City Council approves multiple legal settlement authorizations and special motions; authorizes $900,000 for scooter case

The Los Angeles City Council on Feb. 26, 2025 considered and voted on multiple recommendations from committees and closed-session items to resolve litigation and to authorize related payments and accounting transfers.

During a presentation from the chair of the budget committee, the council heard recommendations for settlements or legal expenditures in a series of cases. The report listed recommended amounts for multiple cases, including: approximately $140,000 for a case identified as "Joel Chovonschom v. City of Los Angeles" (item 32); $2,850,000 for "Suki Sukiyami v. City of Los Angeles" (item 33); $1,150,000 for a Media Services litigation (item 34); $350 (appears to be an incomplete transcript figure and likely a larger amount) for a case identified as "Loran Ruggero v. City of Los Angeles" (item 35); $195,000 for "Joan Corgute v. City of Los Angeles" (item 36); $150,000 for "Juan Cárdenas v. City of Los Angeles" (item 37); $400,000 for "Austin Huffner v. City of Los Angeles" (item 38); a recommendation to reject a settlement in the matter "Marqués Buford v. Anthony Handy et al." (item 39); $370,000 for "Buyer Peter Witingham v. City of Los Angeles et al." (item 40); $195,000 for "César Osorio v. City of Los Angeles et al." (item 41); and $295,000 for "Scott Harmon v. City of Los Angeles" (item 42).

Councilors opened and closed the roll for the listed items and the meeting record shows the matters were presented for approval; the transcript records the items ‘‘are before us’’ and that the council called for the list to be opened, closed and votes tabulated. The meeting report then proceeded to presentations and other items. The transcript does not contain full roll-call lists showing individual council votes attached to each settlement in the public excerpt; where vote tallies were read aloud the transcript sometimes records shorthand counts (for example, the clerk called out counts such as "catorce seis" for a group of listed items), but specific named yes/no votes were not recorded in the public excerpt for each settlement.

Separately, the council introduced and approved a special-motion authorization arising from closed session (special motion two, as read into the record). The motion text authorized the city attorney, subject to mayoral approval, to expend up to $900,000 in settlement funds for a matter described in the motion concerning scooters and related obligations; it also authorized the controller to transfer $900,000 between specific liability and miscellaneous accounts to fund the payment and allowed technical adjustments by the city attorney and controller to implement the instructions. The motion as read into the record: "Subject to approval of the Mayor, the City Attorney is authorized to expend $900,000 in settlement funds in the matter titled Global Nit at the Old, City of Los Angeles, et al.; authorize the Controller to transfer $900,000 from the Liabilities fund to account 009798 miscellaneous to fund payments... authorize the City Attorney to make technical modifications and authorize the Controller to implement instructions."

The council also considered a separate special-motion item (special motion three) related to debris management and incoming cement recycling operations tied to post-fire cleanup. Councilmember Imelda Padilla spoke on that item and asked for a brief pause to allow private companies to do community outreach about incoming debris and mitigation for dust and emissions; the transcript shows Padilla asked for additional time for community notice and the council voted to approve the special motion’s findings. The transcript records votes for the special motion three as ‘‘thirteen votes in favor’’ at one call; earlier in the sequence the clerk recorded other counts for related special motions as well.

The transcript does not contain staff reports describing final payment mechanics or the detailed terms of each settlement beyond the summary amounts and case names read aloud. Several of the amounts above appear in the clerk’s reading of the committee recommendation; one figure (item 35) appeared truncated in the recorded excerpt and is noted as not clearly specified in the record.

What the council approved in this session were committee recommendations and closed-session-derived authorizations to resolve litigation and to move money in the city accounts as described in the motions read into the public record. The transcript does not record implementation dates, final payment schedules or whether any of the approvals were contingent on future mayoral concurrence, other than the special-motion language that explicitly made the $900,000 expenditure "subject to approval of the Mayor."