GARY OWNERS, LLC & GREENLAW PARTNERS, LLC

Home Browse Search

2022-14 ("Project Approval I") on the basis that it unlawfully infringes on the property rights of Plaintiffs/Petitioners and all owners of the property located adjacent to the Project. GarryOwners, LLC and Greenlaw Partners, LLC are named as a Real Parties in Interest. I. On May 16, 2023, Plaintiffs/Petitioners filed a second lawsuit in the Orange County Superior Court entitled Garry Plaza Office Park Association & William Stevens, Trustee of the Wm Stevens Separate Property Trust v. City of Santa Ana, Case No. 30-2023-01320418-CU-WM- CJC, which challenges the City's approval of Ordinance No. NS-3036 ("Project Approval II") on the basis that it unlawfully infringes on the property rights of Plaintiffs/Petitioners and all owners of the property located adjacent to the Project. Garry Owners, LLC and Greenlaw Partners, LLC are named as a Real Parties in Interest. J. Pursuant to Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-14, Real Party is required to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, volunteers, and agents from any and all liability, demands, claims, actions, or proceedings concerning or challenging the Project Approval. Real Party shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. K. The Parties have similar and common legal interests in the defense against the above -referenced litigation and the claims contained therein, and any subsequent litigation that may be filed challenging the Project Approval I and Project Approval 1I (hereinafter collectively, "Litigation"). The Parties further believe that it is to their individual and mutual benefit to cooperate and share information, strategy and documents concerning issues arising out of or relating to those claims, including, but not limited to, information and documents that may be subject to the attorney -client privilege, attorney work -product doctrine, the common interest doctrine and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity existing under state or federal law. L. The Parties intend to explore settlement options in good faith, but also to vigorously defend against Plaintiffs'/Petitioners' claims. Accordingly, the Parties have a common interest in the defense of current and future claims raised against them in the Litigation. Each of the Parties intends to appear in the Litigation, oppose the Litigation, and may represent its own separate interests, some of which may be unique. Such representation of separate or unique interests is not inconsistent with the common interests of the Parties. M. Nothing in this Agreement is meant or should be construed to abrogate the City's legal obligation to exercise independent judgment as required by CEQA concerning the Project, or consideration of the Project Approval. N. In defending against the Litigation and similar challenges to the Project from other third parties in the future, the Parties have interests in common and will litigate common claims and have legal theories in common, and will benefit if they can communicate openly with each other about all matters relating to the evaluation of and possible legal challenges to the City's actions on the Project. O. In order to promote full and effective communication between the Parties, and to avoid duplicative efforts by them and to minimize the costs of the Litigation, the Parties desire to share attorney -client and/or work -product privileged information and other privileged information concerning the Litigation noted in the above recitals, but wish to ensure that any such sharing of Page 2ofII