Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Executive Session Litigation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Yuba City reports closed-session actions including authorization to seek restraining order

5914375 · October 8, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City attorney reported the council directed notices of rejection or insufficiency on multiple liability claims and authorized staff to seek a restraining order related to an individual; the report cited Government Code provisions allowing closed-session consultation.

City Attorney (or city counsel staff) reported out of closed session that the council directed notices of rejection or insufficiency on several liability claims and authorized staff to seek a restraining order against an individual, Steven Strassick.

At the closed-session report, Mr. Chaffin said the council had "reportable items from closed session items 8, C, D, and E directed for a notice of rejection" and noted that some items were found nonjurisdictional or insufficient to report out. He also said staff is "authorized to seek a restraining order against mister Steven Strassick and any additional related action." Chaffin attributed the closed-session authority to Government Code provisions cited in the meeting.

Earlier in the meeting the clerk read several closed-session items listed as liability claims, naming claimants and claim numbers: Justin Rossier (claim 2526), Jordan McClellan (claim 2527), Robert A. Diaz (claim 2528), Benjamin Garcia (claim 2529), and Arun Kathat Singh (claim number shown in the record). The closed-session agenda also cited anticipated litigation under Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4) and consultation regarding threats to public services facilities under Government Code section 54957(a). The attorney's report identified some claims as nonjurisdictional and said staff would send notices accordingly.

The council did not take further action on the dais at the public meeting when the report was read; Mr. Chaffin's statement served as the public report required after closed session. No motion or public vote was recorded during the report-out.

The council did not discuss factual details of the underlying claims in open session, other than to read claimants and the closed-session authorities. The meeting record shows staff direction to pursue a restraining order as the only specific formal action announced from closed session.