Costa Mesa council recesses to closed session to consider potential and existing litigation

The Costa Mesa City Council recessed to closed session Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025, to confer with legal counsel on one potential litigation matter and multiple existing lawsuits listed on the meeting agenda.

City Clerk read the items into the record, including "Item 1, conference with legal counsel anticipation litigation for 1 case pursuant to California government code section 54956.9(d) — potential litigation," and a list of existing cases, which the clerk identified as Ohio House v. City of Costa Mesa; Insight Psychology and Addiction v. City of Costa Mesa; Schaefer v. City of Costa Mesa; City of Costa Mesa, People, State of California v. D'Alessio Investments (440 Fair Drive and 1779 Newport Boulevard); City of Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio (1963 Wallace Avenue); and Casey D'Alessio Investments v. City of Costa Mesa. The clerk also noted that council was present except for Council Members Reynolds and Maher.

The agenda items cited California Government Code section 54956.9(d) for potential litigation and related subsections for existing litigation. The council did not discuss those matters in open session; the record shows the council recessed to the community room for a closed session. Under state law, closed-session discussions on pending or threatened litigation are confidential and the city typically reports only those matters required by law after the session concludes.

No votes or final actions on the litigation items were recorded in the public portion of the transcript. The clerk’s reading of the case names and the council’s recess to closed session constitute the public record of what the meeting would cover; the substance of attorney–client discussions, if any, was not disclosed in the open record.

The council returned to closed session in the community room; the public portion of the meeting contained no public commenters.