About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

91 California Attorney General Reports and Opinions 1 (2008)

handle is hein.sag/sagca0091 and id is 1 raw text is: ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS

Opinion No. 07-104-February 15, 2008
Requested by: CITY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, CITY OF RIALTO
Opinion by:    EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Attorney General
SUSAN DUNCAN LEE, Supervising Deputy Attorney General
THE HONORABLE ROBERT OWEN, CITY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY,
CITY OF RIALTO, has requested an opinion on the following question:
Is Government Code section 1090 a barrier to compromise settlement by a city
of a suit for damages that was brought by a city council member against the city and
its employees before his election to the council, for alleged wrongful conduct
committed against him as a private citizen by city employees?
CONCLUSION
Although the issue is not entirely free from doubt, under the current state of the
law, we conclude that a court could invalidate as contrary to state law a city's
compromise settlement of a suit for damages that was brought by a city council
member, before his election to the council, against the city and its employees for
alleged wrongful conduct committed against him as a private citizen, because the
plaintiff council member's financial interest in the settlement would be prohibited by
Government Code section 1090.
ANALYSIS
In 2002, a city resident filed a complaint for money damages in a federal district
court, alleging that the City of Rialto, certain of its employees, and various county
employees had violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986. Two years later, the
plaintiff was elected to the city council of Rialto. We are advised that the action has
been resolved as to all parties except the City of Rialto and some of its individually
named employees, and we are asked whether the City may now enter into a
compromise settlement of the litigation with the plaintiff council member.
Resolution of this question requires us to consider again the issue whether the law
recognizes an exception to Government Code section 1090 when the contract being
examined concerns resolution of litigation, this time when the suit is one for
damages against both the municipality and certain of its employees.' Although we
believe that a court could reasonably come to a contrary conclusion in this
circumstance, current jurisprudence construing and applying section 1090 compels
us to advise that a compromise settlement of even a damage action such as the one
1 In 86 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 142 (2003), we concluded that section 1090 would bar
settlement of a suit that had been filed by a board member, while holding that office, against
the board of which he was a member, for the purpose of reversing an earlier board action in
which he had a personal financial interest. In that case, a community services district had
issued a groundwater extraction permit to the neighbor of one of the district's directors. The
director opposed the decision because of the possible adverse effect that the development
might have on his well water. The director did not participate in the decision to approve the
permit, and then filed a lawsuit against the district to overturn the board's decision.
1

February 2008

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most