HomeMy WebLinkAboutPURNER/SVENDSBO - 2003-05-19 MY OF HUNTINGTON BEAChe
MEETING DATE: May 19, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA 03-04
Council/Agency Meeting
Deferred/Continued to:
Approved Z) Conditionally Approved Z) Denied City Clerk's Signa e
Council Meeting Date: May 19, 2003 Department ID Number: CA 03-04
s
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
W
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Adm' istrator"J
Nz
PREPARED BY: JENNIFER McGRAT , City Attorney
SUBJECT: Purner/Svendsbo v. City of Huntington Beach, et al., Case No. SACV
00-361 AHS (ANx)
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue: Whether to cause the City Clerk to maintain the Stipulation for
Judgment and Settlement Agreement in Pumer/Svendsbo v. City of Huntington Beach,
Federal District Court Case No. SACV 00-361 AHS (ANx).
Funding Source: Not applicable.
Recommended_Action: Receive and File Stipulation for Judgment and Settlement
Agreement.
Alternative Action(s): Do not maintain the Stipulation for Judgment and Settlement
Agreement in the files of the City Clerk.
J-5
1 GARCAi2003kPumer-Svendsbo.doc - 5/1/2003 9:56 AM
1
REST FOR COUNCIL ACTIR
MEETING DATE: May 19, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA 03-04
Analysis: Pumer/Svendsbo v. City of Huntington Beach, et al., Federal District Court Case
No. SACV 00-361 AHS (ANx) concerns a dispute regarding whether the City properly
compensated Plaintiffs for at-home care of City police dogs, consistent with the requirements
of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
On March 17, 2003, the Council authorized in closed session to settle this case for
$10,222.96 in backpay and liquidated damages to Plaintiffs, plus $55,000 in attorney's fees
and costs. Plaintiffs have accepted this offer.
This matter is now brought back to the City Council to receive and file the settlement, so that
it can be maintained in the City Clerk's files.
Environmental Status: Not applicable.
Attachments):
City Clerk's
Page Number No. Description
1 Stipulation for Judgment and Settlement Agreement
RCA Author: Scott Field
G:1RCA120031Purner-Svendsbo.doc -3- 5/112003 9:56 AM
ATTACHMENT # 1
I JENNIFER McGRATH, City Attorrfey, -Bar No. 179917
SCOTT F. FIELD, Assistant City Attorney, Bar No. 105709
2 Box 190, 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
3 (714) 536-5555
FAX (71.4) 374-1590
8 111
DAVID V. LENHARDT, Bar No. 59652
KINKLE, RODIGER & SPRIGGS
837 North Ross Street
Santa Ana, CA 92701
7 (71.4) 835-09011
FAX {714} 667-7806 SOFNr��k ,
BRIAN P. , Bar No. 171429 BY OGryFRNQST
LIEBERx CASSIDY WHITMORE Q�Y�SiO,F�CTCp
6033 W. Century Blvd. , Suite 601 �qis opo
i In Los Angeles, CA 90045 gyTq"`lq
(310) 981-2000
1� FAX (31.0) 337-0837 Flo
FAX
12 AgoiRgys for Defendants,
City tt H ntington Beach and Ronald E. Lowenberg
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
r CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
cis
w
w
17 ANDREW PURNER AND GAUTE } CASE NO. SACV 00-361 A14S (ANx) --
SVENDSSO, }
Plaintiffs, ? STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT
1}
20 V5 . )
T
21 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
N
c-_
a Municipal Corporation;
22 RONALD E. LOWENBERG, ) u
individually and in his
23 official capacity; and 1 Cr
za DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
)
25 Defendants.
26
ENTER ON CMS
-z-
FieId:Plend:Purner:Stip for Judgment
4-18-03: 3:26AM:PETEASEN FJPfu �4 3727Sf0 ,: S/ 17 �
ay e'oa:• nsa�N noexsas�.z:r
t.I
1 STIPULATTON
z Defendants City of Huntington Beach and- Ronald Lovenherg,
3 while not adnrit ing any- of the allegations-of the Complaint
4 exce t as to jurisdiction, which the concede for the u ses of
P 3 Y P �
s entering th~i.s judgment only, and Plaintiffs, Andrew Runner. and
6 Gaute 5vendsbo (collectively "Plaintiffs") , hereby consent to the
7 entry of Judgment. as set forth below.
