Judge to Rule on Late-night Meetings

By Jorge Casuso

March 31 -- A Superior Court judge on Tuesday indicted he would likely throw out a lawsuit filed against the City by two of its council members that alleges late-night meetings limit the public’s rights to address their elected officials.

Filed more than four months ago by Council members Bob Holbrook and Herb Katz, the class action lawsuit charges that council meetings that run past the 11 p.m. curfew violate the Brown Act by in effect prohibiting members of the public from participating.

“This is a problem that the council has not been able to deal with,” Holbrook said. “Hopefully the court will force us to hold meetings at reasonable times that allow the public to participate.”

But Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Yaffe said the plaintiffs failed to show intent and that the issue was political.

“The judge asked, ‘Does it help your clients to begin meetings at noon?’” said Assistant City Attorney Joe Lawrence. “‘Should it hold more meetings? What is it you want me to do? This is a political issue.’”

While the judge indicated he would dismiss the case on demurrer, he did not rule on the City’s anti-SLAPP motion, which would have automatically dismissed the case. A demurrer, on the other hand, would allow the plaintiff to amend and resubmit the case.

“Though I appreciated where he was coming from, that didn’t really help the City,” Lawrence said. “The anti-SLAPP (motion) was intended to cut it off at the earliest possible date by throwing it out.”

Lawrence was able to convince the judge that an appeals court ruling requires him to first rule on the anti-SLAPP motion before deciding whether to grant a demurrer.

Yaffe said he would return with a ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion by the end of the week.

Local attorney Rosario Perry, who represents Holbrook and Katz on the suit, said he would be surprised if the judge ruled in the City’s favor on the anti-SLAPP motion, which protects efforts to prevent First Amendment Rights from being exercised.

“If he rules on the anti-SLAP motion, I still should win,” Perry said. “The City says we’re interfering with the First Amendment rights of the City by regulating when they can hold meetings.”

Under the anti-SLAPP motion, the case can be thrown out if the judge rules the plaintiff does not have a probability of winning. If the judge grants the anti-SLAPP motion, the court can order the plaintiffs to pay attorney’s fees and costs.

Holbrook said he and Katz decided to pursue the suit because it has merit.

“We could have pulled out a day or two ago and avoided this,” he said. “We chose not to because the public didn’t participate” in late-night discussions.

“I feel horrible when I see eighty-three extra chits (to speak) and people go home because they are tired of waiting,” Holbrook said. “It’s not an occasional thing.”

The suit lists the start and end times of all council meetings held between January and August of 2003; four of the 18 meetings lasted until after 1 a.m.

Eight of the remaining meetings ran until after midnight, and the last recorded meeting on August 12 ran from 5:55 p.m. until 2:55 a.m. -- the equivalent of a nine-hour workday.

The suit alleges the late night meetings bring “irreparable harm” to the plaintiffs and deprives the public in general of the right to “address their local legislative representatives” during “reasonable hours.”

The suit recommends that “the City Council rearrange their agenda item 14 (public comment) so that it is called first between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. to allow the public to attend and address the council.”

The suit’s allegation that continuing meetings past 11 p.m. is a violation of the Brown Act is not true, said City Attorney Marsha Moutrie.

“The Brown Act doesn’t compel stopping meetings at 11 p.m., it just doesn’t,” Moutrie said. “People can argue about the wisdom of stopping meetings at 11 o’clock.”