Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Pending Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carson Reclamation Authority holds closed session on pending litigation; approves consent items unanimously
Summary
At a February 2025 special meeting, the Carson Reclamation Authority met in closed session under Government Code 54956.9(d)(1) to receive a briefing on pending litigation; staff reported no reportable action. The authority also approved items on the consent calendar by a unanimous vote amid numbering confusion in the agenda packet.
The Carson Reclamation Authority met in special session in February 2025 and held a closed session under Government Code 54956.9(d)(1) to receive a briefing on pending litigation, the authority reported. After reconvening to open session, staff reported that a briefing had been provided and that no reportable action was taken. The authority then approved consent calendar items by a unanimous vote.
The closed session was conducted “pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1) to confer with legal counsel regarding pending litigation to which the Carson Reclamation Authority is a party,” the City Attorney said. The litigation was identified in the meeting record as Cam Carson v. Carson Reclamation Authority, City of Carson, and the successor agency the Carson Redevelopment Agency, Los Angeles Superior Court case number 20STCV16461. After the closed session the City Attorney reported: “The staff gave a briefing to the council and discussion was had, but no reportable action was taken.”
On the consent calendar the authority approved the items listed in the meeting packet without further discussion. Staff and members discussed the agenda numbering during roll call and the consent-motion sequence; the record shows disagreement about whether the packet listed items 2–4 or 2–5. Authority staff moved to approve the consent items that were on the agenda as presented; the motion was seconded. The authority recorded an oral roll call and the vote was unanimous: Board Member Lillian Hobson, Board Member Thomas, Board Member Aldridge, Authority Vice Chair Hicks and Authority Chair Davis Holmes all voted yes.
Agenda materials referenced several consent items by title but provided limited detail in the oral record. The transcript mentions a “pre-construction amendment 2,” an amendment to a contractor pollution liability policy and references to first- and second-letter amendments and a resolution; specific ordinance, contract or resolution numbers and dollar amounts were not specified in the open-session discussion.
The meeting record indicates standard public-participation and decorum notices were read at the start of the session, and that the meeting was streamed on the city’s web and YouTube pages. No public comments on the closed-session item were reported in the open session. The meeting adjourned after staff and members confirmed there were no additional oral communications.
