Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney recommends $50,000 counteroffer in Salisbury case; council approves direction
Summary
City Attorney recommended rejecting a $250,000 demand in Salisbury v. City — arising from a search-warrant error — and authorized staff to make a $50,000 counteroffer (municipal league would cover 90%); council moved and approved that direction on Feb. 19.
City Attorney Stevenson briefed the council on litigation status and recommended a council motion in the Salisbury v. City matter after describing the underlying facts and insurance coverage.
Stevenson said the case stemmed from a search warrant executed at an incorrect address that caused damage to an apartment where children were present; the plaintiff’s attorney demanded $250,000. He told the council the municipal league defends the city on a 90/10 basis and recommended rejecting the $250,000 demand and offering a $50,000 counteroffer, which would leave the city’s share at about $5,000 under the league arrangement. "The counter offer they're suggesting is $50,000," Stevenson said, adding the plaintiff need only prove $1 of damage to recover attorney fees and that trial attorney fees could exceed the demand.
A motion to deny the $250,000 demand and counter at $50,000 was made, seconded and approved during the meeting.
The council’s recorded action directs staff to proceed with the counteroffer; Stevenson said he would notify the league and plaintiff counsel. The transcript does not record further negotiation terms or a signed settlement; the council’s action authorized the counteroffer as the city’s negotiating position.
Next steps will be handling the counteroffer through the municipal league and any follow-up discussions with plaintiff counsel.
