Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Litigation Settlement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee approves offer of judgment of $345,000 in Lonesome 10 Miles LLC dispute; legal staff say offer protects Metro from further attorney fees

5723934 · August 5, 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

The committee authorized an offer of judgment for $345,000 to Lonesome 10 Miles LLC related to a disputed waterline upgrade; Metro Legal said the offer limits exposure to future attorney's fees if accepted or rejected under offer rules.

The Budget & Finance Committee approved a resolution authorizing the Metropolitan Department of Law to submit an offer of judgment under the referenced procedure to resolve claims by Lonesome 10 Miles LLC in the amount of $345,000, to be paid from the Metro Water Services budget plus reasonable costs and attorney's fees allocated as provided in the resolution. Will Ayers of Metro Legal described the circumstances that led to the offer: during permitting for a bar renovation, Metro Water relied on information that led staff to believe the site lacked sufficient fire flow; the business subsequently installed a water line at substantial expense that Metro Legal says may not have been necessary based on existing fire-flow data.

Why it matters: The offer of judgment is a litigation-risk-management tool. Metro Legal said an accepted offer would act as a settlement for the amount stated; if rejected, the offer limits the plaintiff's ability to recover attorney's fees incurred after the offer date if the trial recovery is less than the offer. Metro approved making the offer to manage potential attorney-fee exposure.

Key comments: Council members asked why Metro was liable and whether the plaintiff objected during permitting. Metro Legal said both sides contributed to the information gaps; the plaintiff objected during permitting, but the parties did not share the data that would have shown the upgrade was unnecessary. Legal recommended the offer to reduce exposure to protracted attorney fees.

Vote and outcome: The motion carried by voice vote, 10 in favor, 0 against; the committee authorized the Department of Law to submit the offer as described.