~1
g 1
For the Plaintiffs: i
9
10
11 Dated: �, 2003 THE PETERSEN LAW FIRM
12
13 TERRI MARCUS, ESQ_
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
14 ANDREW PURSER and GAUTE SVENDSB
I
15 For the Defendants:
1
.a
16 '
xZ 7
Dated: Z 7 2003 JENNIFER MCGRATH, City Attorney --
28 _
19 By:
SCOTT F. FIELD
20 Assistant City Attorney
21 Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF RUNTINGTON BEACH and
22 RONALD LOWENSERG
za
24 ORDER ON STIPULATIOp
23 Upon consideration of the proceedings heretofore conducted
26 in this case and the General and Special. Release and Settlement
27 Agreement ("Settlement Agreement") executed between the parties
2S
-2-
Fi-UTWaMmmr_5tip for ludamt
APR-17-2003 16;41 714 3721610 96;1 P.03
1 and attached hereto, it is by- the Court this day of
2 2003, hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
4 1 . The Settlement Agreement executed by the parties, a
s copy of which is attached hereto and made part hereof, is
.6 ratified and approved by the Court and incorporated in this
7 Judgment.
8 2 . The Complaint against Defendant Ronald Lowenberg is
9 dismissed with prejudice.
10 3 . Defendant City of Huntington Beach ("City") shall abide
11 by and carry out its obligations and duties under the Settlement
12 Agreement in every respect .
13 4 . In the event of a breach of this Judgment or the
14 Settlement Agreement in any respect, Plaintiffs or City shall
�
15 have the right to apply to this Court and this Court y award
16 appropriate relief in the light of the facts and circumstances
17 pertaining to such breach.
zs 5 . City shall pay to Plaintiffs the following sums for
19 compensatory damages and liquidated damages :
20 Compensatory Liquidated
Damages Damages Total
21
22 Andrew Purner $3,302.48 $3, 302.48 $ 6, 604 .96 i
Gaute Svendsbo $1, 809. 00 $1, 809.00 $ 3 618 . 00
23 $10,222 . 96
24 6 . City shall pay counsel for Plaintiffs Fifty-Five
25
Thousand Dollars ($55, 000. 00) for reasonable costs and attorneys'
26 fees.
27
28
-3-
FicId:Plced:Pumcr:5tip for Judgment
1 7 . This action is dismissed with prejudice -and- Plaintiffs
2 shall not relitigate any claim or contention that was or could
3 have been included in this action.
4 The Court has reviewed and accepted this Stipulation as a
s proper disposition of this matter. Therefore,
6 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court enter Judgment in
7 this matter, according to the provisions of Rule 58 of the
a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in accordance with the
y terms of the Stipulation. Judgment shall be so entered
10 forthwith.
