ABSTRACT: With regard to Mandurrago et al. v. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea (M97273), plaintiff, designer and developer John Mandurrago has filed an appeal of Judge Robert O’Farrell’s dismissal with the 6th Appellate District, California Appellate Court. The Case Summary is presented, as are links to the Docket, Scheduled Actions, Briefs, Disposition, Parties and Attorneys, Trial Court and E-mail Notification 6th Appellate District. On behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant John Mandurrago, Attorney Dennis Beougher (Lombardo & Gilles, LLP), will argue that Judge O’Farrell erred when he ruled that John Mandurrago had not exhausted his administrative remedies. In Mandurrago’s lawsuit filed in Monterey County Superior Court, Mandurrago sought general and punitive damages and approval of permits to demolish the former Palo Alto Savings & Loan building at Dolores St. and Seventh Av., S.E. Corner; plans include condominiums, stores and an underground parking garage.
CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURTS
6th Appellate District
Case Summary
Trial Court Case: M97273
Court of Appeal Case: H034439
Case Caption: Mandurrago et al. v. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea
Case Type: CV
Filing Date: 07/01/2009
Docket (Note: Disregard Default notice, Court Error)
Scheduled Actions
Briefs
Disposition
Parties and Attorneys
Trial Court
E-mail Notification 6th Appellate District
2 comments:
Let's see. From what is public now, the city has three lawsuits to contend with as of now, Flanders, Miller and Mandurrago. All this taxpayer revenue going to attorneys to defend the city. And the city is the respondent/defendant in all three cases.
Looking into a crystall ball I see a win for Flanders Fnd. at Superior Court, a settlement to Jane Miller and a remand back to Superior Court for John Mandurrago. In any event, lots and lots of moneys spent on attorneys and court costs which could have been better spent on city services if the city had just followed the law initially and not tried to circumvent it and/or acted in bad faith.
While you are at it, don't forget to include the costs of settling with all those management-level city employees that were isolated, then squeezed out of their jobs into retirement from the city. Yes, some have gone on to other jobs, some have stayed retired. Yes, they would have been entitled to retirement had they continued to work, but the city settled for huge sums of money to get rid of them, without them ever earning the pay. And those numbers are buried in financial figures that would be hard to extrapolate. Probably in the range of $500,000 to $700,000 total. Add to that what Jane Miller is going to get in settlement and you are talking serious money that could have gone for services or restoration of our other assets. We have endured one embarrassment after another. Apathy stands in our way of doing something about this. And you can bet Sue will neutralize all of these issues for the upcoming campaign season in early 2010.
Post a Comment