Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Modesto council approves $500,000 in legal-fee increases to defend public-assembly ordinance amid community outcry
Summary
The Modesto City Council approved two amendments April 7 increasing outside legal budgets by a combined $500,000 to continue defending the city's public-assembly and tort litigation, touching off sustained public criticism and calls to repeal the anti-mask provisions rather than fund litigation.
Modesto — The City Council voted April 7 to increase two outside legal-services agreements by $250,000 each, authorizing continued defense in pending litigation over the city's public-assembly rules and routine tort claims.
City Attorney Jose Sanchez told council the first amendment expands a contract with the law firm described in the agenda as Swingle/Van Eggman/Heitinger to handle tort cases such as slip-and-falls and tree claims; the amendment raises that agreement’s not-to-exceed ceiling to $1,450,000. The second amendment increases the agreement with Meyers Nave to add litigation and trial support tied to a lawsuit challenging Modesto’s public-assembly ordinance; the amended cap is $349,500.
The measures drew lengthy public comment. Dozens of speakers urged the council to repeal portions of the ordinance that bar face coverings at protests, arguing defending it in court would be costly and chill First Amendment rights. “Don’t spend half a million dollars to defend an unconstitutional ordinance,” Nora Garcia told the council during public comment. “That money could go to housing, parks, or community services.”
Several speakers pointed to the city’s Community Police Review Board recommendation to repeal parts of the ordinance and to long public comment opposing the rules. Others urged the council to negotiate fixes rather than pursue litigation. Harlon Divven said repeal of the unconstitutional sections would avoid the anticipated legal costs and preserve city funds.
Council debate split along lines of public-safety priority and fiscal stewardship. Council Member Alvarez, who represents District 2, framed the decision as protecting recent gains in local public safety and said he could not ignore constituents who asked that the city maintain the ordinance and any necessary legal defense. Council Member Ricky voted against the measure; the roll call showed a 6–1 outcome in favor of the amendments.
The council’s action did not change the merits of the underlying litigation. The amendments raise the available legal funding but — per city staff — do not mean the full amounts will be spent unless services are used. City Attorney Sanchez emphasized the amended figures are not guaranteed expenditures but are the revised ceilings needed if counsel is retained through further stages.
The council adopted two resolutions in the same vote: one authorizing the fifth amendment to the tort defense agreement and a second authorizing the third amendment expanding Meyers Nave’s scope. The council’s vote followed motion and second and a roll-call tally recorded in the minutes.
What happens next: Meyers Nave will continue work on the ACLU-related litigation, and the city will proceed with its defense while critics press for repeal or amendment of the contested ordinance. The council left open routine administrative oversight; if either amended contract reaches its ceiling, staff indicated a return to council would be required for additional authorization.