12
Dated:
13 HONORABLE ALICEMARIE H. STOTLER,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17 --
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2s
-4-
Field:Ptead:Purner.Stip for Judgment
GENERAL AND SPECIAL RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
� 1
2 WHEREAS, this Settlement Agreement is between Plaintiffs,
3 Andrew Purner and Gaute Svendsbo (collectively "Plaintiffs") and
4 Defendants City of Huntington Beach ("City") and Ronald Lowenberg
5 (collectively "Defendants") ; and
6 Plaintiffs, Andrew Purner and Gaute Svendsbo are former
7 canine officers with the Huntington Beach Police Department;
8 The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") generally
9 requires employees working beyond 40 hours per week to be paid
10 overtime based upon time actually worked. However, where
11 employees work at home, the FLSA permits the employee and the
12 employer to agree on a "reasonable estimate" of the time spent
13 working. The agreement will be upheld if it is found to be
14 "reasonable considering all the pertinent circumstances. " (29
15 C. F.R. § 785. 23) ;
16 For time spent at home caring for their dogs, the City
17 compensated canine officers with 10 hours of compensatory time
18 off pursuant to a 1993 , and later a 1997' memorandum of
19 understanding ("MOU") between the City and the Huntington Beach
20 Police Officers Association. Both MOUs provided for 10 hours of
21 compensatory time off ("CTO") per month, which amounted to
22 approximately 20 minutes per day for dog care;
23 On April 13, 2000, Plaintiffs filed an action entitled
24 Andrew Purner and Gaut& Svendsbo v. City of Huntington Beach, et
I
i 25 al . , Case No. SACV 00-361 AHS (Anx) ("Case No. 00-361") . In this
26 suit, Plaintiffs contended that the MOUs were unreasonable
27 because they allegedly spent over one hour per day caring for
28
-5-
fleldTlead:Pumer.Stip for Judgment
1 their canines at home, but were only paid 20 minutes per- day
2 pursuant to the MOUs;
3 In a related case entitled Huss v. City of Huntington Beach,
4 etc. , a jury found that other City canine officers spent fifty
5 (50) minutes per day caring for their dogs. Although Huss is on
5 appeal, the parties in Case No. 00-361 have applied this same
7 fifty-minute standard to Plaintiffs herein. Although the jury in
s Huss v. City of Huntington Beach found the City willfully
9 violated the FLSA, and consequently afforded plaintiffs therein a
to three-year limitation period, the parties herein have agreed that
1.1. in this settlement, only a two-year limitation period shall be
12 applicable . After taking into account the 7 W exemption and
13 certain other overtime offsets under the FLSA, the parties have
14 found that if Plaintiffs prevailed at trial, they would only be
is entitled to a total of $5, 111 .85 in back wages, plus an
16 additional $5, 111. 85 in liquidated damages;
17 Beginning in 2000, the City and the Huntington Beach Polio
is Officers Association entered into a new MOU that provided 15
19 hours of CTO per month for at-home canine care pay, plus
20 additional nonmonetary benefits;
21 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby covenant and agree as
22 follows:
23 1. PARTIES TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
24 The parties to this General and Special Release and
25 Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement") are the City of
26 Huntington Seach (the "City") , the City' s past or present
27 officers, directors, governing body, employees, agents,
29 predecessors, attorneys, divisions, departments, affiliates,
_6-
Fie1d:Plead:Pumer:Stip for Judgment
1 representatives, successors in interest and assigns and all
2 persone acting by, through, under or in concert with any of them,
3 and Ronald Lowenberg who shall collectively be referred to in
4 this Settlement Agreement as "Defendants", and Andrew Purner And
s Gaute Svendsbo, who shall be collectively referred to in this
6 Settlement Agreement as "Plaintiffs. "
7 2 . PURPOSE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
8 The purpose of this Settlement Agreement is to resolve and
9 settle all outstanding claims, issues and disputes in Case No.
10 00-361 brought by Plaintiffs against the City for alleged
11 violations of the FLSA as more particularly set forth in
12 Plaintiffs, pleadings filed in this action. The parties wish to
13 finally settle and resolve all disputes and controversies
14 regarding the above-mentioned claims in order to mace their peace
15 and to avoid the uncertainties of further litigation and the
16 expense incident thereto.
17 3 . BACKPAY DUE PLAINTIFFS.
18 Solely for purposes of settlement, the parties agree that
19 Plaintiffs are due an additional thirty minutes per day of
20 overtime compensation, subject to the following adjustments and
21 offsets permitted under the FLSA:
22 i. During the period between April 3; 1998 and
23 January 22, 1999, Plaintiffs worked four (4) days, ten (10)
24 hours per day, every one. (1) week. Pursuant to Section 7 (k)
Z5 of FLSA, Plaintiffs were legally entitled to FLSA overtime
26 only after they worked forty-three (43) hours in the same
27 seven (7) day work period, .although under the terms of the
28 MOU, overtime compensation is due for hours worked over
-7-
F e1d:P1cad:Pwner:Sdp for Judgment
i
I forty (40) hours in the same seven (7) day period.
