Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Closed Session Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Costa Mesa council adds two legal cases to closed-session agenda
Summary
At its July 21 closed session, the Costa Mesa City Council reviewed labor-negotiation items and existing litigation and approved adding two additional legal cases to the closed-session agenda: Insight Psychology and Addiction v. City of Costa Mesa (Central District) and People of the State of California v. Veil et al. (Orange County Superior Court).
The Costa Mesa City Council recessed into closed session July 21 to consider labor negotiations and several pending or potential lawsuits, and the council approved adding two additional legal matters to the closed-session agenda.
The clerk read the closed-session items, saying, “Items 1 through 4 are conference with labor negotiators pursuant to California government code section 54957.6a,” and identified City Manager Gallardo Daly as “the agency designated representative.” The clerk also listed the employee organizations the council planned to discuss, including the Costa Mesa City Employees Association, the Confidential Unit, the Costa Mesa Police Association and Costa Mesa Police Management.
The clerk also read Items 5 through 8 as conferences with legal counsel about existing litigation under California Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1), naming several cases: City of Costa Mesa v. Ohio House (Orange County Superior Court); Ohio House v. City of Costa Mesa (U.S. District Court, Central District of California); and Disability Rights California v. City of Costa Mesa et al. (Orange County Superior Court). The clerk identified Item 9 as anticipated litigation under California Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2).
During the meeting a council member asked the mayor to place two additional matters on the closed-session agenda “with respect to a communication I received about an hour ago”: Insight Psychology and Addiction v. City of Costa Mesa (case no. 8:20-CV-00504, Central District of California) and People of the State of California v. Veil; Rob Bonta; California Department of Housing and Community Development (case no. 302026-01583941, Orange County Superior Court). The mayor moved to add the items, the motion was seconded, and the transcript records no opposition, after which the public portion of the meeting was recessed for the closed session.
No public comments were taken; the clerk reported no in-person speakers and no Zoom participants before the council recessed. The council noted that several members were absent: Council Members Reynolds, Marr and Gameros.
The council’s formal actions recorded on the public transcript were limited to approving the addition of the two litigation items and recessing to closed session. The council indicated it would address the listed labor-negotiation items and litigation matters in closed session as described under the cited government code sections.
