Many experts say that appealing the verdict - which is about four times the city's annual budget - is all but mandatory in the wake of such an overpowering decision. If legal fees are added into the decision, the city could be facing more than $40 million in compensation due developer Charles "Chop" Keenan. City officials have met with three appellate specialists and plan to announce the hiring of a new firm to advise them in the process at the Dec. 18 meeting of the City Council, said Mayor Bonnie McClung.
McClung was quick to add that an appeal was not yet certain and some land-use lawyers familiar with the case say the decision will be tough to crack.
|
|
Brown said he had read the 167-page judgment. In his view, the decision appeared to rest more on nuts and bolts than large principles of land-use law. He noted the city's poorly maintained and conceived drainage work and that, in his view, the city government was "pushing the envelope" to control property.
"You'll hear people say this is the end of environmental regulations, and you'll hear property rights activists say finally some common sense has prevailed," said Brown of the furor in the wake of an eye-catching judgment. "I think it's neither. This case announced no new law, in my opinion.
"That was a grouchy court," said Brown, noting the tone of U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision. "He was thoroughly annoyed with the city's case. And that's the risk you take when - one, you assess the maximum regulatory authority over property and, two, when you choose to litigate a case."
Brown noted that Walker found for the developer in every possible instance and that he wrote the decision in a way that anticipates many avenues of appeal.
Walker's rulings on the facts of the case are unlikely to be in play in an appeal. But legal matters, such as how he applied state and federal inverse condemnation laws and how he viewed issues of state court jurisdiction raised by the city, are usually given greater latitude, Brown said.
"The factual determinations he made are entitled to a lot of deference in appeal," said Brown of the numerous instances of clear finding against the city in Walker's report.
"(But) the city does have a case to appeal," Brown said, adding that the city's basis for appeal may rest in how Walker applied the law.
Edward Burg, the principal trial lawyer for the developer, said his office would file a proposed judgment this week. That is a necessary document that states the plaintiff has understood the judge's ruling. The city will have 15 days from that filing to enter post-trial motions, an important step toward an appeal, and 30 days from the date of the proposed judgment to file an appeal.
A complete demand for further legal fees in the case, as allowed by Walker, will be filed by the end of the month, said Burg. His firm, Los Angeles-based Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, would continue to represent the plaintiff in the event of an appeal, he said.
"I think that the ruling speaks for itself," said Burg. "It's detailed and backed up by solid law. I expect it will stand."
Given the sharp decisions against the city and the size of the judgment, it is likely that Vaughn Walker himself will factor in future discussions.
An active California lawyer, who has appeared several times before Walker and agreed to speak only on background, said that Walker was well-known as a Republican party operative when he practiced law and is viewed as a "relentlessly partisan" judge.
When Walker was first nominated to the district court by then-President Ronald Reagan, the San Francisco bar vigorously lobbied against his appointment. Walker has been reversed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals before, notably in a case in which he threw out a decision concerning activists in Humboldt County who had been pepper sprayed while their hands were locked in place.
Walker caught flak during his appointment process for his membership in the then exclusively male and white Olympic Club. He is also known for his tough pursuit of damages when, as a lawyer for the U.S. Olympic Committee, he worked against the owner of the Gay Olympics, after defeating him in a trademark case.
The appeals court cannot refuse to hear the city's case, should the government appeal. The circuit court is the most frequently reversed in the Supreme Court, but also has the most cases before the high court.
"And believe me, the judges on the 9th Circuit know who Vaughn Walker is, too," said the lawyer.
Key to the decision of whether to appeal may be whether the city is required to post a bond showing it can cover costs of defeat. Usually municipalities are not required to post bonds the way private individuals must when faced with a large financial judgment, legal experts say. But federal requirements may make a bond, set by Walker, a necessary part of the filing, said McClung.
The city will meet with financial analysts this week and is considering all options to resolve the case, McClung added - before citing H.L. Mencken, a longtime inspiration.
"Someone always has a simple answer to a difficult problem - that doesn't work," McClung said, paraphrasing the great American journalist. "So I keep reminding myself, it's OK to be complicated, and it's OK to take time."
w