In December We CARE’s attorney, land-use specialist and SOAR co-founder Richard Francis sought to recover more than $300,000 in legal fees which brought opposition from the city.The Superior Court issued an order reducing the fees to $100,460 noting that the $400 per hour charged by Francis was over the $300 to $325 norm but that he is a specialist in land-use issues and litigation.Francis claimed 251.1 billable hours for the We CARE litigation and the $400 an hour sum was found to be adequate, noted Judge Steven Hintz.Hintz did question the confusion over the billing arrangement with the plaintiff’s noting that the “evidence is unclear what exactly was the nature of his (Francis’) fee agreement.”According to the staff report by City Attorney Karl Berger, “In accordance with the terms and conditions of the written agreements related to the Fagan Canyon proposal, Center Homes is obligated to reimburse the City for all costs associated with the defense in this matter. This includes both the City’s own legal costs and those of the plaintiffs.”Centex informed that City Attorney’s Office that it would issue the check on March 9 and “a copy of that check will be provided to the City Council once the City receives it,” according to Berger’s report.
Centex to pay $100K legal costs for We CARE lawsuit
March 09, 2007
Santa Paula City Council
The City Council will view a check for more than $100,000 for reimbursement of legal fees stemming from a lawsuit filed by those who were opposed to the Fagan Canyon development.
By Peggy KellySanta Paula TimesThe City Council will view a check for more than $100,000 for reimbursement of legal fees stemming from a lawsuit filed by those who were opposed to the Fagan Canyon development.Centex Homes will reimburse the city for $104,460 and the check will likely be received in time for Council viewing at the March 12 meeting, according to City Manager Wally Bobkiewicz.We CARE had sued the city after its initial petition to ask voters to decide whether or not they wanted a 2,147 residential development - and implement tight restrictions on future development for 20 years - was rejected by City Clerk Josie Herrera for wording technicalities.Although Herrera’s decision was upheld in Ventura Superior Court an appeal to the California Supreme Court reversed the initial decision and ordered the issue to the ballot.The Council voted not to appeal the case in June.