2 Consequently, for purposes of determining backpay, overtime
3 is only due Plaintiffs if they actually worked over forty-
4 three (43) hours in the same seven (7) day period, inclusive
5 of the additional thirty (30) minutes per day.
6 ii. During the period after January 22, 1999,
7 Plaintiffs worked seven (7) days, eleven (11) hours and
a twenty-five (25) minutes per day, every two (2) weeks.
9 Pursuant to Section 7 (k) of FLSA, Plaintiffs were legally
ro entitled to FLSA overtime only after they worked eight-six
11 (86) hours in the same fourteen (14) day work period,
12 although under the terms of the MOU, overtime compensation
13 is due for hours worked over eighty (80) hours in the same
14 fourteen (14) day period. Consequently, for purposes of
is determining backpay, overtime is only due Plaintiffs if they
16 actually worked over eighty-six (86) hours in the same
17 fourteen (14) day period, inclusive of" the additional thirty
18 (30) minutes per day.
19 iii . To the extent that the City makes payments for
20 hours worked at time and one-half pursuant to the MOU where
21 such overtime payments are not required under FLSA, the City
22 is entitled to a credit, or an "offset" against overtime
23 payments otherwise due under the FLSA as. a result of canine
24 care overtime payments due Plaintiff.
25 iv. Pursuant to 29 C. F.R. § 778 . 218 (a) , compensation
26 for periods when the employee is not at work due to
27 vacation, holiday, illness, compensation time off,
2e suspensions, failure of the employer to provide sufficient
-e-
Ftc1d:PleM:Ptuner:Stip for ludamcnt
I work or other similar cause are not treated as hours worked.
2 Consequently, when determining if Plaintiffs worked eighty-
3 six (86) hours in a fourteen (14) day period in forty-three
4 (43) hours in a seven (7) day period, only hours actually
5 worked are included and time spent on vacation, illness or
6 otherwise, which otherwise are compensated under the MOU,
7 are not treated as hours worked.
s 4. DISVOSITION OF CLAIMS.
g A. Plaintiffs and Defendants do hereby fully and forever
10 release and discharge each other from any and all causes of
11 action, actions, judgments, liens, indebtedness, damages, losses,
12 claims, liabilities, and demands of whatsoever kind or character,
13 known or unknown, suspected to exist or not suspected to exist,
14 anticipated or not anticipated, whether or not heretofore brought
15 before any state or federal court or before any state or federal
16 agency cr. other governmental entity, relating to the subject
17 matter of Case No. 00-361. This release and discharge includes,-
but is not limited to, claims for -liquidated damages and
1.9 attorney' s fees and costs under the FLSA.
20 B. Plaintiffs and Defendants understand that this
21 Settlement Agreement extends to all grievances, disputes or
22 claims of every nature and kind, known or unknown, suspected or
23 unsuspected, arising from Plaintiffs' claims under the FLSA as
24 set forth in their Complaint in this action. Plaintiffs and
2s Defendants further acknowledge that any and all rights granted
26 them under section 1542 of the California Code of Civil Procedure
27 Section 1542 are hereby expressly waived. Section 1542 of the
2s California Civil Code reads as follows :
-9-
Field:Plead:Parner.StiP for judgment
I SECTION 1542. CERTAIN CLAIMS AFFECTED BY GENERAL RELEASE.
2 A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE
3 CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR
4 AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY
5 HIM MOST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE
5 DEBTOR.
7 5. PAYMENT OF BACKPAY AND RELATED MATTERS.
