely and finally resolve Plaintiffs’ claims for attorneys’ fees and costs in the Complaint.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby approves the settlement agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A and authorizes the City Manager to execute the Settlement Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Plaintiffs in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, with minor revisions that may be approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney, and to execute any other necessary documents to effectuate the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
• • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 8th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney