My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
25H - AGMT SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2017
>
06/06/2017
>
25H - AGMT SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/1/2017 4:01:20 PM
Creation date
6/1/2017 3:59:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Planning & Building
Item #
25H
Date
6/6/2017
Destruction Year
2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
In addition, we are occasionally retained to represent our municipal clients in legal <br />disputes with other municipalities or public entities. The only such case in the last five years was <br />an indemnity action involving public property owned by a different public entity, Snow v. State <br />of*Callfornia, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2010 00351391. We have also <br />represented one public entity in "friendly" litigation with another entity involving validation or <br />declaratory relief matters. These cases include: Gary Penrod v. County of San Bernardino, San <br />Bernardino Superior Court Case No. SCV 093009, Court of Appeal Case No. E034908; Leroy D. <br />Baca v. County of Los Angeles, Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County, Case No. BC <br />289025; The People of'the Slate of California on the Relation of Leroy D. Baca, Los Angeles <br />County Sheriff v. County of Los Angeles, Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County, Case No. <br />BC299486; The People of the State of California on the Relation of Steve Cooley, Los Angeles <br />County District Attorney; and Rick Auerbacly Los Angeles County Assessor v. County of Los <br />Angeles, Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County, Case No. BC343769. <br />6: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION <br />All relevant information regarding the qualifications of the firm have been stated above. <br />Also included for your review are the resumes of each proposed team member. <br />25H-21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.