8 A. Upon execution of this Settlement Agreement and entry
9 of Stipulated Judgment by the Court, the City shall provide
10 Plaintiffs' counsel with checks in the following gross amounts,
11 payable solely to the- Plaintiffs for unpaid overtime and
12 liquidated damages - for the limitation periods described below,
23 subject to -the exceptions described at Section 4 :
14 Compensatory Liquidated
Damages Damages Total
1s
16 Andrew Purner $3, 302 .48 $3 ,302 .48 $ 6, 604 . 96
Gaute Svendsbo $1, 809 .00 $1, 809 . 00 $ 3, 618 . 00
17 $10, 222 .4(-
18 $. The parties view this Settlement Agreement as a
19 compromise of the risks attendant to both sides in continuing the
20 litigation, including the risk that Plaintiffs could recover
21 nothing and be liable to Defendants for their costs, or the risk
22 that Plaintiffs could recover unpaid overtime, full liquidated
23 damages, and their reasonable attorney' s fees and costs.
24 C. Plaintiffs believe that they could establish a willful
25 violation, and the City believes it could establish that the City
26 acted in good faith. Accordingly, the settlement amount is a
27 compromise between the parties, and the amount paid is the amount
28 the parties believe would have been owed if plaintiffs did not
_10-
Field:Plead:PUrner.Stip for Judgment
i prove willfulness and the City did not prove good faith. Neither
2 party admits the merits of the other party's claims and defenses
3 by this settlement.
4 D. Plaintiffs agree that Defendant, Ronald Lowenberg shall
s be dismissed from this action with prejudice and no judgment
6 shall be entered against him.
7 E. It is further agreed that the City shall pay attorney' s
a fees and costs to the Petersen Law Firm in the amount of
9 $55, 000.00 as payment in full fox plaintiffs' fees and costs.
10 F. This settlement is to be submitted in the form of a
11 Stipulated Judgment so that the Court can approve it pursuant to
12 D.A. Schulte Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 113 , n. 8 (1946)..
13 G. ' Each counsel who signs this stipulation has all
14 authority required to bind the parties, and the parties'
1s successors, assigns and heirs, to the terms of this Stipulation
16 and any Judgment resulting from it.
17 H. The parties do concede that this Court has subject _
19 matter of this action and that, by agreeing to a judgment in this•
i
19 matter, they voluntarily consent to this Court exercising
20 jurisdiction over their persons.
21 I . All actual or potential claims or counterclaims,
22 whether raised -in the Complaint, Answer, or any other pleadings
23 in this matter or not, and regardless of whether known or
24 unknown, are merged in the Judgment agreed to by the parties and
25 extinguished by that Judgment.
26 J. Subject to income tax withholding, the Defendant City
27 of Huntington Beach will pay the sums specified in this Judgment
28 to counsel of record for the plaintiffs in this matter, in cash
-11-
Field-Plead:Pumcr.5tip for Judgment
1 or cash equivalent, no later than ten (10) business days after
2 judgment is entered, and if payment is not made as specified, the
3 Plaintiffs may execute on this Judgment by any means or remedy
4 available at law for collection of or execution on judgments .
s 6. FULLY INTERGRATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
6 This Settlement Agreement constitutes a single, integrated
7 contract expressing the entire agreement of the parties hereto.
a There are no other Agreements, written or• oral, express or
9 implied, between the parties hereto, concerning the subject '
10 matter hereof, except the Settlement Agreement set forth herein.
11 7. CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION.
