Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oxnard City Council Votes 7-0 to Direct City Attorney to Initiate Litigation
Summary
Following a closed session, the Oxnard City Council voted unanimously to direct the city attorney to initiate legal action related to a matter discussed in closed session; the city attorney said details remain sealed and will be disclosed only when doing so will not jeopardize service or settlement negotiations.
Get email alerts on the Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Oxnard City Council on April 1 voted 7-0 to direct the city attorney to initiate litigation arising from a matter discussed in closed session.
The council met in closed session under provisions of the Brown Act and (as announced at the meeting) Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1) and 54956.9(d)(4). The city attorney said the subject included a matter identified in the record as “Hendricks on the behalf of The United States versus JM Manufacturing.” The city attorney told the council the action should be initiated and the council voted unanimously to direct the city attorney to proceed.
The city attorney said particulars of the defendants and other party information are sealed and will be disclosed to any person who inquires unless disclosure would jeopardize the city’s ability to effectuate service on unserved parties or would jeopardize the city’s ability to conclude settlement negotiations to the city’s advantage. “Once then sealed, [the particulars] shall be disclosed to any person upon inquiry unless to do so would jeopardize the city’s ability to effectuate service of process on one or more of the unserved parties or that to do so would jeopardize the city’s ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage,” the city attorney said during the public announcement after the closed session.
City staff also announced there were no members of the public who asked to speak in closed session. The council recessed to closed session and then returned to open session for the regular meeting at 6 p.m.
No additional details about the planned litigation, including the timeline for filing or the specific relief sought, were provided at the meeting.

