Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Closed Session Litigation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Vallejo City Council meets in closed session on potential litigation, directs special counsel

Vallejo City Council · June 8, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Vallejo City Council convened a special meeting at 5:45 p.m. to discuss two potential litigation matters under Government Code section 54956.9. After closed session the council reported it had provided direction to special counsel and that no further public action was required.

The Vallejo City Council convened a special meeting at 5:45 p.m. and went into closed session to consider two items involving potential litigation, the city attorney said.

The city attorney told the council the closed session would cover two conferences with legal counsel under Government Code section 54956.9: item 3A, described as significant exposure to litigation involving four related cases and including a mayor’s demand for defense counsel and an identification litigation hold; and item 3B, described as a related conference under the same code section concerning one case, the attorney said.

The council opened a brief public-comment period for the closed-session items but staff reported that no members of the public had signed up to speak. Minutes notation and roll-call statements recorded Mayor Sors, Vice Mayor Matulik and Council members Bergensert, Gordon, Matias and Paul Maris as present; Council member Ledger Jew was absent.

After returning from closed session the council reported out that it had “provided direction to special counsel and no further action is needed at this time,” Council member Paul Maris said. The special meeting was closed at 8:41 p.m.

The closed-session items discussed involve potential litigation; the city did not disclose additional details about the claims, counsel’s recommendations or any schedule for future public proceedings during the report-out. No formal vote or ordinance was taken during the public portion of the meeting.