12 A.- No waiver by any party of any breach of any term or
13 provision of this Settlement Agreement shall be construed to be,
14 nor be, a waiver of any preceding, concurrent or succeeding
is breach of the same, or any other term or provision thereof . No
16 waiver shall be binding unless in writing and signed by the party
i? or individual to be charged or held hound.
is B. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in one or
19 more counterparts and such counterpart shall be enforceable as
20 against the signing party upon full execution of the Settlement
21 Agreement in counterparts by all parties.
22 8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
23 A. All parties to this Settlement Agreement and counsel
24 for all parties to this Settlement Agreement have reviewed this
2s Settlement Agreement and participated equally and fairly in the
26 negotiation of the terms of this Settlement Agreement, and
27 accordingly, the normal rule of construction to the effect that
2a any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party
-12-
FieId:Plcad:PnmerSfip for Judgment
I I will not be employed in any interpretation of this Settlement
2 Agreement .
3 B. All parties to this Settlement Agreement acknowledge
4 having carefully read this Settlement Agreement and having been
s advised fully by legal counsel of the legal and binding effect of
s its terms. All parties acknowledge that the only promises made
7 to induce him, her or it to execute this Settlement Agreement are
s those stated herein. Having been fully advised and informed, all
9 parties voluntarily enter into this Settlement Agreement,
10 including the waiver of rights covered by this Settlement
is Agreement .
12' C. - Plaintiffs agree that they are entering into this
23 Settlement Agreement because of uncertainty over the outcome of
' 14 the litigation and the potential for Plaintiffs - to receive
is anywhere from no damages to full liquidated damages and
�6 attorney' s fees should these actions proceed to final judgment
17 and are therefore not waiving any entitlements that they -
1s possessed under the 'FLSA. Each party understands, acknowledges,
19 and agrees that this is a compromise settlement of disputed
20 claims, and that nothing herein shall be deemed or construed at
21 any time or for any purpose as an admission of the merits of any
22 claim or defense.
23 9. SUCCESSORS.
24 This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon Plaintiffs
25 and their heirs, representatives, executors, administrators,
26 successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each
27 and all of the heirs, representatives, executors, administrators,
2s successors and assigns.
` -13-
FicId:PImd:Pumcr.Stip for Judgment
j 1 10. WITHHOLDING OF TAXES FROM SETTLEMNT AMOUNTS.
2 The parties agree that the backpay to Plaintiffs shall be
3 treated as wages for tax withholding purposes, (W-2 reportable) ,
4 and the liquidated damages shall be treated as income, but not
5 wages (1099 reportable) . Plaintiffs are encouraged to consult
6 with a tax advisor or attorney to independently determine any
7 federal, state or local tax consequences of the settlement
8 amounts and no opinion on any tax- matter is expressed herein.
9 11. E MCUTION OF THIS SETTLEbMHT AGRE8t+M .
10 This Settlement .Agreement shall be fully -executed only upon
11 signature by Plaintiffs, signature by a duly authorized
12 representative of the City, and entry of Stipulated Judgment
13 pursuant to the terms of this Settlement Agreement by the Court.
14 The parties agree that this Settlement Agreement shall not be
i5 effective unless and until the Stipulated Judgment pursuant to
16 the terms of this Settlement Agreement is entered by the Court.
17 _
18 Plaintiff, AN EW PURNER
19
20 Dated: � !4 2003
ANDREW PUR ER
21
22
Plaintiff, GAUTE SVENDSBO
23
24 Dated: 2003
25 GAUTE SVENDSBO
26
27 Defendant, CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH
28
—14—
F c1d:Plemd:Purw..Sdp for!dent
I
1 10. WITHHOLDING OF TAXES FROM SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS.
2 The parties agree that the backpay to Plaintiffs shall be
3 treated as wages for tax withholding purposes, (W-2 reportable) ,
4 and the liquidated damages shall be treated as income, but -not
5 wages (1099 reportable). Plaintiffs are encouraged to consult
6 with a tax advisor or attorney to independently determine any
7 federal, state or local tax consequences of the settlement
8 amounts and no opinion on any tax matter is expressed herein.
9 11. EXECUTION OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
10 This Settlement Agreement shall be fully -executed only upon
11 signature by Plaintiffs, signature by a duly authorized
12 representative of the City, and entry of Stipulated Judgment
13 pursuant to the terms of this Settlement Agreement by the Court.
14 The parties agree that this Settlement Agreement shall not be
15 effective unless. and until the Stipulated Judgment pursuant to
16 the terms of this Settlement Agreement is entered by the Court.
i7
18 Plaintiff, ANDREW PURNER
19
20 Dated: 2003
ANDREW PURNER
21
22
Plaintiff, GAUTE SVENDSBO
23
24 Dated: 2003
25 GAUTE SVENDSBO
26
27 Defendant, CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH
28
-14-
Ficld:Plcad:Pumcr:Stip for Judgment
Defendant, CITY OF HUNTINGTON
1 BEACH
2
3 Dated: April 28 2003 2A21
Ray sirIver, City Administrator
4 for Defendant City of Huntington
Beach
5
6 Approved as to form:
7
a
Dated: 2003 THE PETERSEN LAW FIRM
y
11) By:
TERRI MARCUS, ESQ.
11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ANDREW PURNER and GAUTE SVENDSBO
12
13
14 Dated: April 29 2003 JENNIFER McGRATH, City Attorney
15 By:
4� - � ,
16 SCOTT F. FIELD
Assistant City Attorney
17 Attorneys for Defendants -
1a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH and
RONALD LOWENBERG
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-15-
! Field-Plead:PuMn:giip for Judgment
4-Fe-43: 3:28AaA:9ETEgS AW FIgV ;714 3727610 „ 17/ 1.7
it
1 Dated: , 2003
Ray Silver, City Administrator -
2 for Defendant City of Huntington
3 Beact 1.li
Approved as to form:
s
6
Cated: g 2003 THE PETERSEN LAW FIRM
9 T RRI MARCUS, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10 ANDREW PURNER and GAUTE SVENDSSO
IS
12 Dated: _� 2003 JENNIFER McGRATH, City Attorney
13
14 By:
SCOTT F_ FIELD
15 Assistari'z� City Attorney
Attorneys for Defendants l
16 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH and
RONALD LOWENSERG
17
1s
' 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
-15-
Fidd:Plesd:P�cr.Stlp�ochFd�na�t
APR-17-2003 16:45 714 3727610 96% P•17
1 PROOF OF SERVICE OF PAPERS
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
3 COUNTY OF ORANGE )
4
I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California.
5 I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my
business address is 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 .
6
On April 30, 2003 , I served the foregoing document (s)
7 described as: STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT on the interested parties
a in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed
envelope addressed as follows:
9
Terri Marcus, Esq.
10 THE PETERSEN LAW FIRM
A Law Corporation
11 12791 Western Avenue, Suite J
Garden Grove, California 92841
12
David P. Lenhardt, Esq.
13 KINKLE, RODIGER & SPRIGGS
837 North Ross Street
14 Santa Ana, •CA 92701
15 Brian P. Walter, Esq.
15 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
6033 W. Century Blvd. , Suite 601
17 Los Angeles, CA 90045
is [ X ] BY MAIL -- I caused such envelope to be deposited
in the mail at Huntington Beach, California. The envelope was
19 mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am "readily
familiar" with the firm' s practice of collection and processing
20 correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. Postal
Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I
21 am- aware that on motion of a party served, service is presumed
invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
2z than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in the affidavit.
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
24 State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
25 Executed on April 30, 2003, at H ttngton Beach, California.
26
V'
27
28
-16-
Fie1d:P1cad.Pumer:5tip For Judgment
RCA ROUTING S111EET
INITIATING DEPARTMENT: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 19, 2003
RCA=ATTACHMENTS :STATUS: .
Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable)
(Signed in full by the City Attome Attached
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
(Approved as to form by CitZ Attome Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attomey) Not A pplicable
Financial Impact Statement Unbud et, over $5,000) Not Applicable
Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable
Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Find in s/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not A licable .
EXPLANATION FOR-MISSING ATTACHMENTS:: :
REVIEWED .:..RETURNED FORWARDED,
Administrative Staff L
Assistant City Administrator Initial
City Administrator Initial
City Clerk
:EXPLANATION FOR:RETURWOF ITEM:
SpaceOnly)
RCA Author: Scott Field